Entries from October 2008 ↓

Q: Hi – What a cool site. Here is our dispute. Team A (6-1 record) trades Dominick Rhodes – RB Indy; Roy Williams – WR Detroit for Team B (0-7 record) Marion Barber – RB Dallas; Chris Chambers – WR Chargers. What do you think?

A: Hi Bill. So let’s break this down by position since there are 2 RBs and 2 WRs involved in this trade.

The 0-7 team that is most likely mathematically eliminated from the playoffs at this point downgrades from Barber (787 total yards, 7 TDs) to Rhodes (199 total yards, 3 TDs) at RB and also downgrades from Chambers (226 total yards, 5 TDs) to Williams (232 total yards, 0 TDs) at WR?

This one isn’t even close. We smell a rat. Veto it immediately.

Q:  Trades in our league are subject to veto if it is determined two teams are “colluding”.We have a 5 bench league and last week I had 2 byes Bowe, and Miller while I also had Westbrook, Chambers, and Colston injured. Because of the injuries and byes I did not have enough WRs to fill my roster spots. The solution… to trade RBs to a team that was short on RBs in exchange for WRs with the understanding we would trade back after the week was over. I traded T. Jones and S. Morris for W. Welker, and E. Royal. When we tried to trade back the second trade was vetoed on the claim that we were “colluding”.

Since this trade made neither team superior at the expense of the other team (we both ended up losing last week any way) I didn’t feel like we were colluding, merely finding a solution to a problem. Either I would have had to drop a stud to the waiver wire or fail to fill a roster spot.

If I gave him an extra player from my bench and taken a player he had on a bye week I would consider that colluding, but not an even trade of active WR for active RB.

Does this fall into the category of colluding? I can understand why people think it is, but in the absence of a preexisting definition of collusion is it fair we be forced to keep the players?

A:  Hi Kenny.  Thanks for you inquiry.  The problem here is that the original trade qualifies as collusion just as much as the ensuing ‘trade back’, but the first trade seemed to slip through the system.

Unfortunately, there is no question that this an unethical transaction, and a prime example of collusion.  Just because your team and the the team you traded with got stuck in the middle of this two week transaction, doesn’t give you any legitimate recourse to have the second trade passed.

Q: Team A trades Matt Forte, Braylon Edwards, and Antonio Gates. Team B trades Felix Jones, TJ Housh, Greg Olsen and Jason Campbell. This seems awfully one sided to me. Your thoughts are greatly appreciated.

A: Hi Jason. At first glance, we agree that this trade is a bit one-sided. But lets take a look at the stats. Forte is clearly the best player in the trade with over 700 total yards and 6 TDs. As a RB replacement, team A is getting Felix Jones. Jones is currently injured and has under 300 total yards for the year. However, he should be back by week 11 at the latest, potentially in week 9, and has proven he can be a viable fantasy starter from week to week.

Now let’s look at the receivers. While Team B is clearly receiving an upgrade at RB, Team A gets the nod at receiver. Putting reputations and names aside for a second, Housh is outperforming Edwards this year with twice as many receptions, 150 more receiving yards and one more TD.

Gates, another big name player, actually has very similar performance to Olsen (same receptions and yards, Gates has an edge in TDs, 4-2).

So Team B gets a major upgrade at RB, a slight downgrade at WR, and a slight upgrade at TE. If that was the extent of the trade, then we would agree that this is lopsided. But team A is also receiving Jason Campbell wholse 1,426 passing yards, 7 TDs and 63.9 completion percentage have him ranked as a top 10 QB this season. Considering the fact that Team A lost Brady and is pinning their fantasy hopes to the arm of Kyle Orton, picking up Campbell is a smart move.

This trade has to stand.

Q: I just had a trade vetoed in my 2 QB, PPR league, but I think the trade is fair. I was offered matt schaub, Steve smith, and Ryan grant for JT O’Sullivan, Matt Forte, and Chris Johnson. Was this trade unfair or is it just sour grapes from my league mates since I’m in first place?

A: Hi Gabe. This trade is absolutely fair. Schaub and O’Sullivan are the 13th and 14th ranked QBs according to ESPN so they cancel each other out.

Forte and Johnson are both better than Grant at RB. But from a fantasy perspective this has more to do with total TDs through the first 7 weeks which can be partially attributed to luck. Forte and Grant have the same yards per carry and Johnson, though a potential monster, is still in a platoon situation with LenDale White (who had 3 TDs of his own last week).

However, Steve Smith has averaged 100 yards and 1/2 TDs in each of his last four games. He is back and there is no reason to think he won’t have the most fantasy points out of anyone in this trade from this point on.

Trades should be vetoed when they are clearly unfair or if there is collusion involved, not just because other league members don’t like the trade, as in this situation. Both teams stand to benefit from this trade, it should not be vetoed.