Entries Tagged 'Resolved Disputes' ↓

Q: Brett Favre for Knowshon Moreno, matt Hasselbeck, and Laurence Maroney. Keep in mind, this trade only goes through if Favre plays. if he retires, it is null and void. Fair trade?

A: Hi Ryan. Using a few different sources to determine an average ranking for each of these players by position we get the following:

Favre – 9th QB
Hassleback – 25th QB
Moreno – 19th RB
Maroney – 41th RB

Assuming a standard league setup where each team starts 1 QB, 2 RB, 2 WR, 1 TE, 1 Flex this translates into the following:

Favre – low QB1
Hassleback low QB2/high QB3
Moreno – mid RB2
Maroney – mid RB4

So in terms of starting players, this trade is essentially Favre, a lower level starting QB, for Moreno, a mid range RB2. Making the trade contingent upon Favre playing removes a lot of the risk associated with Favre, and we would still like to be on the Favre side of this deal, but we don’t see this trade as being overly lopsided to the point that it warrants a veto. If your league starts additional players (such as a 2nd QB or 3rd/4th RB), the depth on the Moreno side of the trade begins to have more value. Our recommendation is to let this trade pass and invoke the veto rule only in extremely lopsided trades. You need to let your league owners manage their teams to a certain degree.

Q: Team A: With a 5-5 record offered RB Barber, RB Reggie Bush, and WR Mike Wallace to Team B with a 1-9 record for Steven Jackson.  This is not a keeper league, there is no trade deadlines.

A: Thanks for the inquiry.   Next year, of course, you need to implement a trading deadline perhaps even two trade deadlines.

As for this trade, based off ESPN’s rankings,  Jackson is the 10th ranked RB while Barber and Bush are the 27th and 30th ranked RBs, respectively.  Wallace is currently the 40th ranked WR.

If this was earlier in the season, you could make the argument that team B is trading a top player in exchange for depth.   But not in week 12 and not with a 1-9 record.   This trade needs to be vetoed or risk upsetting the balance in your league during the stretch.

Q: Team A (3-8 and eliminated from playoff contention)is attempting trade Chris Johnson RB Ten to Team B (7-4 and fighting for a playoff spot) for Pierre Thomas RB NO and Tim Hightower RB Ari.  Team B happens to be the league manager and is the only person with a veto vote.  Playoffs start week 14.  (Analysis removed due to length)

A: Your analysis is most welcomed, however, this decision is a no-brainer in our opinion.   Johnson is the top ranked RB based off ESPN scoring while Thomas and Hightower are the 21st and 22nd ranked RBs, respectively.  This does make Thomas and Hightower fantasy starters.  But Johnson is a star, on his way to one of the best fantasy seasons in recent memory.

Any trade involving the top scoring RB, especially at this stage of the season, needs to be examined closely.   Given the lopsided exchange of value, and the respective records of the teams involved, this trade needs to be vetoed in order to preserve the balance of power in your league as you approach the playoffs.    We also recommend that you implement a trade clause for next season preventing teams that are eliminated from the playoffs from trading at all.

Q: An owner who is out of the playoff race, and not picked up a single player all season just accepted 2 trades:

1.  He sends DeAngelo Williams in return for Felix Jones, Pierre Thomas, and Steelers D/ST.
2.  He sends Vincent Jackson and Rivers for McNabb, Santana Moss, Bowe, and Hightower.

I asked the owner if he felt these trades would help his team.  He admitted to giving up on the season and that he decided to accept any and all trades.

I explained it to the league and I am getting a lot of flack about it from the owner who would have got DeAngelo.

Was it right to veto these trades?  I feel an owner giving up on the season and accepting and and all trades would ruin the integrity of the league.

Thanks in advance and have a Blessed Thanksgiving to you and yours.

A: Typically when reviewing trade disputes we compare average points per week, rankings by position, rosters of the teams involved, etc.  None of that is necessary, however, when one of the owners admits to collusion.

The decision to veto this trade was the only decision.  The team receiving Williams is not paying a fair price for him which in effect gives that team an unfair advantage over the rest of the teams in your league.

Q: Team A is 2-7;   Partial roster:  Peyton, Orton, R Bush, T Hightower, C Portis, D McFadden, M Forte.  Team B is 6-3;  Partial roster:  M Sanchez, E Manning, M Schaub, S Jackson, T Jones, C Benson, D Brown, L Maroney.

They wanted to trade Peyton for Eli and Maroney. As commish, I vetoed. Thoughts?

A: Yeah we would agree with the decision to veto based off the current rosters.   The difference in points between Peyton and Eli for the season is actually not as large as you would expect (186 to 154 based on ESPN scoring).    With that in mind exchanging the two QBs is unfair but when you add in another player to the Eli side of the trade, like Maroney (with a now expanded role due to injuries), the trade begins to make more sense.

However, Maroney should not start over Bush, Portis, Forte or Hightower so unless you start more than four RBs each week, adding Maroney has virtually no value for Team A.   That puts the value exchanged in this trade back to Peyton for Eli, so unless you are Archie Manning, you should never even considering making that trade.

Q: Team A: Record (14-6)1st Place;  Team B: Record (3-17)Last Place(almost  mathematically eliminated from playoffs).   Trade: Team A (1st place) receives – RB Matt Forte;   Team B (Last place) receives – QB M Schaub

This will give Team B 4QB\’s when they can only start one.    This will also rid Team B of their best RB.  Commissioner’s thoughts:  B could possibly be trying to hoard QB\’s in an attempt to try and trade them off when other starting QB\’s get injured. This trade will not directly help Team B.

Fair or foul? Collusion or not?

A: Thanks for the inquiry.   It is trades such as these that make an argument for moving the trading deadline up to week 6 or 7.    Here is why.   On paper, you can’t veto this trade because you need to evaluate the value exchanged in the trade independent of current records or suspicions of collusion.

Schaub is the second ranked QB in the league this season (according to ESPN rankings), which probably makes him the second highest fantasy scorer in the NFL this season.   With that kind of production you could make an argument that exchanging him with AP or Chris Johnson is fair so you certainly can’t overturn a trade for Forte.

We agree that based off the current records and rosters there is a substantially chance that this is collusion – but in the absence of proof, that is mere speculation.   We recommend grilling the trade participants on the transactions and asking them to defend their moves.   Sometimes this will flush out the conspiracy.   If they maintain that the trade was made in order to improve their teams, respectively, then you have no choice but to let the trade pass on its own merit.

To prevent these issues in the future you should move the trading deadline up in the season (so all teams still have a chance to win).  If you are positive that this is collusion than you should find more reputable owners for your league next season.

Q: 12 team league. Team A (2-6) two games behind 6th spot. Team B (3-5) one game behind 6th spot. Before the start of week 9, Team A traded Westbrook to Team B for Jamaal Charles. Team A also have Addai, D. Brown & K. Smith. Team B also have Turner, P. Thomas, M. Bell & C Taylor. Is this a one-sided trade?

A: Since your dispute was submitted prior to this weekend’s action, we’ll try to evaluate the trade without considerations to Westbrook’s concussion or Charles’ solid stats.

This decision depends on one fact – whether the trade was initiated before or after LJ’s release by the Chiefs.   If it was made prior to his release, the trade should be vetoed on the grounds that you can’t trade a starting RB for backup RB straight up – especially considering the historical performance and quality of teams for Westbrook vs. Charles.  However, if this trade was made after LJ was released, we recommend that you let the trade pass.  Sure Westbrook has the history.   But Charles has displayed potential in limited action and given Westbrook’s injury concerns, it is reasonable to believe that Charles will outscore Westbrook through the end of the year given his new, expanded role.

Q: Team A is 3-4-1 8th of 12;  Team B is 2-6 11 of 12.  Team A proposes Brady, Boldin, Carlson, and Chester Taylor for Flacco, Benson, Moss, and Chiniacoe on Team B.

This league is Commisioner only veto.  The league is up in arms as you might expect.  Impartially speaking, what say you guys?  For the record, Team A owner and Team B owner have never met other than at draft and have communicated trade info via email.

A: Thanks for the inquiry.   We’ve just written a rather lengthly post that details our philosophy on fantasy football trade vetoes.   That said, and assuming Moss = Randy,  we would let this trade pass.

First, both teams have poor records and are fighting for their playoff lives – so this isn’t a case of a bad team trading their stars to a contender.   Second, the fact that the two owners do not know each other very well all but eliminates the prospects of collusion.   From there all that is left is to evaluate the trade on its own merit.

At ESPN position rankings of 11 and 13 respectively, Shiancoe and Carlson are a wash.   That leaves Team A who is upgrading at RB (Benson over Taylor) and WR (Moss over Boldin) and Team B who is upgrading at QB (Brady over Flacco).   Team B is getting arguably the best player in the trade (Brady), but Team A is improving at both RB and WR.

This trade should pass.

Q: A trade was recently accepted in our 10 team league (standard scoring, 2 RB, 2WR, 1 RB/WR).

Team A (currently tied for 2nd at 5-3) sent Santana Moss, Clinton Portis, Brett Farve and Percy Harvin to the last place (1-7) Team B in exchange for Adrian Peterson.

Team A has Phillip Rivers, Randy Moss, Michael Turner, Vincent Jackson and now AP.

Only six teams make the playoffs and Team B has virtually no chance of making it in this year.  The 6th, 7th and 8th teams have 4-4 and 3-5 records respectively.  Meaning all 4 teams ahead of him have to lose at least 4 of the next 5 games and Team B must go 4-1.

Lastly, Team B’s roster prior to the trade included.

Carson Palmer
Kurt Warner
Miles Austin
Derrick Mason
Steve Smith (Car)
Marion Barber

All ranked equal to or higher than players received in return.   Essentially making the trade Farve and Portis for AP.

This stinks of collusion, your thoughts?

A: team is suspicious.   Some leagues choose to implement a trading deadline around week 6 to prevent teams that are out of the running from trading with contenders.   It is hard to find proof of collusion, so lets look at this trade by itself first.

Clinton Portis is currently the 28th best RB (according to ESPN rankings) which makes him barely a flex option in a ten team league.   AP is the top ranked RB so this is obviously a massive downgrade at RB for Team B.   The question is if Team B is sufficiently compensated at QB and WR.   At QB,  Favre is the 6th ranked QB, making him a slight upgrade over Team B’s current QB (Palmer) who is ranked 10.   At WR, Moss (ranked 28th) and Harvin (ranked 16th) could be a considered a bit of an increase over the 34th ranked Steve Smith.

In our opinion the upgrades at QB and WR do not provide sufficient value to offset the loss of Peterson.   Regardless of whether you can proove collusion in this scenario, we recommend a veto.

Q: In our league, we have 2 divisions and the last place team (I”ll call team A) in one of the divisions wants to trade Adrian Peterson and Shonn Green for Vincent Jackson and Dwayne Bowe to Team B.  The team (I’ll call team B) receiving AP also has Steve Smith and Reggie Wayne while the team giving up AP will be left not much as far as his RB stable is concerned. My issue with this is that I don’t think this makes Team A better even though he needs a WR desperately and it further weakens his RBs by giving up AP.  Plus the fact that Team A is in last in his division while Team B is making a run for his.  Team B also has a solid stable of RB (Forte, B. Jacobs & Knowshon Moreno).  I think a trade could be restructed between these two teams which would better benefit them and the trade as is not only hurts team A but also the league.

A: We’ve received many trade disputes over the past few weeks similar to yours – trades involving last place teams trading with teams that are still in the playoff hunt.   We recommend that you do everything you can to ensure that this is not an instance of collusion.  That said, given that no evidence of collusion has been provided, we will evaluate this trade based solely on its merit.

Peterson is the top ranked RB (according to ESPN) and Greene is ranked 49th.   Jackson is the 7th ranked WR and Bowe is ranked 26th.   Based off these rankings the trade doesn’t seem overly lopsided.   But these rankings are for the entire season and do not take into consideration Greene’s increased role with the loss of Leon Washington.   If you look at average fantasy points per game played for the four players involved, and only consider Greene’s performance for the past two weeks (since Washington’s injury), the breakdown is as followed:

Jackson – 10.3 pts per game
Bowe – 6.4 pts per game

Peterson – 14.6 pts per game
Greene – 13.5 pts per game

Sure its a very small sample size for Greene, but the discrepancy between the point production exchanged in this trade is considerable.  We recommend vetoing this trade and hopefully the two teams can restructure the trade.