Trade Dispute: Marshall & Lynch for Avery & Lewis

Q: The following trade was accepted in a modified Yahoo PPR league(.5 per reception).  This trade has been disputed.  Could you please read the following arguments and make a neutral ruling on our behalf?  Thank you very much.

Trade in question:    Donnie Avery, Jamal Lewis, Isaac Bruce FOR Brandon Marshall, Marshawn Lynch

Argument FOR allowing the trade to be processed:

“Projections for Avery and Marshall are pretty much identical (Avery = 137.67 and Marshal = 137.27) as well as the projections for Lynch and Lewis (Lynch = 172.73 and Lewis = 173.54). While B. Marshall and M. Lynch are undoubtedly higher ranked for a reason, their final point totals should be similar because of Lynch’s suspension and the possible scenario of Brandon Marshall being granted his request for a trade/learning a new offensive system.  To compensate for any disparity between the quality of players, Isaac Bruce was added to the trade.    While he may be aging, he is still the WR2 on his team.  His 2009 fantasy point total could be 60 points lower than his production from last year and he would still be a 100 point receiver.  He will be a serviceable WR3 in a 14 team league that requires a roster including three WRs plus a W/R flex position.

It is also felt that Avery is being under-projected.  In 2008 under current scoring rules Avery scored 130 fantasy points.  With the absence of Holt, the improvement of the O-line (Jason Brown, Jason Smith, etc…)  and the promotion to undisputed WR1 it is widely accepted that Avery will collect many more fantasy points than he did a year ago and not just the additional seven fantasy points that are accounted for in Yahoo’s projections  (which would be a single reception for 6.5 yards).  Taking these arguments into consideration it is believed that Avery/Lewis/Bruce for Marshall/Lynch is sufficient and equal value.

The team that would gain possession of Lynch & Marshall understands the disadvantage that he will have while a possible suspension is carried out and the uncertainty surrounding the destination of Marshall but feels it is worth the price to have a more dominant team during the majority of the season and especially the play-offs.  The object in FFL is to win the last game not every game.”

There are two arguments AGAINST the trade:

Argument #1: Marshall and Lynch are too valuable and compensation is not high enough.

“I feel it is an unfair trade even though Donnie Avery is a number one he is nowhere near the same caliber and the other WR does not make up for it either. The Lynch side wins hands down.  Not much of a debate.”

Argument #2: Marshall and Lynch are not valuable enough because one or both of them will not be in starting line-ups at the beginning of the year.

“I too, challenge this trade.  Lynch and Marshall are out for at least 4 games; maybe more in Marshall’s case.  To have both on one team, like I said to you, is a death sentence.  Bad deal.”

To my knowledge, Lynch’s suspension is only 3 games and is under appeal.  I do not know of any situation hanging over Marshall that would force him to miss time.  Could you please verify and take these findings into consideration?  Thank you for the assistance in presiding over this dispute.  If it is possible could you please send your decision to all the addresses that are in the CC line of the email?

A: Ok, thank you for your patience.   When reviewing potential trades, we try to keep this mantra front of mind:  It is not feasible to expect every trade to be even.  Most trades will appear to favor one team or the other. Only time will tell and it is important to allow this human element (and the element of chance) to exist in your league.    Our goal is to reject only trades that are completely lopsided and/or involve collusion.    It is important to allow owners some flexibility in managing their roster and proposing and accepting trades.

That said, we recommend that you allow this trade to pass.  Here is our explanation.   While pre-season rankings should never be taken as gospel, they do offer a good estimate of player potential.  We’ve checked player rankings for all five players involved in this trade on seven different sources:   ESPN, Sportsline, Yahoo, NFL.com, Fantasy Football Today, Fantasy Football Toolbox and KFFL.com.   Then we took the average player ranking, by position,  for each:

Let’s first look at the WR position.   Marshall is the clear leader based off the rankings and we agree completely.   Avery is a promising young player.  But it will take more than  his 674 yard, 3 TD rookie performance (or his smallish build) to convince us that he is a true #1.   At an average ranking of 50.57, the 36 year old Bruce offers little value.   However, in a 14-team league, the 51st ranked receiver falls somewhere in between a WR3 and a WR4, so in many cases, a starter.

Regarding the RB position, Lynch is a better choice than Lewis, but based off the average rankings above, and in our opinion, the gap here is much less pronounced than the gap between Marshall and Avery.    Lynch is younger, a better receiver and averages more yards per carry.    Lewis, however, had comparable stats in 2008, plays for a run-oriented coach and is not facing a potential 3 game suspension.     Lewis is definitely approaching the end of his career, but Lynch has comparatively more competition in the backfield.

In summary there are two positions involved in the trade.  At WR the team receiving Marshall is clearly gaining an advantage, although Avery has potential.   A small portion of this advantage is offset with Bruce added into the fold.   At RB, we’d still give the edge to the team gaining Lynch, but only by a small margin.

We would rather be on the Marshall/Lynch side of the trade.  But factor in the pending Lynch suspension and the uncertainty surrounding Marshall and it pushes this trade just over the line of veto worthy.     As we stated earlier, trade vetos should only take place in extreme situations and the Marshall/Lynch side of the trade is assuming a considerable amount of risk this early in the offseason.

One last point, the two ‘arguments against’ that you provided actually contradict each other.    In a trade that necessitates a veto we would expect that all objecting league members agree that one team or the other  is gaining too much value in the transaction.   Based off the arguments you provide, some of your league members believe Team A is gaining the most value and some league members feel that Team B is getting the better deal.

Hope this helps.