Support NeoGAF

[ironmang]

Wait, the dude that traded away Charles is starting Duke as his RB2??? That sounds a lot worse, but if the dude accepted something has to be running thru his mind (or he has a few RB's on bye this week)

And wtf?? Dude is trying to better his team by trading: that's literally the whole point of trading... Are you really mad at him for trying to better his team?

Duke is his RB1. He's starting Charcandrick West as his RB2 lol.

And for me there's a difference between trying to better your team that's lacking somewhere and trying to get everybody's best players. Talent hogging is like one of the main reasons millions of people hate the Yankees so it shouldn't really be that shocking. If your team has no weakness roll with it and keep the games interesting. Nobody wants to see some guy with 150 proj weeks.

 

[Compbros]

Still, the guy you traded is starting Duke and West. Obviously he's hurting for RBs and you took his only one anybody would be happy starting for a ~10 TE, ~30 WR, and ~30 RB. Trading should be for filling holes, not trying to stack the shit out of your team in a free league.

I can't say what's going through his head but we don't know the role of Charles for the rest of the season. He's not gonna average 20+ touches a game, that just won't happen. Those other RB touches have to go somewhere and with Ware out its West. The rest of my team is good enough to make up for any Charles underperomances since he's not a volume guy but a big play guy so 8 points in any given game is just as likely as 25. Charles is a risky play, that can't be argued since he's saying he's 100 percent whereas team officials are more skeptical and wanna ease him in, so it may be weeks until he hits high teen/low 20 touches.

How about an avatar bet? Barring injury I say for the next....4 weeks Barnidge and Mathews combined score more than Charles. Those two to me are the main pieces of the trade, I originally offered a different RB but the wanted Johnson. Plus his other RB is on bye this week other west would not be played.


Trading should be done to upgrade my team and acquire pieces I want. I didn't want Andrew Luck but I wanted a good RB2, so I traded him away for Murray. It's not an upgrade but it's a piece I wanted. Lacy has been largely ineffective while Mathews is getting pretty much 14 points a game, but I wanted Lacy more. I'm never gonna use Mathews and Barnidge but can take the hit for Charles not being good. I was gonna trade away a QB1, WR1/2, RB 1/2, RB2/3, and a WR2/3 for an Elite RB1 and a WR1/2. My starting lineup is my biggest concern so I'm willing to trade away my whole bench and starters for them.

You say it's like the Yankees, that's ridiculous. The Yankees can go out and buy any available player and out bid most of the league. Trading is taking assets you have, looking at assets you want, and figuring out a compromise that works for both parties. The second team then agrees it's a trade of good value and accepts. THEN the rest of the league can look at the trade and decide if it's fair enough and let it through or if it's too lopsided/collusion based and veto it. It's not close to what the Yankees do.


Edit: I'm projected at roughly 110 a week and I'm 4th in total points so far.


Edit 2: My weakest part of the team was my RBS as I had Gordon and Mathews as my weekly starters. Why wouldn't I parley my strongest core in WRS to which I had 5 good ones while only able to play 3 a week into an upgrade at RB?

 

[ironmang]

I can't say what's going through his head but we don't know the role of Charles for the rest of the season. He's not gonna average 20+ touches a game, that just won't happen. Those other RB touches have to go somewhere and with Ware out its West. The rest of my team is good enough to make up for any Charles underperomances since he's not a volume guy but a big play guy so 8 points in any given game is just as likely as 25. Charles is a risky play, that can't be argued since he's saying he's 100 percent whereas team officials are more skeptical and wanna ease him in, so it may be weeks until he hits high teen/low 20 touches.

How about an avatar bet? Barring injury I say for the next....4 weeks Barnidge and Mathews combined score more than Charles. Those two to me are the main pieces of the trade, I originally offered a different RB but the wanted Johnson. Plus his other RB is on bye this week other west would not be played.


Trading should be done to upgrade my team and acquire pieces I want. I didn't want Andrew Luck but I wanted a good RB2, so I traded him away for Murray. It's not an upgrade but it's a piece I wanted. Lacy has been largely ineffective while Mathews is getting pretty much 14 points a game, but I wanted Lacy more. I'm never gonna use Mathews and Barnidge but can take the hit for Charles not being good. I was gonna trade away a QB1, WR1/2, RB 1/2, RB2/3, and a WR2/3 for an Elite RB1 and a WR1/2. My starting lineup is my biggest concern so I'm willing to trade away my whole bench and starters for them.

You say it's like the Yankees, that's ridiculous. The Yankees can go out and buy any available player and out bid most of the league. Trading is taking assets you have, looking at assets you want, and figuring out a compromise that works for both parties. The second team then agrees it's a trade of good value and accepts. THEN the rest of the league can look at the trade and decide if it's fair enough and let it through or if it's too lopsided/collusion based and veto it. It's not close to what the Yankees do.


Edit: I'm projected at roughly 110 a week and I'm 4th in total points so far.


Edit 2: My weakest part of the team was my RBS as I had Gordon and Mathews as my weekly starters. Why wouldn't I parley my strongest core in WRS to which I had 5 good ones while only able to play 3 a week into an upgrade at RB?

Didn't read but really nothing you could say would change my opinion anyways. You're trying to trade a guy like 5 for 2 for Green and Elliot ffs lol. It's a free league, keep the games interesting and trade when you need to trade not when you want top 3 players in every position to wtfstomp everybody.

 

[Compbros]

Didn't read but really nothing you could say would change my opinion anyways. You're trying to trade a guy like 5 for 2 for Green and Elliot ffs lol. It's a free league, keep the games interesting and trade when you need to trade not when you want top 3 players in every position to wtfstomp everybody.

I'm 3-2 while having the least points against. Think about that, combined I'm scored on the least but still lost 2 games, when do I start making moves? A free league means nothing, I'm still trying to be competitive because that's what makes fantasy fun, competition.

 

[cr_blah_blah]

I'm surprised anyone is even rostering West considering he's a 3rd string RB who wasn't even making an impact without Charles.

Same for Dorsett.

 

[ironmang]

I'm 3-2 while having the least points against. Think about that, combined I'm scored on the least but still lost 2 games, when do I start making moves? A free league means nothing, I'm still trying to be competitive because that's what makes fantasy fun, competition.

You're already scoring like 112 a week. That's pretty competitive I'd say. And most of that has been without Brady. Let's be real, if you got that Elliot/Green trade you probably wouldn't lose for the rest of the season.

 

[Compbros]

That team has NOTHING and I'd be giving them a top 5 QB, top 15 WR, top 5 RB in Charles according to you, Corey Coleman, and Murray/Lacy. It's a trade that helps both parties which is what trades should do.

 

[ironmang]

That team has NOTHING and I'd be giving them a top 5 QB, top 15 WR, top 5 RB in Charles according to you, Corey Coleman, and Murray/Lacy. It's a trade that helps both parties which is what trades should do.

One mouse scroll up and Charles was fighting West for carries. Now he's top 5 if you're trading him lol. I guess a nice thing you can say about Charles is he's healthier than everybody else you're trading except Carr.

 

[Compbros]

You're already scoring like 112 a week. That's pretty competitive I'd say. And most of that has been without Brady. Let's be real, if you got that Elliot/Green trade you probably wouldn't lose for the rest of the season.

I scored 84 points one game, nothing is guaranteed in fantasy. Essentially I'm trading AJ and Elliot for Benjamin and Charles. Can't look it up right now but I think Elliot is the third best RB and AJ is roughly in the same area of Benjamin in terms of points. That means that if you believe Charles is a top 5 RB then I'm trading a top 5 RB for a top 3 one and a WR of comparable numbers to the one I'm getting and that's before all the rest of the players I threw in. So Elliott may average, what, 9-12 more points per game than Charles in your eyes while AJ and Benjamin do roughly the same thing. I wouldn't win every game.

 

[Compbros]

I it

One mouse scroll up and Charles was fighting West for carries. Now he's top 5 if you're trading him lol. I guess a nice thing you can say about Charles is he's healthier than everybody else you're trading except Carr.

I'm going by your belief, which is why I said "according to you". My belief is 10-14 touches for a while but Charles only needs that to do 120 yards and a td but he could just as easily do 50. That was my belief. Benjamin literally popped up on the injury report the day after I sent the trade but he should be good. Lacy will be fine in a week or two more than likely and currently has no threat in the backfield with Starks hurt.



Edit: let me ask, do you believe that Elliott trade is fair? Forget about my potentially unbeatable team, just looming at the pieces proposed do you believe it's fair?

 

[ironmang]

So as long as you're trading him away he's gold, if you're justifying someone trading him to you he's risky.

And I said he was potential top 5. I think he's very good and the guy who is starting Duke/Charcandrick West certainly shouldn't have traded him the week before he returns after wasting a roster spot for so long. Elliot is insane right now so it's clearly an upgrade that you don't need when you already have the best or at least second best team right now.

The guy you're trading to is 0-5. If you're so concerned with him being competitive you wouldn't trade him players who will take 1-2 weeks at least to be back to normal.

Context matters when evaluating trades. That trade wouldn't do much for him if he's 0-7 by the time they're outscoring Green, Elliot, and the 3 other players currently taking the spots and would be a negative for the league if someone has a monster nearly unbeatable team.

That's all I have to say on it. I initially pointed out something I didn't like and I'm not going to spend all night restating it. If you want the last word have at it.

 

[youngplaya21]

Holy crap, wasn't expecting this much talk about trades. Wish the person that accepted one of the 'lopsided' trades would come in and give their reasoning as to why they did the trade!

 

[The Outsider]

I was wondering why this thread was so active on a Saturday!

As far as trades are concerned, if you feel they are unfair, vote against them. If enough people feel the same way, then the trade will get blocked. That's why the option is there.

 

[kelik]

Huh, this year sounds a lot more chipper than previous years. *Grabs popcorn*

 

[youngplaya21]

Huh, this year sounds a lot more chipper than previous years. *Grabs popcorn*

Right? Usually it's just Erasure pissing someone off, so this is a nice change of pace

 

[Compbros]

So as long as you're trading him away he's gold, if you're justifying someone trading him to you he's risky.

And I said he was potential top 5. I think he's very good and the guy who is starting Duke/Charcandrick West certainly shouldn't have traded him the week before he returns after wasting a roster spot for so long. Elliot is insane right now so it's clearly an upgrade that you don't need when you already have the best or at least second best team right now.

The guy you're trading to is 0-5. If you're so concerned with him being competitive you wouldn't trade him players who will take 1-2 weeks at least to be back to normal.

Context matters when evaluating trades. That trade wouldn't do much for him if he's 0-7 by the time they're outscoring Green, Elliot, and the 3 other players currently taking the spots and would be a negative for the league if someone has a monster nearly unbeatable team.

That's all I have to say on it. I initially pointed out something I didn't like and I'm not going to spend all night restating it. If you want the last word have at it.

Are you even reading what I'm saying? YOU believe he's a top 5 guy, so I'm turning your argument on you. In YOUR eyes I acquired a top 5 guy for scraps, in YOUR eyes I proposed a trade where I give up a top 5 RB, a comparable WR, and a top 5 QB for a top 3 RB and comparable WR and it's somehow ridiculous. In MY eyes Charles is risky for a few weeks at least and potentially for the season but I'm willing to incur that risk because of my team. In MY eyes I was trading away a risky RB1/high end RB2 and the rest for an RB1. You keep twisting this like I'm up playing Charles when it benefits me and downplaying it when it's detrimental to my argument. The most I've said when it's come to my own opinion on Charles being an RB1 was "Yes, he potentially a top 5 RB but it's just as likely he's an RB2" so don't put words in my mouth.

But you're not looking at the potential other end of the spectrum, namely reinjury, reduced workload, not the goal line/third down back. Chiefs want a healthy Charles especially with Ware banged up and with his history of injuries that may mean less snaps for him. Potentially any top 12 RB is a top 5 rb, if everyone lived up to their potential then we wouldn't have busts. In my eyes Charles is a risky RB play with big playability on any given week that could make him a top 3 RB for that week but could also put up 10 points for a game. Talk to the one that traded him, I offered a trade, he countered, I accepted. He was willing to part with Charles for what was offered, maybe he thought Charles was still a month or so away, who knows. But I did nothing "wrong" which is what you believe I'm doing by trying to upgrade my team. The best or second best? Based on what? The eyeball test? I'm tied for 4th in record and have the 5th best point total. I want my team to be the best possible one I can construct. Why would anyone in fantasy want a team that's "good enough"? If you have the pieces to acquire an elite talent that won't cripple your team then why wouldn't you chase that elite talent?


I'm giving him 5 players, one of which absolutely won't play this week but is a potential upgrade over his WR2 when he comes back, 2 of which are upgrades over what he has (QB/RB2) but Lacy won't be 100 percent, and one of which is comparable to his WR1 that showed up on the injury report last minute. He upgrades at 2 positions off rip, downgrades at one, gets comparable value at one, and potentially upgrades at one. That's what I'm concerned with, giving him good value for the pieces I want and I think my offer did that. Will it turn him into a contender? No. Will it make his team better? Yes. Will it make my team better? Yes. It's a good trade. If he wanted Gordon instead of Charles I still would've done it. If he wanted cooper instead of Benjamin I still would have done it. The results are still the same: a better team for both of us.


Avatar bet. In these two weeks the 5 players I offered will outscore the 2 I would've received. I'll say I believe he has a better chance of going 0-7 with who he has than he would've with the players he would've gotten.


You don't like people chasing the best players in fantasy football. I don't get it. You make it sound like I'm doing something dirty by trading.

 

[PassiveObserver]

You're already scoring like 112 a week. That's pretty competitive I'd say. And most of that has been without Brady. Let's be real, if you got that Elliot/Green trade you probably wouldn't lose for the rest of the season.

I don't get this at all. If the other team wants to accept the trade with compbros, so be it. What's he supposed to do, sit on his hands and not try to improve his team? Blame on the guy accepting the lopsided trade. It's fantasy football; shit happens. Dude can't just coast on his current roster because they've been putting up numbers in the first five weeks.

Avatar bet. In these two weeks the 5 players I offered will outscore the 2 I would've received. I'll say I believe he has a better chance of going 0-7 with who he has than he would've with the players he would've gotten.

This bet doesn't mean much. Roster spots have value too. Can those 5 players outscore the 2 you received, plus 3 replacement value players off the wire?

 

[Compbros]

This bet doesn't mean much. Roster spots have value too. Can those 5 players outscore the 2 you received, plus 3 replacement value players off the wire?

His point was that I'm offering injured players that won't really be usable/useful for a week or two so while I get a healthy Elliott and Green putting up points the other team is getting 3 hurt players that may not do much or play at all. I don't think the wire should factor in. I'd say if you wanna do something like this then it should be vs. the original planned starting lineup.

For example.

Week 1 Carr scores 24 while Wentz scores 18, he's up by 6. Zeke outscores Charles 26 to 12, I'm up by 8. AJ outscores Benjamin 18-14. I'm up by 12. Lacy scores 8 points while Sproles scores 12, leading to -4 so I'm up by 16. Then you add/subtract the next week's total and we see who has more.

 

[ErasureAcer]

Which division will come out on top? Let's find out. Let's go Gaming!

 

[Violence Jack]

If I lose to Tracksuit today, then don't search for me as I've likely thrown myself off a cliff.

 

[Compbros]

If I lose to Tracksuit today, then don't search for me as I've likely thrown myself off a cliff.

 

[youngplaya21]

Feel free to send me McCoy back if you want!!!

 

[Vyer]

Feel free to send me McCoy back if you want!!!

Welp

 

[youngplaya21]

Welp

Holy shit.... Hope to hell it's something minor

Edit: sounds like it's nothing too bad for now! Thank goodness, as the McCoy/Elliott combo will hopefully take me to some big money in my other league

 

[Vyer]

Holy shit.... Hope to hell it's something minor

Edit: sounds like it's nothing too bad for now! Thank goodness, as the McCoy/Elliott combo will hopefully take me to some big money in my other league

Hopefully.

Ben limped off too. After doing shot against the Fins.

such is life

 

[youngplaya21]

Hopefully.

Ben limped off too. After doing shot against the Fins.

such is life

Brees is up for trade if you (or anyone else) needs him!

 

[Jayhawk]

Odell gonna put my team in the basement.

 

[Vyer]

Have I mentioned I hate fantasy football?

 

[Compbros]

My team that i should be set on for the rest of the year and not chase elite players is about to be 3-3.

 

[Rad Shadow]

I'm well on my way to 6 n 0!

 

[ErasureAcer]

Looks like I'm gonna lose. Only up 11.96 vs Fitzgerald.

 

[The Outsider]

Should have started Jay Ajayi and Spencer Ware, apparently. Fantasy football is weird.

 

[kylecoley182]

If I lose to Tracksuit today, then don't search for me as I've likely thrown myself off a cliff.

Hahaha!

 

[youngplaya21]

Hoping I can pull out a win today and keep the 'Points For' lead in my division, but Kelika and BT isn't making it easy to get either...

Edit: Allen is out for the game, so it's looking good now. Just need Enumwa to not score more than 25 points

 

[Jayhawk]

That late Lamar Miller TD was the difference in my matchup this week, barring a Frank Gore miracle.

 

[Rawr Its Ry]

That late Lamar Miller TD was the difference in my matchup this week, barring a Frank Gore miracle.

Our matchup was sooooo close prior to that lol

 

[ErasureAcer]

Hoping I can pull out a win today and keep the 'Points For' lead in my division, but Kelika and BT isn't making it easy to get either...

Fitzgerald has scored more than 11.6 points in 3 out of 5 games this year. I'd say you'll be in first place barring some strange event.

 

[youngplaya21]

Fitzgerald has scored more than 11.6 points in 3 out of 5 games this year. I'd say you'll be in first place barring some strange event.

Sweet, but I'm just worrying about getting first in the division. There's no difference at all between 1st and 2nd in the regular season besides bragging rights, anyways

And it looks like you'll keep the division lead on your end regardless! Just gotta fend off Kap'N

 

[kylecoley182]

Finally got my W

 

[timetokill]

My team underperformed like crazy this week. Goddamn.

But hey, if Carson Palmer and Brandon Marshall can put up 70 points combined then I'm right in this thing

 

[wbsmcs]

Awww no longer undefeated

Still got that 2 game lead though in OT division.

 

[Crazymoogle]

Dunno why folks were complaining about that West/Duke combo. He didn't need it, OBJ crushed my lineup pretty much on his own...

 

[wbsmcs]

Dunno why folks were complaining about that West/Duke combo. He didn't need it, OBJ crushed my lineup pretty much on his own...

Ehhh...in general I just feel like 3for1 or 5for2 trades tend to be very lopsided. But you have to look at context. The guy giving up 2 is hoping to hit on 3 or more of the 5 guys.

I'm never one to veto trades, I just wish the discussion was made public so that each owner could get the best deal, because I think that's where most of the animosity stems from. Each top team is trying to trade depth for a star, so when another top team does it, its like wow I could have offered better.

In the Charles trade for Barnidge, Matthews, and Duke Johnson I think? It's a fine deal, but I could have offered Delanie Walker, Diggs, and Tevin Coleman possibly? But I never went through the process of making an initial offer.

I guess it would be like a real life team trading draft picks to another team for a star player. But the team that traded the star player never told anyone he was on the block. If they did they could have potentially gotten more for him, and in turn lead to a more balanced league.

In one league I play in we have a 24 hour window after each trade is accepted in which the other owners in the league can offer counter offers to the two owners involved in the trade.

One example was around week 3 a deal was made: Stafford for Gio Bernard.
I wasn't involved in the trade, but I had Matt Ryan as an extra QB and needed an RB so I offered Matt Ryan for Gio, and the Stafford trade was cancelled, with mine going through.

This in a way makes sure nobody is getting "ripped off" as someone could always offer something better if they feel a deal is unfair. But then again, I have been with this group for 6+ years so it was a little easier to set up this rule. I get that it's hard to implement in a new league.

 

[youngplaya21]

Ehhh...in general I just feel like 3for1 or 5for2 trades tend to be very lopsided. But you have to look at context. The guy giving up 2 is hoping to hit on 3 or more of the 5 guys.

I'm never one to veto trades, I just wish the discussion was made public so that each owner could get the best deal, because I think that's where most of the animosity stems from. Each top team is trying to trade depth for a star, so when another top team does it, its like wow I could have offered better.

In the Charles trade for Barnidge, Matthews, and Duke Johnson I think? It's a fine deal, but I could have offered Delanie Walker, Diggs, and Tevin Coleman possibly? But I never went through the process of making an initial offer.

I guess it would be like a real life team trading draft picks to another team for a star player. But the team that traded the star player never told anyone he was on the block. If they did they could have potentially gotten more for him, and in turn lead to a more balanced league.

In one league I play in we have a 24 hour window after each trade is accepted in which the other owners in the league can offer counter offers to the two owners involved in the trade.

One example was around week 3 a deal was made: Stafford for Gio Bernard.
I wasn't involved in the trade, but I had Matt Ryan as an extra QB and needed an RB so I offered Matt Ryan for Gio, and the Stafford trade was cancelled, with mine going through.

This in a way makes sure nobody is getting "ripped off" as someone could always offer something better if they feel a deal is unfair. But then again, I have been with this group for 6+ years so it was a little easier to set up this rule. I get that it's hard to implement in a new league.

Best way I can see to do that is to have everyone keep track of the trading block and put up any trades of interest in this thread. Someone mentions that a player is up for trade and anyone interested sends an offer and goes from there. Essentially that's what's going on now, except there's no written rule about it so not everyone is doing it. Also I'm not sure how fair the 24 hour thing is fair. If another team and I agree on a deal, I don't think it's fair for another team to have the chance to cancel it and one up me. If both teams agreed to it, then that means both teams already like and agreed on who they're getting

 

[kylecoley182]

Espn leagues you can vote to veto

 

[Compbros]

Espn leagues you can vote to veto

You can in yahoo too.

 

[Compbros]

Ehhh...in general I just feel like 3for1 or 5for2 trades tend to be very lopsided. But you have to look at context. The guy giving up 2 is hoping to hit on 3 or more of the 5 guys.

I'm never one to veto trades, I just wish the discussion was made public so that each owner could get the best deal, because I think that's where most of the animosity stems from. Each top team is trying to trade depth for a star, so when another top team does it, its like wow I could have offered better.

In the Charles trade for Barnidge, Matthews, and Duke Johnson I think? It's a fine deal, but I could have offered Delanie Walker, Diggs, and Tevin Coleman possibly? But I never went through the process of making an initial offer.

I guess it would be like a real life team trading draft picks to another team for a star player. But the team that traded the star player never told anyone he was on the block. If they did they could have potentially gotten more for him, and in turn lead to a more balanced league.

In one league I play in we have a 24 hour window after each trade is accepted in which the other owners in the league can offer counter offers to the two owners involved in the trade.

One example was around week 3 a deal was made: Stafford for Gio Bernard.
I wasn't involved in the trade, but I had Matt Ryan as an extra QB and needed an RB so I offered Matt Ryan for Gio, and the Stafford trade was cancelled, with mine going through.

This in a way makes sure nobody is getting "ripped off" as someone could always offer something better if they feel a deal is unfair. But then again, I have been with this group for 6+ years so it was a little easier to set up this rule. I get that it's hard to implement in a new league.

The problem there is that trades are open to anyone at any time for any players. This doesn't need to be made public just for the sake of "oh, you're willing to part with him? Well I can offer this". It creates an environment of undercutting players that are actually sending offers.

Just like irl teams, like your analogy, they can put players on the block or they can get offers from other teams. How many times have you seen "x player traded for y" outta nowhere? Bradford traded to Minnesota because they needed a QB. AFAIK Bradford wasn't really on any block by the Eagles saw a team with an immediate need and threw out an offer. Or the Vikings wanted Bradford and went to the Eagles. Either way the Vikings didn't go "need qb, send offers", got an offer, then went "the Eagles are offering Bradford for draft picks, anyone wanna counter with a better offer?". It sounds fairly ridiculous. Not knocking you or any league you play in that does this but I find it an odd way to do things.

 

[youngplaya21]

David Johnson: my hero. I need to find this dude and buy him a beer

 

[wbsmcs]

The problem there is that trades are open to anyone at any time for any players. This doesn't need to be made public just for the sake of "oh, you're willing to part with him? Well I can offer this". It creates an environment of undercutting players that are actually sending offers.

Just like irl teams, like your analogy, they can put players on the block or they can get offers from other teams. How many times have you seen "x player traded for y" outta nowhere? Bradford traded to Minnesota because they needed a QB. AFAIK Bradford wasn't really on any block by the Eagles saw a team with an immediate need and threw out an offer. Or the Vikings wanted Bradford and went to the Eagles. Either way the Vikings didn't go "need qb, send offers", got an offer, then went "the Eagles are offering Bradford for draft picks, anyone wanna counter with a better offer?". It sounds fairly ridiculous. Not knocking you or any league you play in that does this but I find it an odd way to do things.

I definitely agree it's an odd way of doing things, and the only reason it works is because all owners were on board with it. 9/10 times the original offer stands because as you said, the other owners offer lesser deals hoping to get in on a trade they didn't have to work for. The thing I like about it isn't that people have no right to complain about a bad trade after.

The thing I hated the most about one league I was in was the league getting together to veto deals which they believed improved one team too much even though the offer was fair. Like a guy trading RB depth to upgrade his lack of TE and the league flat out not wanting him to have a TE so they say it's a lopsided deal.

 

[Compbros]

The thing I hated the most about one league I was in was the league getting together to veto deals which they believed improved one team too much even though the offer was fair. Like a guy trading RB depth to upgrade his lack of TE and the league flat out not wanting him to have a TE so they say it's a lopsided deal.

Ugh, that sounds pure scummy.