Jump to content
NBC Sports EDGE Forums

Trade Ethics WHIR


Jaw1
 Share

Recommended Posts

What are people's thresholds for what is an acceptable trade/ what should be vetoed? Typically I feel a trade that benefits (or at least potentially) both sides should go through. How do you balance this with a good team "taking advantage" of a desperate owner however?

 

In my 12 team PPR league there is a 4-0 team that is pretty deep at RB (Hyde, Anderson, Martin) and WR (Brown, Diggs, Cobb) and has Ertz at TE. They understandably want to consolidate some of that talent so they are offering Hyde, Anderson, Cobb and Stewart for Hunt, Pryor, and essentially waiver fodder from a team that is 0-4 and due to injuries really only has Hunt and Rodgers as starting caliber players at any position . If the Hunt owner thinks this trade improves their team is it valid for the rest of the league to veto the trade since they think it makes the 4-0 team "too good" by consolidating their talent and really the rest of the league is better off with the 0-4 team staying bad? Should trades take into account their impact on the rest of the league (sets a dangerous precedent since then their is a disincentive for anybody to let any trades through) or should it only be about the two owners involved in the trade?

 

Thanks for your opinion! Post a link and I'll be sure to retain the favor. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Jaw1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see anything wrong with the trade as is and it's really nobody's business except the two owners involved. All of the players names listed above are startable guys, and if the 0-4 team really is that bad then it seems like that deal will fill in his roster for him. 

The only time I would ever veto a trade is if I suspected obvious collusion was taking place, or someone was essentially roster dumping for whatever reason. If one team  was giving up Hunt for Steven Jackson, I would veto, warn them, and if the issue continued, tell them to leave and lock up their roster. If someone was trying to trade Hunt for say Carlos Hyde, depending on the circumstances, I would probably let it slide. Assuming they aren't 0-5, and blood related, maybe they actually think Hyde will significantly outproduce Hunt ROS and give their roster a boost. 

Bottom line is vetoes have always been a touchy subject, and in the 15 years I've been playing in my home leagues, I've only seen one (and trust me, I've seen a lot of bad trades go down!!) People value players differently, and have different opinions on what players have done or are going to do. A lot of people try to "win" the trade, by straight up robbing another team, but people who've been around for a while realize that both teams "win" in a good trade. That's honestly all I see in the trade posted above is two guys dealing to try to better their teams...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Totally fair. Props to him for literally nailing the draft and now he has a super team because of it. And this trade makes the Hunt owner better overall and more complete. Stranger things have happened, but yea the guy getting Hunt is going to be a force, but did so fairly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would need to see full rosters of both teams to accurately assess the trade.

 

Who are his other starters at RB/Flex that make him feel like he needs to trade the far away #1 player in fantasy?

 

That's an awful return. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That trade seems reasonable.

 

It always comes down to how you want to approach trades in your league. I have absolutely no problem with a strong team "taking advantage" of a weaker team's desperation, as long as both teams feel they have improved. It always boils down to the same thing - somebody who has drafted well/waivered well/been lucky with injuries is going to have a lot of depth, and is going to look to shift some of that depth for a stud. Both sides will probably end up with more ppg. The strongest team in our league deliberately picked up Manuel on the wire because he wanted to use him as bait for the Derek Carr owner. That's just clever play.

 

I might make the personal decision not to trade a stud to a strong team so he doesn't get stronger, but that's my prerogative. If somebody else makes a different choice then that's their lookout. I'm in the camp that says vetoing a trade just because it makes a strong team stronger is bull****. If they can both justify it - and I think they can here - then let it go. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/5/2017 at 1:03 AM, fatbob166 said:

I don't see anything wrong with the trade as is and it's really nobody's business except the two owners involved. All of the players names listed above are startable guys, and if the 0-4 team really is that bad then it seems like that deal will fill in his roster for him. 

The only time I would ever veto a trade is if I suspected obvious collusion was taking place, or someone was essentially roster dumping for whatever reason. If one team  was giving up Hunt for Steven Jackson, I would veto, warn them, and if the issue continued, tell them to leave and lock up their roster. If someone was trying to trade Hunt for say Carlos Hyde, depending on the circumstances, I would probably let it slide. Assuming they aren't 0-5, and blood related, maybe they actually think Hyde will significantly outproduce Hunt ROS and give their roster a boost. 

Bottom line is vetoes have always been a touchy subject, and in the 15 years I've been playing in my home leagues, I've only seen one (and trust me, I've seen a lot of bad trades go down!!) People value players differently, and have different opinions on what players have done or are going to do. A lot of people try to "win" the trade, by straight up robbing another team, but people who've been around for a while realize that both teams "win" in a good trade. That's honestly all I see in the trade posted above is two guys dealing to try to better their teams...

i was with you until the bolded section

regardless what the owner thinks ROS he needed to get value for hunt and if he did this trade he would fail that aspect miserably. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, balotelli773 said:

I play to win. I would veto purely to keep Hunt on a team that is not likely to make the playoffs.

 

Otherwise in situations like this when an 0-4 team trades away a stud player your basically handing the Hunt recipient the Championship.

 

 

Veto should ONLY be used in clear-cut cases of collusion or other such cheating. Veto isn't a strategy or a tactic, it is to prevent cheating.

 

If you need to keep other people from improving their teams in order to make your season better, you need to get good. Scrub.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, JJRules said:

 

Veto should ONLY be used in clear-cut cases of collusion or other such cheating. Veto isn't a strategy or a tactic, it is to prevent cheating.

 

If you need to keep other people from improving their teams in order to make your season better, you need to get good. Scrub.

 

Is there somewhere that this is explained? Like the gospel of Fantasy Football. This week my opponent has 2 RBs on bye weeks I picked up the only serviceable RBs on the waiver wire so they can't use them. Maybe that makes me "unethical". 

 

On that same token maybe the other teams should draft better so they don't need to trade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally hate leagues that allow all owners to vote/veto's due to this exact reason.  The trade is between two teams and they should be allowed to do as they see fit to improve their team.  I understand the reality that people don't want the opposing team to improve so they will veto to prevent someone from getting better which is why that power should not be distributed equally for this exact situation.  LM veto is the way to go imo.

 

The real world equivalent to league vetos would be allowing your neighbors to veto what color you want to paint your house, F---- you its my house and I like pink!

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Spina said:

 

 

4 minutes ago, balotelli773 said:

 

Is there somewhere that this is explained? Like the gospel of Fantasy Football. This week my opponent has 2 RBs on bye weeks I picked up the only serviceable RBs on the waiver wire so they can't use them. Maybe that makes me "unethical". 

 

On that same token maybe the other teams should draft better so they don't need to trade.

 

That's not unethical, that's strategy.  You were more prepared  put your team in a position to win this week than he was, bye!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/4/2017 at 10:27 PM, Jaw1 said:

What are people's thresholds for what is an acceptable trade/ what should be vetoed? Typically I feel a trade that benefits (or at least potentially) both sides should go through. How do you balance this with a good team "taking advantage" of a desperate owner however?

 

What makes you think he's "taking advantage" of a desperate owner? The desperate owner has a team that needs help at multiple roster spots to have any chance at success. The team with depth has a bunch of quality players that they can't start because there's only so many positions in a lineup. 

 

I was in this very position post-draft. One player in the league drafted badly. His RB/WR depth was TERRIBLE. I had stocked up on RB/WR during rounds 1-7 and then kept filling in the rest of the draft, so I had players far better than what he could get on the wire. I offered him three players on my roster (he chose Pryor, K. Benjamin, and Blount) in exchange for Jordy Nelson. He accepted.

 

He made my team better by giving me one player who was better than any single player I was offering him and a legit set-and-forget WR1. I made his team better by giving him players who were better than a lot of guys on his roster, guys who were at least flex-worthy any given week and possibly WR2/RB2 level, and WAY better than the free agent adds he could have made for depth. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, balotelli773 said:

I play to win. I would veto purely to keep Hunt on a team that is not likely to make the playoffs.

 

Otherwise in situations like this when an 0-4 team trades away a stud player your basically handing the Hunt recipient the Championship.

 

 

Who says? See my example above of a 3-for-1 for Jordy. The very next week, Jordy left the game in the first quarter and scored a goose egg. Luckily for me, it wasn't a long-term injury. But if it was season-ending, it would have damaged my team quite a bit to have given up those three players.

 

But what if I'd given a 3-for-1 for Dalvin Cook? I was trading depth for quality, which gives my roster that much more injury-risk.


What if the 0-4 player knows that's the only thing they've got, and *he's* worried about being at risk due to a single Hunt injury turning him into an 0-12 team, as then he'll have exactly zero assets worthy of trading to fix his team? He wants to diversify his roster.

 

I agree with the others. Unless there's clear collusion, you let people manage their teams how they see fit. It's not your job in the league to "keep someone down" if you're worried they're a risk to you. Maybe you should have orchestrated a trade for Hunt sooner than the other owner did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, balotelli773 said:

 

Is there somewhere that this is explained? Like the gospel of Fantasy Football. This week my opponent has 2 RBs on bye weeks I picked up the only serviceable RBs on the waiver wire so they can't use them. Maybe that makes me "unethical".

 

Not remotely the same thing. Beating another owner to a pertinent waiver claim or FA pickup is good strategy and preparation. Everybody has the opportunity to pick up the same people.

 

Denying another owner a trade because you don't want them to improve their team is bush league.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let it go unless in cases of collusion. 

Vetoing or denying trades as a form of strategy is a good way to get alienated from your league. I actually prefer trades to be reviewed by the LM or assistant LM. Then you don’t have to worry about collusion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JJRules said:

 

Not remotely the same thing. Beating another owner to a pertinent waiver claim or FA pickup is good strategy and preparation. Everybody has the opportunity to pick up the same people.

 

Denying another owner a trade because you don't want them to improve their team is bush league.

 

I didn't mean picking up a waiver before someone else but this week my opponent has CJ Anderson and another RB on byes so I pick up RBs to stop them from adding a decent one off waivers with no intention to use. Our league charges $1 a transaction and obviously I  didn't pick up EVERY RB available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, balotelli773 said:

 

I didn't mean picking up a waiver before someone else but this week my opponent has CJ Anderson and another RB on byes so I pick up RBs to stop them from adding a decent one off waivers with no intention to use. Our league charges $1 a transaction and obviously I  didn't pick up EVERY RB available.

 

That's just planning ahead. He could have looked ahead to his own schedule and noticed his RBs on bye and proactively added players early to make sure he was covered, but didn't.

 

Still not the same thing ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...