2014 DobberHockey Fantasy Football League Tier I: Season 4

[newfcollins]

Can someone explain that deal to me? Makes no sense (to me at least). One of the top TEs in the league for a backup RB who may lose his job once the main RB returns and a big downgrade at TE. Even the evaluation tool has it one-sided.

[Pengwin7]

Just an FYI on this trade.
Under commissioner acceptance it includes this clause:

One or more of the players involved in this trade has already begun playing this week. As a result, you cannot allow this deal until next week.

i.e. Bomm, the players you are acquiring are not eligible for your roster this Sunday. (because part of the trade, Graham, has already played)
You guys still good with this trade?

[Bomm Bastic]

Just an FYI on this trade.
Under commissioner acceptance it includes this clause:

One or more of the players involved in this trade has already begun playing this week. As a result, you cannot allow this deal until next week.

i.e. Bomm, the players you are acquiring are not eligible for your roster this Sunday. (because part of the trade, Graham, has already played)
You guys still good with this trade?

I think that just applies to Kelce, but either way I am cool if Pricer is.

[Bomm Bastic]

Can someone explain that deal to me? Makes no sense (to me at least). One of the top TEs in the league for a backup RB who may lose his job once the main RB returns and a big downgrade at TE. Even the evaluation tool has it one-sided.

I own Matthews so Oliver is the handcuff and I am stuck hard for a RB this bye week. I will play matchups with Kelce and Dwayne Allen who are both solid enough options. I am 4-4 and need to make a move to stay in contention. There were no other offers so I took it.

[Pengwin7]

I own Matthews so Oliver is the handcuff and I am stuck hard for a RB this bye week. I will play matchups with Kelce and Dwayne Allen who are both solid enough options. I am 4-4 and need to make a move to stay in contention. There were no other offers so I took it.

I'm not going to disallow the trade for being questionable... but I do question it too.

1. It doesn't help you THIS week, since by rule (Yahoo!), you can't use Oliver in your line-up. [and this makes sense, because you can't just use a guy for his early Thurs weekly game and then flip him for more assets to use on Sunday]
2. It doesn't help you NEXT week, since SD is on bye.

I don't know Bomm.
SD has a bye for November 9th.
The league trade deadline is November 14th.
Why wouldn't you just wait until after SD's bye to find out if Mathews will be good to go after the BYE week?
You could always make the trade then if Mathews was still wonky.

As it stands now, you could essentially be just downgrading Graham to Kelce while gifting Graham to Matt... which is... quite lopsided.

Like I said... I'm not going to disallow it (speaking as "Commissioner")... but I would say it's unbalanced (speaking as a regular GM).

[rataylor22]

Just my opinion. It was a really bad trade. Even if you "need a RB" you aren't getting one with this deal (for the reasons Peng outlined), and Graham is worth way more than a timeshare (at best) RB. If you want a handcuff, you trade a WR2/3 or something like that. Not one of the 3 best options at a position. To put this trade in other terms:

Say you own Demarco Murray and Gronk.

The trade you just made equates to

Demarco Murray

for

Tim Wright (Gronk handcuff) and Shane Vereen (every week boom or bust RB, hard to trust starting week to week).

It just doesn't make sense.

[Bomm Bastic]

I'm not concerned if no one likes it, but thanks for the input.

As an aside, i was not aware that oliver would be ineligible for this week, so that point as support that it's a bad trade is moot. I don't renege on deals due to an oversight on part.

[Pengwin7]

I'm not concerned if no one likes it, but thanks for the input.
As an aside, i was not aware that oliver would be ineligible for this week, so that point as support that it's a bad trade is moot. I don't renege on deals due to an oversight on part.

We understand.
It's the fact that you "were not aware" that I'm trying to address.
I get that you are 4-4 and see the upgrade for this week towards a playoff spot.
That's totally cool.
At this point in the season, one win is going to be huge for most of us in the pack.

Not having Oliver this week is a not a moot point though.
If you didn't know you couldn't get him, then it's worth for us (& you... & Matt) to discuss.
Since you didn't fully understand what you were getting... it's something that you could consider discussing with Matt and saying "Hey, I didn't know I wasn't able to play Oliver this week".

Ultimately, it's a call for the two of you.
If you want this trade to be processed, it'll go through. (but per Yahoo's rule, it won't be processed until next week)

[Matt Price]

The great thing about fantasy sports is that it allows us to be GMs of our own teams. That means we get to make all the personnel decisions and build our teams at our own discretion. Taking away that power (by vetoing trades you aren't involved in) makes playing the game a lot less fun. Who cares if owners not involved don't think it's fair? It shouldn't be their call. Can you have an opinion? Sure. Should you have the ability to change the outcome of something that doesn't directly affect your team? Absolutely not. I thank P7 for not vetoing any trades this season based on that. He gets it. Thank you.

Trades have a funny way of working out sometimes. Just because it looks horribly lopsided on paper doesn't mean it is going to work out that way. In one of my leagues this year Peterson was traded for Roddy White. The immediate reaction was "OMG how could you allow such a trade. AP is a top 3 pick Roddy is washed up" yada yada. Well White hasn't lit the world on fire but at least they have something to show for it. Last season when Pitta went down an owner traded Ed Dickson for Tavon Austin. Again it was "he's the best rookie! veto the trade!". Dickson didn't end up doing anything but neither did Austin. I personally traded for both Peterson and Rice in one dynasty league this offseason and was thrilled with it. Three days later Rice is cut and several weeks later Peterson is suspended indefinitely. I'm sure we all have seen examples of trades that look lopsided on the surface but work out completely different. It's the nature of the NFL. Things are not always as they seem.

The bottom line for me is that unless collusion is clearly involved then trades should never be vetoed. It shouldn't be up to anyone that isn't a part of the trade. It's their team and they should be allowed to run it how they want to. If you take that ability away then what's the point of playing this game? Sometimes trades aren't "fair" in the NFL either but it's part of the competition. No trade is ever going to be completely fair. There's always going to be a "winner" and a "loser" in every trade that happens.

[rataylor22]

The great thing about fantasy sports is that it allows us to be GMs of our own teams. That means we get to make all the personnel decisions and build our teams at our own discretion. Taking away that power (by vetoing trades you aren't involved in) makes playing the game a lot less fun. Who cares if owners not involved don't think it's fair? It shouldn't be their call. Can you have an opinion? Sure. Should you have the ability to change the outcome of something that doesn't directly affect your team? Absolutely not. I thank P7 for not vetoing any trades this season based on that. He gets it. Thank you.

Trades have a funny way of working out sometimes. Just because it looks horribly lopsided on paper doesn't mean it is going to work out that way. In one of my leagues this year Peterson was traded for Roddy White. The immediate reaction was "OMG how could you allow such a trade. AP is a top 3 pick Roddy is washed up" yada yada. Well White hasn't lit the world on fire but at least they have something to show for it. Last season when Pitta went down an owner traded Ed Dickson for Tavon Austin. Again it was "he's the best rookie! veto the trade!". Dickson didn't end up doing anything but neither did Austin. I personally traded for both Peterson and Rice in one dynasty league this offseason and was thrilled with it. Three days later Rice is cut and several weeks later Peterson is suspended indefinitely. I'm sure we all have seen examples of trades that look lopsided on the surface but work out completely different. It's the nature of the NFL. Things are not always as they seem.

The bottom line for me is that unless collusion is clearly involved then trades should never be vetoed. It shouldn't be up to anyone that isn't a part of the trade. It's their team and they should be allowed to run it how they want to. If you take that ability away then what's the point of playing this game? Sometimes trades aren't "fair" in the NFL either but it's part of the competition. No trade is ever going to be completely fair. There's always going to be a "winner" and a "loser" in every trade that happens.

Nobody was banging the "Veto" drum Price.

Making a post like this just seems like you're making a lot of whiny noise that wasn't necessary.

Campaigning for your lopsided trade to not get vetoed when nobody was campaigning to have it veteod is just.....yea, it's just really whiny and childish. Not a good look.

[Bomm Bastic]

Two weeks ago everyone was stepping over homeless people to acquire Oliver off waivers. Now he's referred to as "a backup".

[rataylor22]

Two weeks ago everyone was stepping over homeless people to acquire Oliver off waivers. Now he's referred to as "a backup".

Depth Chart.JPG

Depth Chart 2.JPG

Depth charts from Rotoworld and the Chargers official website.

People wanted Oliver off waivers as a good replacement option until Mathews came back.

Doesn't change that he is still the backup.

If LeSean McCoy misses a game, Chris Polk gets the start. But that doesn't turn Shady into the backup.

[Bomm Bastic]

Depth Chart.JPG

Depth Chart 2.JPG

Depth charts from Rotoworld and the Chargers official website.

People wanted Oliver off waivers as a good replacement option until Mathews came back.

Doesn't change that he is still the backup.

If LeSean McCoy misses a game, Chris Polk gets the start. But that doesn't turn Shady into the backup.

I think Sproles would be a more appropriate example for this situation. Handcuff and COP back are two diff animals.

Please, proceed with processing the trade. Thanks

[Matt Price]

Nobody was banging the "Veto" drum Price.

Making a post like this just seems like you're making a lot of whiny noise that wasn't necessary.

Campaigning for your lopsided trade to not get vetoed when nobody was campaigning to have it veteod is just.....yea, it's just really whiny and childish. Not a good look.

I wasn't saying they were banging that drum. I was just giving you my philosophy on trading in general. If that makes me look whiny... I guess I'm whiny? I would use the same argument for any trade. Not just ones involving me. I am not campaigning for anything. If P7 wants to cancel the trade that's his prerogative. Sorry for posting my views on trading in general I guess?

[Matt Price]

Depth Chart.JPG

Depth Chart 2.JPG

Depth charts from Rotoworld and the Chargers official website.

People wanted Oliver off waivers as a good replacement option until Mathews came back.

Doesn't change that he is still the backup.

If LeSean McCoy misses a game, Chris Polk gets the start. But that doesn't turn Shady into the backup.

Comparing Polk and LeSean to Oliver and Mathews is a bit ridiculous. Oliver will have at worst the Woodhead role when Mathews returns. If you think Oliver is going away after what he is done simply because Mathews returns to a "starting" role then I think you are mistaken.