Opinion on trades

[Eiwoc]

Two trades that have taken place between the same two managers. I don't like to veto trades, if you can fleece someone then more power to you, hopefully they learn from it.

12 team keep 4 PPR

Trade 1

Team A
P manning
Round 11

For

Team B
Welker
Round 8

This one was debated and the draft picks were changed to appease, the 8 became a 5 and the 11 a 12.

Trade 2

Team A
Jeffery
Round 7

For

Team B
Stafford
Round 10

Basically
Manning
Jeffery
Round 7,12

For

Stafford
Welker
Round 5,10

Mostly just curious about neutral party opinions thanks.

[Dobbersnest]

Two trades that have taken place between the same two managers. I don't like to veto trades, if you can fleece someone then more power to you, hopefully they learn from it.

12 team keep 4 PPR

Trade 1

Team A
P manning
Round 11

For

Team B
Welker
Round 8

This one was debated and the draft picks were changed to appease, the 8 became a 5 and the 11 a 12.

Trade 2

Team A
Jeffery
Round 7

For

Team B
Stafford
Round 10

Basically
Manning
Jeffery
Round 7,12

For

Stafford
Welker
Round 5,10

Mostly just curious about neutral party opinions thanks.

1st of all, you don't appease anyone. in trade 1 if you like the trade and everything is on the up and up you don't vhange it to make the league happy. those to were colluding.

The 2nd trade does not look as bad as the 1st but once put together you see what they did. they colluded. neither would be invited back next year and to be honest if it was a local league they would not get paid this year if 1 of them(the guy that has Manning) won.

[Bomm Bastic]

Stafford is no where near Manning's tier of production...ever.

Welker is prob done after this year and holds very very little value across any format both long and short term. Swapping middle round draft picks does nothing to supplement this deal.

[dejeanneret]

I'm a bit confused. Which side got the pick upgrades?

In any event, assuming the side that dealt Manning got the upgrades, while still a rather brutal trade, I've seen some like it in a keep 4 league I'm in. The thing is that with that type of keeper set up, people who are out of it in a given season (based on how the trade shakes out, I'm guessing the former Manning owner is toast this season) tend to dump assets for younger guys and pick upgrades towards the end. I don't love it -- it really does change the integrity of the league right when you're hitting the home stretch and playoff time -- but I've seen it happen a lot.

Mind you, even in that scenario, it's a pretty wretched deal. But still, going from Manning to Stafford with some pick upgrades is a pretty sound strategy if the team is rebuilding. I disagree with the notion that Stafford will never be near Manning's tier of production. He has been before. And Manning has only a season or two left; Stafford is 26.

The Jeffrey and Welker part, well ... That's pretty indefensible.

[Dobbersnest]

I'm a bit confused. Which side got the pick upgrades?

In any event, assuming the side that dealt Manning got the upgrades, while still a rather brutal trade, I've seen some like it in a keep 4 league I'm in. The thing is that with that type of keeper set up, people who are out of it in a given season (based on how the trade shakes out, I'm guessing the former Manning owner is toast this season) tend to dump assets for younger guys and pick upgrades towards the end. I don't love it -- it really does change the integrity of the league right when you're hitting the home stretch and playoff time -- but I've seen it happen a lot.

Mind you, even in that scenario, it's a pretty wretched deal. But still, going from Manning to Stafford with some pick upgrades is a pretty sound strategy if the team is rebuilding. I disagree with the notion that Stafford will never be near Manning's tier of production. He has been before. And Manning has only a season or two left; Stafford is 26.

The Jeffrey and Welker part, well ... That's pretty indefensible.

The Peyton manning deal was originally gonna be for Welker and a 8th for Manning and a 11th. they changed the deal because the league was like "what are you idiots doing" so they made it a Manning and a 12 for Welker and a 5. there was no Stafford involved on this 1.

The Stafford deal was Stafford and a 10 for Jeffery and a 7. a bad deal for the Jeffery owner but not obectable if they had not already played dirty on the 1st trade.

[dejeanneret]

The Peyton manning deal was originally gonna be for Welker and a 8th for Manning and a 11th. they changed the deal because the league was like "what are you idiots doing" so they made it a Manning and a 12 for Welker and a 5. there was no Stafford involved on this 1.

The Stafford deal was Stafford and a 10 for Jeffery and a 7. a bad deal for the Jeffery owner but not obectable if they had not already played dirty on the 1st trade.

I hear you. But I think this has to be viewed holistically given that it's a keeper and the trades took place in quick succession between the same teams. In that light, going from Manning to Stafford with a pick upgrade is wise for a rebuilding team. Granted, the WR exchange makes no sense.

Overall, it's a bad deal, no doubt. And one I'd not be happy about if it took place in one of my leagues. But I can't conclude that it's straight up collusion in a keeper set up based on the current info (that's obviously about as serious as the accusations get in the fantasy sports realm). Keep 4s tend to be a bit strange in my experience, especially if there are limits on keeper eligibility in terms of keeping only 1 player per position or years, etc. (as is the case in my keep 4; no idea if that's true in this instance).

Just my two cents.

[Dobbersnest]

I hear you. But I think this has to be viewed holistically given that it's a keeper and the trades took place in quick succession between the same teams. In that light, going from Manning to Stafford with a pick upgrade is wise for a rebuilding team. Granted, the WR exchange makes no sense.

Overall, it's a bad deal, no doubt. And one I'd not be happy about if it took place in one of my leagues. But I can't conclude that it's straight up collusion in a keeper set up based on the current info (that's obviously about as serious as the accusations get in the fantasy sports realm). Keep 4s tend to be a bit strange in my experience, especially if there are limits on keeper eligibility in terms of keeping only 1 player per position or years, etc. (as is the case in my keep 4; no idea if that's true in this instance).

Just my two cents.

For me the proof of collusion was when the league did not like the trade so they changed it to make the league happy, if your offer is sincere you fight over it you don't change. of course, this is just my opinion.

Then the 2nd trade IMO was just to rub salt in the leagues face to make it just close enough to where they could argue they were not colluding.

Of course we don't know everything as we are going off of 1 persons view.

I would like to know their records and how well they know each other and their teams. it would tell us alot more.

it wreaks to me though but as said that is my opinion.

[Eiwoc]

I haven't checked back on this thread in a while now. I missed the whole debate haha.

I don't know their relationship. I only personally know 2 people in the league. I know they have had this league as well as a baseball and hockey league for quite some time with most of the same members.

No restrictions on the positions to be kept. We start 2wr and a flex.

Team 1
Manning
Sanders
Hilton
Lynch
Vereen
Kelce
Jeffery
Donnell
Mason
Bryant
Gray
Davis
Bradshaw now on ir

Team 2
Stafford
Boldin
Baldwin
Miller
Gore
Davis
Garçon
Allen
Flacco
Tannehill
Hawkins
Turbine
Welker

The first trade, manning welker took place on oct 23. The team recieving manning was 5-2 the team recieving welker was 0-7.

The second trade took place on nov 20. The records were now 7-3 and 0-10.

I'm all for trading older players for picks but in a keep 4 format you have to have something to keep if you want to have a chance. You want to trade players like Peyton for a young keeper and not for a washed up bum. You want keep young receivers because let's be honest. There are 3 elite quarterbacks 4 at most matt stafford is nowhere near them. If you grabbed tannehill you're just as well off.

That said people have their own opinions and that's fine but when your team has 2 players really worth keeping in a keep 4 and you trade them away and get a decent at best QB in the middle of a down year and you gave up rounds to get him. I can't understand that.

Buy high when value is low. A move more like grab Watkins and a couple rounds for Jeffery. Or get another young guy that could end up a good keeper with him.

Also He's going to finish last in the league if he wanted stafford so bad he could have taken him in the first round and kept his pick and Jeffery. But stafford isnt a first round pick even with 4 keepers (5th round). But Jeffery wouldn't make it to round 5 in any league.

[Dobbersnest]

I haven't checked back on this thread in a while now. I missed the whole debate haha.

I don't know their relationship. I only personally know 2 people in the league. I know they have had this league as well as a baseball and hockey league for quite some time with most of the same members.

No restrictions on the positions to be kept. We start 2wr and a flex.

Team 1
Manning
Sanders
Hilton
Lynch
Vereen
Kelce
Jeffery
Donnell
Mason
Bryant
Gray
Davis
Bradshaw now on ir

Team 2
Stafford
Boldin
Baldwin
Miller
Gore
Davis
Garçon
Allen
Flacco
Tannehill
Hawkins
Turbine
Welker

The first trade, manning welker took place on oct 23. The team recieving manning was 5-2 the team recieving welker was 0-7.

The second trade took place on nov 20. The records were now 7-3 and 0-10.

I'm all for trading older players for picks but in a keep 4 format you have to have something to keep if you want to have a chance. You want to trade players like Peyton for a young keeper and not for a washed up bum. You want keep young receivers because let's be honest. There are 3 elite quarterbacks 4 at most matt stafford is nowhere near them. If you grabbed tannehill you're just as well off.

That said people have their own opinions and that's fine but when your team has 2 players really worth keeping in a keep 4 and you trade them away and get a decent at best QB in the middle of a down year and you gave up rounds to get him. I can't understand that.

Buy high when value is low. A move more like grab Watkins and a couple rounds for Jeffery. Or get another young guy that could end up a good keeper with him.

Also He's going to finish last in the league if he wanted stafford so bad he could have taken him in the first round and kept his pick and Jeffery. But stafford isnt a first round pick even with 4 keepers (5th round). But Jeffery wouldn't make it to round 5 in any league.

I would not play in a league with them again I promise you that. that is a 0-7 team helping the 7-3 team try and win it all. without hardly sacrificing next year pickwise.

And despite what it might sound like I am easy on trades. we have had close calls where I did not veto deals which would of been the deciding vote because I could see at least some kind of mindset. I see no mindset that would make a person make these trades.

I made a deal years ago. I traded Barry Sanders down the stretch run for Larry Centers and a backup WR. everyone wanted to veto the trade. after I pointed to the league why I was doing it every1 semi understood but still thought I was nuts. this was a PPR league and Centers had 100 catches and outscored Barry by quite a few points that year and I won the league. if the league would of vetoed I would not have won as it was a roto league. so I look over every aspect before opening my mouth. last year I traded Demaryius Thomas for Demarco Murray and had the same problem. that trade made me 400 bucks. so I get that people have different opinions on players.

It is just my opinion but I see no reason for a 0-fer team to get rid of possibly his best 2 keepers for next year.