User avatar
Great White Shark
Posts: 6534
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010
Sand$: 23,566.38
Trade 1:

Adrian Peterson and Latavius Murray for Ezekiel Elliot and Philly Defense.
Yahoo says its plus 93.5 points for the side getting Zeke and negative 46.93 points for side giving Zeke.

Trade 2:

Goff, Hunt and Ridley for Newton, Kupp and Kamara.
Yahoo says the side trading away Kamara is negative 89.34 points and the side getting Kamara is plus 92.2 points.

Collusive?
User avatar
Megalodon
Posts: 15804
Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2002
Sand$: 65,577.58
You've been around long enough to know valuation has next to no part in determining collusion.
_______________________________________

canadianraiderfan wrote:Everybody used to have the coolest sigs on this site.... hardly anybody has them anymore.... did I miss the memo or something?
User avatar
Great White Shark
Posts: 6534
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010
Sand$: 23,566.38
But are they anti competitive? Collusion aside which is hard to prove, should they have been nixed?
Both sellers were by teams effectively out of the playoffs.
User avatar
Great White Shark
Posts: 4259
Joined: Wed Sep 7, 2011
Sand$: 7,312.20
Are those the same two teams or two different teams?

But either way, without clear signs of collusion you've got to allow those through. A single injury can change the valuation at any time. And not looking at points, those trades seem reasonable.

Trade 1: Trading an aging back and a stopgap if you expect Cook to return for one of the top RBs and a meh defense. Don't love it, but if the AP/Murray owner is worried about either one of them being able to sustain through ROS, it's reasonable.

Trade 2: Believers in the Rams Offense will take Goff (espeically in a 6pt passing TD league), Hunt is heating up again and Ridley could be a stud of the ROddy White level for Newton, a hurt Kupp, and a Kamara that hasn't studded like expected.

To me, there are reasonable valuations that could be made. On paper it may seem lopsided, but these some okay.

But again, without clear evidence or belief that these owners are colluding together, then you gotta let them pass.

Do you have anything else to support collusion outside the actual trades?
User avatar
Moderator
Posts: 47320
Joined: Sun Aug 2, 2009
Sand$: 41,627.65
I don’t see an issue with either one
_______________________________________

#NewJackCity
”I want players who hate losing more than they love winning”
User avatar
Great White Shark
Posts: 6534
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010
Sand$: 23,566.38
Well, perhaps I was too hasty.

However, the same player instigated a league vote to block my trade of Chubb and Jordan Reed for Ertz to a team that had only two RBs and one was Derrick Henry on a bye. So the dude tried to add from the waiver wire and got a zero.

Oh well.
User avatar
Megalodon
Posts: 15804
Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2002
Sand$: 65,577.58
If the commish is nixing those kinds of trades and allowing league votes to nix other trades, it's time find a better league.
_______________________________________

canadianraiderfan wrote:Everybody used to have the coolest sigs on this site.... hardly anybody has them anymore.... did I miss the memo or something?
User avatar
Mako Shark
Posts: 654
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008
Sand$: 1,875.68
I'll echo what jdhowlett said. As long as the teams involved are trying to improve their teams, the evenness of the trade doesn't matter.

But if you insist on getting into the trades themselves:

hawkdogger wrote:Trade 1:

Adrian Peterson and Latavius Murray for Ezekiel Elliot and Philly Defense.
Yahoo says its plus 93.5 points for the side getting Zeke and negative 46.93 points for side giving Zeke.


The defense doesn't really matter here, so ultimately this is a trade of a RB expected to be a stud, who has been a disappointment to the tune of being "only" a top 10 RB (Zeke) for a surprising top 10 RB (AP) and a veteran backup that has been playable (Murray).

The better team appears to be selling AP high and buying Zeke low. That's OK! He's gambling that Zeke goes back to his pre-2018 self and becomes a star again, and he's also betting AP falls off a bit in the second half. In addition, he's giving another player with some immediate value, if the lesser team needs to win now.

Also, did this happen before last week's games, when Zeke was on bye, or just this week?

Overall, I wouldn't bat an eye at this trade. It's one surprisingly good player plus depth being traded for one disappointing one.

hawkdogger wrote:Trade 1:Trade 2:

Goff, Hunt and Ridley for Newton, Kupp and Kamara.
Yahoo says the side trading away Kamara is negative 89.34 points and the side getting Kamara is plus 92.2 points.

Collusive?

Lately, Hunt has been on quite a tear, while Kamara's workload has decreased a little with Ingram's return. I like Kamara better, but it's not a big gap.

Newton is probably better than Goff over the season, but it could also be a sell-high situation. Newton is notoriously variable, too; maybe the guy trading him away didn't want to deal with the ups and downs.

Kupp's been good, but it coming off a knee injury and there are questions about how effective he'll be. Ridley doesn't appear to have been hurt badly by his injury a few weeks ago, and seems roughly equivalent to Kupp in general.

On this one, I'd definitely rather be getting the Kamara/Newton/Kupp side, but it's not hard to imagine how someone would value the other side more.
User avatar
Great White Shark
Posts: 4974
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004
Sand$: 684.62
hawkdogger wrote:Well, perhaps I was too hasty.

However, the same player instigated a league vote to block my trade of Chubb and Jordan Reed for Ertz to a team that had only two RBs and one was Derrick Henry on a bye. So the dude tried to add from the waiver wire and got a zero.

Oh well.

I don't understand this part. Does your league use league voting or not? If it is commissioner approval, what does it mean to "instigate a league vote"?

Once you start looking to the commissioner to nix a deal based on different valuation of players or needs, there is a problem. Looking to do it to someone else's trade because you don't like it is wrong; I can't tell from your post whether or not the guy trying to do that to you was successful in getting a vote and how the vote went down. However, looking to nix deals because someone tried/succeeded to nix yours is just as bad. Might as well make the league non-trade it people are going to play it that way.
User avatar
Great White Shark
Posts: 6534
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010
Sand$: 23,566.38
Yea, it’s commish approval, but since I was commish I put my trade to a league vote and got some shady results since I was in first.

But I appreciate the input.

I validated the trades and offered to resign as commish.
Sadly no one has taken me up on it yet.
User avatar
Great White Shark
Posts: 2045
Joined: Fri Sep 9, 2005
Sand$: 5,923.94
hawkdogger wrote:Yea, it’s commish approval, but since I was commish I put my trade to a league vote and got some shady results since I was in first.


I agree with the consensus, but this makes sense for dealing with a conflict of interest.


hawkdogger wrote:and offered to resign as commish. Sadly no one has taken me up on it yet.


I hear ya. Sometimes.....
_______________________________________

OMITB Champion: 2004, 2005, 2007, 2015, 2016
CFL Champion: 2009, 2013, 2014, 2016, 2017

"Best available kicker and the Colts D." Rest in peace, Ken.