Hey, the offensive linemen are the biggest guys on the field, they’re bigger than everybody else, and that’s what makes them the biggest guys on the field. -John Madden
I got Roy Williams for nothing. Someone will get Larry Johnson for nothing. You dropped Willie Parker and Terrel Owens for nothing, earlier trying to trade them off to me. Who's rankings should be the one's enforced here? Yeah, I disagree with the move my Dad made, but he's managing his team how he wants.
I don't want to beat around the bush on this. I understand that people thought this was a bad move on my Dad's part. I don't think the initial trade was horrible. I do think that dropping Lynch was horrible. I called my Dad as soon as I saw the move, and asked what he was doing. He simply told me that he didn't think that Lynch was going to have a good year anymore, and dropped him. He also told me that he regretted dropping him after we spoke on the phone, even though he felt it wasn't a horrible loss because he has faith in his RB corps.
So, the question is, what, seriously, do y'all want me to do about it? (I'm asking that somewhat sarcastically). I'm not willing to reverse the move, since I think my Dad should have to reap the consequences (I say that with love, Dad, I'm an ENTJ though...) of his actions.
At the same time, David has been given SJax for very little. Was it his fault this occured? No. And he would've been stupid to pass up on Lynch. It's not his fault Wally didn't grab him.
So what's the next step? My Dad regrets his move. I honestly think that the best thing to do is nothing at all. Let me know if you have other ideas.
I don't think anyone is questioning whether or not it was collusion... It was just a bad trade in my opinion. I certainly do not think David was at fault when he picked up Lynch off waivers, as everyone else in this league most likely would have done the same thing. I guess more than anything I just would like to see Pats dad making wiser team decisions going forward so he remains competitive.
The issue isn't your dad dropping Lynch. The issue is your dad trading Stephen Jackson for D. Manning. Of course when it happened you had no idea that this was what he was doing, but that is the reality.
You know me, I'm laze-faire when it comes to LMs. I don't think it is your job to critique trades, but a trade of S-Jax for D. Manning should get vetoed. As I've said before, this is supposed to be a more competative league than normal, and a trade of Manning for S-Jax has the potential of having significant effects for 2 teams in the league (and by extention all teams in the league).
To your question "what, seriously, do y'all want me to do about it?"
Ok, under normal circumstances I would never suggest this, but I honestly think that in this specific situation for the integrity of this league, what should have happened is that Lynch goes back to your dad. Or at the very least, David be disallowed from picking Lynch up. Not because I want to punish David. As you stated, he didn't do anything wrong. But for the integrity of the league, it should not be allowed to happen that someone is able to recieve a top 10 RB essentially for free.
David, I can say with 100% honesty that this has nothing to do with you personally. I would suggest the same thing no matter who this happened too (myself included). It is too great of an advantage for a team to get a top 10 RB at the cost of a mediocre IDP. And whether that was the intention, that is what happened.
The issue isn't that David got Lynch from waivers, the issue is that he got Jackson for free.
The question of Jackson's top 10 status is up in the air, especially in this league. Sure, he's a big name, but he's well outside of the top 10 at the end of this year, at the RB position, just because of KR's. Let's not blow this out of proportion, I didn't get Sproles or Peterson. I got Steven Jackson, who has less than half of Sproles' points, and just over half of Peterson's. He's currently 19th, and in the company of the likes of Stefan Logan and Jamaal Charles.
Moving on, while I don't completely agree with what you say Josh, I can understand it. I think that each team should look out for their own well being, and if one team slips up they rightly should be punished by their decision, I am not a fan of a governing body interfering. Pat can't make all the decisions for all our best interests. That being said I still understand what you're saying. This is where things get sticky though. I shouldn't lose my #2 overall waiver position, and on top of that, I would have picked up someone that Josh picked up. He was second on my priority. So, if I lose Lynch, for the league's 'integrity', I should gain Stougher or at VERY LEAST my #2 waiver priority.
So, at this point, what do you want to do about it? No punitive action should be taken against me, as I've committed no crime. But if I lose Lynch, I have effectively lost my #2 waiver priority, the chance to pick up another top player off waiver, specifically Stougher, who by the way would have actually started on my team this week. So I'm fine to give up Lynch, send him back to the waivers, but I should be recompensed for my loss.
Counter to what everyone has been saying, the initial trade was NOT S-JAX for D. Manning, it was Marshawn Lynch and Daniael Manning for S-Jax. Now, I think a case could be made(not a strong one) for Lynch for Jackson straight up. It's all opinions and who thinks what of whom.
Consider this as well. The Patriots traded a 4th round pick to the Raiders for Randy Moss. This trade affected 2 teams, and by extension every team in the league(except for maybe the Giants, :)! ), and what was the leagues response? Nothing! Of course it gave an unfair advantage to the Pats, of course it was far to little for a player of that caliber, albeit he wasn't playing well. A poor decision by one team, underselling a valuable asset and dumb luck stumbling on another team caused a massive advantage for the Pats. I'm sure just about every team in the league hated it after a week or two, and saw how potent it was. But it was the leagues opinion(and mine) to not interfere despite the ramifications on the league.
At any rate, I don't think the deal was as lopsided as many others that have floated around here. We all want the best possible deal for ourselves, and who's to judge what is 'fair' and what isn't? My whole point is that the trade simply shouldn't be overturned. I'm fine with another course of action, as I think that would be just.
First, while I understand that you are going to want to play off what has happened, "Lynch for S-Jax straight up"? Come on man. And I'm not saying that S-Jax will absolutely be a top 10 guy come the end of the year, but you obviously liked him since you went out of your way to get him. I can only assume you offered the trade because we now know if Tim was on the offering end, Lynch would have never been a part of the deal. As I've said before, I don't want to give too much credence to the talking heads, but when every major Fantasy "guru/site" has S-Jax in the top 10 (not preseason ranks, now-end of year ranks- ESPN- #5, Yahoo- #10, FFCafe- #7, etc), then I'll go with it.
As for what should happen now. Well, on the one hand I agree that you shouldn't be punished in this since you didn't do anything wrong. On the other hand, and obviously you won't agree with this, I think it was wrong for you to pick up Lynch. I know it's hard to say what I "would do in your situation," but I honestly believe that I would not have picked him up. Like I said before, the problem isn't that you got Lynch from waivers, but that since you got Lynch from waivers you did (whether this was intended or not), get S-Jax at the puny cost of Manning. If you had let Lynch pass to Jolly or whoever was behind you on the WW, all of this would be a non issue. Tim would have made a horrible trade, but no team would have gotten a significant advantage from that mistake. One team would get a low 2nd/3rd tier RB for free, but no team would get a 1st tier RB for free.
This is what I (and I think a lot of other people) would have pushed for before the WW pickups finalized, but I didn't think it was necessary because Pat assured me that Wally would be picking up Lynch so it would be a non issue.
I'm sure Pat would never go for this, but I think the best option from here would be for you to take Stougher from me (since that was your #2 choice), and give the guys that were behind you in the waiver order (myself excluded)the option on Lynch.
Again, it is truly nothing against you Dave, and I know this stuff is somewhat subjective, but I just think (and it seems many of those paying attention agree) that for a team to get Jackson at only the cost of D. Manning, has the potential of having a significant effect on the league. And as much as that wasn't intended, in the end that is the trade that happened. I think that if I was offering that trade to someone, you would absolutly agree that it should be vetoed because it gives one team too much of an unfair advantage.
And I'll leave it at that.
Next up...(hopefully complete) mid season edition of "My Bold Predictions."
I generally agree with you. Except for the part where I'd say it should be vetoed. In a competitive league, I'm STRICTLY for vetoing collusion trades, and nothing else.
A team getting Jackson for a low price SHOULD effect the league. And, it should not be something that the most people in the league are not pleased about either. The point of a trade is to do something to make your team better. Not to make things evenly competitive. Of course nobody likes it. I didn't like you getting Welker, your team was made better and I think you underpaid. But I guess that's the whole point of trading.
It's strange to me that because things fell the way they did. I purposely didn't use my waiver the week before, so that I would have good position this week. The obvious reason is so that I'd be able to pick up the best possible player. This however doesn't sit well with many of you so my waiver priority is sacrificed.
All that being said, I'd be fine rewinding things back to before waivers cleared and myself picking up Stougher instead. If that will make all you whimps quit crying ;)!
For me the main concern is not the effect the trade had on this season, it's the fact that SJax is guaranteed to be a keeper for the next three years, barring significant injury, and Lynch very well could be too. I feel like a bad, fluke trade like that could basically decide who is going to win the next three years.
At the same time I have a hard time with the idea of David losing Lynch because of how this happened because I agree that it wasn't his fault.
I know I haven't really helped the debate but I just wanted to share my thoughts/feelings.
I doubt very highly that Lynch is going to be a keeper.
Dave, I agree with you that in a competative league only trades where collusion is suspected should be vetoed. The problem is that trade wasn't a competative league trade. It was a beginner's league trade. (Man, I really hope Tim's not reading any of this.)
Also, I don't agree with you that the goal of a trade should be to take advantage of the other guy. There's a difference between getting the better side of a trade, and trading 1 scrub for a stud.
I'm not trying to toot my own horn here, but when I traded for Welker, I was offered Welker for just Hightower, but I said that was too uneven, and threw in Danny Amendola (who has scored more points than Welker in the same # of games this season). You can "win" a trade without completely screwing the other guy. And in my opinion in an "expert league" like this is supposed to be, the only trades that should be happening is ones that are relatively even and generally benefit both teams.
I'm not sure if you're saying I screwed Pat's dad in this trade or not. Either way, I think a case can be made for why Lynch and D. Manning for Jackson isn't bad. Now, what happened from there on out is out of my control. The initial trade WAS NOT D. Manning for S-JAX. So it wasn't a scrub for a stud. I think there are some things that are being WAY overstated, and some things that are being WAY understated.
Anyhow, I leave it at that. It's to Pat's discretion, I trust that he'll do what he believes is best for the league, this year and for the ones to come.
No, no, no. I wasn't saying you screwed Pat's dad. Sorry if it came accross that way. I was just speaking hypathetically, responding to you saying no trade should be vetoed.
I don't think there was anything wrong with the initial trade. I'm guessing that come the end of the season it will be pretty clear that you won huge (the initial trade, asside from the whole Lynch thing), but there's nothing wrong with that. I was actually kind of ticked that I didn't know Tim was so low on S-jax cause I would have gone after him myself. Of course I didn't have quite the same firepower as you (no crappy bears D-backs on my bench), but I at least would have tried to work something out.
No, I'm not mad at ya over the trade at all. I just think that in a competative league like this, somehting that has the potential to throw a significant amount of imbalance into the league because of a simple (rookie) mistake should be avoided, and maybe prevented.
In the end it may turn out to be no big deal, but I do think it has the potential to be a big thing. We'll see.
1. David trades D. Manning and M. Lynch for S. Jackson to my Dad.
2. My Dad drops M. Lynch.
3. The lowest numbered waiver who put in a claim for M. Lynch received him.
In my mind it's really as simple as that. None of those events were unfair in themselves. The ironic thing was only that David effectively received SJax for Manning. However, that was only the result of three events where each in themselves were legal, and acceptable.
Now, would I have dropped Lynch? Never. That's why I called my Dad. The reason it was fine for Lynch to be dropped though is simply that Lynch is not on the Can't Cut list. There is a system in place to make sure teams don't drop the best players where they would be an obvious mistake to drop. Lynch was not on that list, and ironically David picked him up.
Josh,
I'm confused as to there you're getting these seemingly official terms "Beginner's League Trade" vs. "Competitive League Trade". I didn't see any handbook passed around grading what makes a trade competitive or not. Also, since there are enough people, or "experts" (including myself) who don't think the original trade was at a "beginner's" level", why not concede that maybe it was not all that bad?
Like I said, I wouldn't have done it. But I also wouldn't have traded Welker away to you for what you gave. Does that mean I can say you made a "beginner's trade"? No. In fact, Tony and I had discussed that trade quite a bit before it happened, and after he did it, I responded "whatever dude", somewhat disapprovingly. Maybe I should've labeled it better, and graded it a "Beginner's Level Trade", and kicked Tony out of the league for not making an "Expert Trade" like the rest of us. I don't know. Or maybe we should put all trades to vote?
I'm going to say no. Trades will only be vetoed if they are collusive. And people should continue to reap the consequences of their shrewd, or bad judgment.
Make sure you read all the posts and read them fully before commenting back.
I think I made it pretty clear that I don't think the initial trade was that bad. But it's kind of hard to argue that trading Stephen Jackson for D. Manning is a "beginner's league trade". (And it's hard to argue the fact that in your dad's mind, that was the trade he was making, since he obviously couldn't care less about lynch in the deal.)
As for the Welker trade...again, I commented on that already. You may have thought it was a "beginner's trade", and even a bad one for Tony, but as I stated above, Danny Amendola has outscorred Welker for the year (in the same number of games). He plays on the crappy Rams who will continue to get buttloads of KOs every game which means plenty of opportunities for him to keep scorring the way he has to this point. So essentially, up to this point the Tony's have gotten Hightower for free. (Hightower who has scorred more than 10 points in every game but one so far this year. How many of your RBs can you say that about?)
Obviously up front I thought it was a good trade for me, but I was aware at the time that if Amendola turns out to be for real, it could be a net loss for me. Just because you don't recognize the value of a guy doesn't mean he doesn't have any. (Unless his last name is Manning, and his first isn't Peyton or Eli.)
Being in politics is like being a football coach. You have to be smart enough to understand the game, and dumb enough to think it's important. -Eugene McCarthy
More coming on this very soon!
ReplyDeleteI will be waiting for your response Josh...
ReplyDeleteI got Roy Williams for nothing. Someone will get Larry Johnson for nothing. You dropped Willie Parker and Terrel Owens for nothing, earlier trying to trade them off to me. Who's rankings should be the one's enforced here? Yeah, I disagree with the move my Dad made, but he's managing his team how he wants.
ReplyDeleteI guess I'm more questioning the initial trade than the fact that David got Lynch back.
ReplyDeleteGo ahead and question it. I guarantee it wasn't collusion.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it was collusion either!
ReplyDeleteAlright.
ReplyDeleteI don't want to beat around the bush on this. I understand that people thought this was a bad move on my Dad's part. I don't think the initial trade was horrible. I do think that dropping Lynch was horrible. I called my Dad as soon as I saw the move, and asked what he was doing. He simply told me that he didn't think that Lynch was going to have a good year anymore, and dropped him. He also told me that he regretted dropping him after we spoke on the phone, even though he felt it wasn't a horrible loss because he has faith in his RB corps.
So, the question is, what, seriously, do y'all want me to do about it? (I'm asking that somewhat sarcastically). I'm not willing to reverse the move, since I think my Dad should have to reap the consequences (I say that with love, Dad, I'm an ENTJ though...) of his actions.
At the same time, David has been given SJax for very little. Was it his fault this occured? No. And he would've been stupid to pass up on Lynch. It's not his fault Wally didn't grab him.
So what's the next step? My Dad regrets his move. I honestly think that the best thing to do is nothing at all. Let me know if you have other ideas.
It's SO nice.
ReplyDeleteI don't think anyone is questioning whether or not it was collusion... It was just a bad trade in my opinion. I certainly do not think David was at fault when he picked up Lynch off waivers, as everyone else in this league most likely would have done the same thing. I guess more than anything I just would like to see Pats dad making wiser team decisions going forward so he remains competitive.
ReplyDeletePat, to your initial post-
ReplyDeleteThe issue isn't your dad dropping Lynch. The issue is your dad trading Stephen Jackson for D. Manning. Of course when it happened you had no idea that this was what he was doing, but that is the reality.
You know me, I'm laze-faire when it comes to LMs. I don't think it is your job to critique trades, but a trade of S-Jax for D. Manning should get vetoed. As I've said before, this is supposed to be a more competative league than normal, and a trade of Manning for S-Jax has the potential of having significant effects for 2 teams in the league (and by extention all teams in the league).
To your question "what, seriously, do y'all want me to do about it?"
Ok, under normal circumstances I would never suggest this, but I honestly think that in this specific situation for the integrity of this league, what should have happened is that Lynch goes back to your dad. Or at the very least, David be disallowed from picking Lynch up. Not because I want to punish David. As you stated, he didn't do anything wrong. But for the integrity of the league, it should not be allowed to happen that someone is able to recieve a top 10 RB essentially for free.
David, I can say with 100% honesty that this has nothing to do with you personally. I would suggest the same thing no matter who this happened too (myself included). It is too great of an advantage for a team to get a top 10 RB at the cost of a mediocre IDP. And whether that was the intention, that is what happened.
The issue isn't that David got Lynch from waivers, the issue is that he got Jackson for free.
The question of Jackson's top 10 status is up in the air, especially in this league. Sure, he's a big name, but he's well outside of the top 10 at the end of this year, at the RB position, just because of KR's. Let's not blow this out of proportion, I didn't get Sproles or Peterson. I got Steven Jackson, who has less than half of Sproles' points, and just over half of Peterson's. He's currently 19th, and in the company of the likes of Stefan Logan and Jamaal Charles.
ReplyDeleteMoving on, while I don't completely agree with what you say Josh, I can understand it. I think that each team should look out for their own well being, and if one team slips up they rightly should be punished by their decision, I am not a fan of a governing body interfering. Pat can't make all the decisions for all our best interests. That being said I still understand what you're saying. This is where things get sticky though. I shouldn't lose my #2 overall waiver position, and on top of that, I would have picked up someone that Josh picked up. He was second on my priority. So, if I lose Lynch, for the league's 'integrity', I should gain Stougher or at VERY LEAST my #2 waiver priority.
So, at this point, what do you want to do about it? No punitive action should be taken against me, as I've committed no crime. But if I lose Lynch, I have effectively lost my #2 waiver priority, the chance to pick up another top player off waiver, specifically Stougher, who by the way would have actually started on my team this week. So I'm fine to give up Lynch, send him back to the waivers, but I should be recompensed for my loss.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAlso, think on this.
ReplyDeleteCounter to what everyone has been saying, the initial trade was NOT S-JAX for D. Manning, it was Marshawn Lynch and Daniael Manning for S-Jax. Now, I think a case could be made(not a strong one) for Lynch for Jackson straight up. It's all opinions and who thinks what of whom.
Consider this as well. The Patriots traded a 4th round pick to the Raiders for Randy Moss. This trade affected 2 teams, and by extension every team in the league(except for maybe the Giants, :)! ), and what was the leagues response? Nothing! Of course it gave an unfair advantage to the Pats, of course it was far to little for a player of that caliber, albeit he wasn't playing well. A poor decision by one team, underselling a valuable asset and dumb luck stumbling on another team caused a massive advantage for the Pats. I'm sure just about every team in the league hated it after a week or two, and saw how potent it was. But it was the leagues opinion(and mine) to not interfere despite the ramifications on the league.
At any rate, I don't think the deal was as lopsided as many others that have floated around here. We all want the best possible deal for ourselves, and who's to judge what is 'fair' and what isn't? My whole point is that the trade simply shouldn't be overturned. I'm fine with another course of action, as I think that would be just.
Ok, so a couple of things in response.
ReplyDeleteFirst, while I understand that you are going to want to play off what has happened, "Lynch for S-Jax straight up"? Come on man. And I'm not saying that S-Jax will absolutely be a top 10 guy come the end of the year, but you obviously liked him since you went out of your way to get him. I can only assume you offered the trade because we now know if Tim was on the offering end, Lynch would have never been a part of the deal. As I've said before, I don't want to give too much credence to the talking heads, but when every major Fantasy "guru/site" has S-Jax in the top 10 (not preseason ranks, now-end of year ranks- ESPN- #5, Yahoo- #10, FFCafe- #7, etc), then I'll go with it.
As for what should happen now. Well, on the one hand I agree that you shouldn't be punished in this since you didn't do anything wrong. On the other hand, and obviously you won't agree with this, I think it was wrong for you to pick up Lynch. I know it's hard to say what I "would do in your situation," but I honestly believe that I would not have picked him up. Like I said before, the problem isn't that you got Lynch from waivers, but that since you got Lynch from waivers you did (whether this was intended or not), get S-Jax at the puny cost of Manning. If you had let Lynch pass to Jolly or whoever was behind you on the WW, all of this would be a non issue. Tim would have made a horrible trade, but no team would have gotten a significant advantage from that mistake. One team would get a low 2nd/3rd tier RB for free, but no team would get a 1st tier RB for free.
This is what I (and I think a lot of other people) would have pushed for before the WW pickups finalized, but I didn't think it was necessary because Pat assured me that Wally would be picking up Lynch so it would be a non issue.
I'm sure Pat would never go for this, but I think the best option from here would be for you to take Stougher from me (since that was your #2 choice), and give the guys that were behind you in the waiver order (myself excluded)the option on Lynch.
Again, it is truly nothing against you Dave, and I know this stuff is somewhat subjective, but I just think (and it seems many of those paying attention agree) that for a team to get Jackson at only the cost of D. Manning, has the potential of having a significant effect on the league. And as much as that wasn't intended, in the end that is the trade that happened. I think that if I was offering that trade to someone, you would absolutly agree that it should be vetoed because it gives one team too much of an unfair advantage.
And I'll leave it at that.
Next up...(hopefully complete) mid season edition of "My Bold Predictions."
I generally agree with you. Except for the part where I'd say it should be vetoed. In a competitive league, I'm STRICTLY for vetoing collusion trades, and nothing else.
ReplyDeleteA team getting Jackson for a low price SHOULD effect the league. And, it should not be something that the most people in the league are not pleased about either. The point of a trade is to do something to make your team better. Not to make things evenly competitive. Of course nobody likes it. I didn't like you getting Welker, your team was made better and I think you underpaid. But I guess that's the whole point of trading.
It's strange to me that because things fell the way they did. I purposely didn't use my waiver the week before, so that I would have good position this week. The obvious reason is so that I'd be able to pick up the best possible player. This however doesn't sit well with many of you so my waiver priority is sacrificed.
All that being said, I'd be fine rewinding things back to before waivers cleared and myself picking up Stougher instead. If that will make all you whimps quit crying ;)!
For me the main concern is not the effect the trade had on this season, it's the fact that SJax is guaranteed to be a keeper for the next three years, barring significant injury, and Lynch very well could be too. I feel like a bad, fluke trade like that could basically decide who is going to win the next three years.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time I have a hard time with the idea of David losing Lynch because of how this happened because I agree that it wasn't his fault.
I know I haven't really helped the debate but I just wanted to share my thoughts/feelings.
I doubt very highly that Lynch is going to be a keeper.
ReplyDeleteDave, I agree with you that in a competative league only trades where collusion is suspected should be vetoed. The problem is that trade wasn't a competative league trade. It was a beginner's league trade. (Man, I really hope Tim's not reading any of this.)
Also, I don't agree with you that the goal of a trade should be to take advantage of the other guy. There's a difference between getting the better side of a trade, and trading 1 scrub for a stud.
I'm not trying to toot my own horn here, but when I traded for Welker, I was offered Welker for just Hightower, but I said that was too uneven, and threw in Danny Amendola (who has scored more points than Welker in the same # of games this season). You can "win" a trade without completely screwing the other guy. And in my opinion in an "expert league" like this is supposed to be, the only trades that should be happening is ones that are relatively even and generally benefit both teams.
I'm not sure if you're saying I screwed Pat's dad in this trade or not. Either way, I think a case can be made for why Lynch and D. Manning for Jackson isn't bad. Now, what happened from there on out is out of my control. The initial trade WAS NOT D. Manning for S-JAX. So it wasn't a scrub for a stud. I think there are some things that are being WAY overstated, and some things that are being WAY understated.
ReplyDeleteAnyhow, I leave it at that. It's to Pat's discretion, I trust that he'll do what he believes is best for the league, this year and for the ones to come.
No, no, no. I wasn't saying you screwed Pat's dad. Sorry if it came accross that way. I was just speaking hypathetically, responding to you saying no trade should be vetoed.
ReplyDeleteI don't think there was anything wrong with the initial trade. I'm guessing that come the end of the season it will be pretty clear that you won huge (the initial trade, asside from the whole Lynch thing), but there's nothing wrong with that. I was actually kind of ticked that I didn't know Tim was so low on S-jax cause I would have gone after him myself. Of course I didn't have quite the same firepower as you (no crappy bears D-backs on my bench), but I at least would have tried to work something out.
No, I'm not mad at ya over the trade at all. I just think that in a competative league like this, somehting that has the potential to throw a significant amount of imbalance into the league because of a simple (rookie) mistake should be avoided, and maybe prevented.
In the end it may turn out to be no big deal, but I do think it has the potential to be a big thing. We'll see.
Josh and John, and, whoever else cares...
ReplyDeleteThis is the way I view the situation
1. David trades D. Manning and M. Lynch for S. Jackson to my Dad.
2. My Dad drops M. Lynch.
3. The lowest numbered waiver who put in a claim for M. Lynch received him.
In my mind it's really as simple as that. None of those events were unfair in themselves. The ironic thing was only that David effectively received SJax for Manning. However, that was only the result of three events where each in themselves were legal, and acceptable.
Now, would I have dropped Lynch? Never. That's why I called my Dad. The reason it was fine for Lynch to be dropped though is simply that Lynch is not on the Can't Cut list. There is a system in place to make sure teams don't drop the best players where they would be an obvious mistake to drop. Lynch was not on that list, and ironically David picked him up.
Josh,
I'm confused as to there you're getting these seemingly official terms "Beginner's League Trade" vs. "Competitive League Trade". I didn't see any handbook passed around grading what makes a trade competitive or not. Also, since there are enough people, or "experts" (including myself) who don't think the original trade was at a "beginner's" level", why not concede that maybe it was not all that bad?
Like I said, I wouldn't have done it. But I also wouldn't have traded Welker away to you for what you gave. Does that mean I can say you made a "beginner's trade"? No. In fact, Tony and I had discussed that trade quite a bit before it happened, and after he did it, I responded "whatever dude", somewhat disapprovingly. Maybe I should've labeled it better, and graded it a "Beginner's Level Trade", and kicked Tony out of the league for not making an "Expert Trade" like the rest of us. I don't know. Or maybe we should put all trades to vote?
I'm going to say no. Trades will only be vetoed if they are collusive. And people should continue to reap the consequences of their shrewd, or bad judgment.
My daily recommendation for blog commenting-
ReplyDeleteMake sure you read all the posts and read them fully before commenting back.
I think I made it pretty clear that I don't think the initial trade was that bad. But it's kind of hard to argue that trading Stephen Jackson for D. Manning is a "beginner's league trade". (And it's hard to argue the fact that in your dad's mind, that was the trade he was making, since he obviously couldn't care less about lynch in the deal.)
As for the Welker trade...again, I commented on that already. You may have thought it was a "beginner's trade", and even a bad one for Tony, but as I stated above, Danny Amendola has outscorred Welker for the year (in the same number of games). He plays on the crappy Rams who will continue to get buttloads of KOs every game which means plenty of opportunities for him to keep scorring the way he has to this point. So essentially, up to this point the Tony's have gotten Hightower for free. (Hightower who has scorred more than 10 points in every game but one so far this year. How many of your RBs can you say that about?)
Obviously up front I thought it was a good trade for me, but I was aware at the time that if Amendola turns out to be for real, it could be a net loss for me. Just because you don't recognize the value of a guy doesn't mean he doesn't have any. (Unless his last name is Manning, and his first isn't Peyton or Eli.)
Who's Stephen Jackson? I thought we were talking about Steven Jackson.
ReplyDeleteI guess I don't mind this situation too much. I'm playing Pattymakers this week.
I just don't know if Pattymakers considered the keeper element of this league when trading SJax for so little.