Is this trade passable? (Fantasy Football)

[beantownboy171]

Ok, im the league manager in my fantasy football league, and some of my members if feel are sort of making an under the table deal. And I wanted to know if you guys thought this deal was one sided enough to take action for.

Its a standard espn league.

The trade:

Marquese Colston
Wes Welker
Matt Ryan
Derrick Mason

for

Steve Smith (Car)
Joe Flaco
Brandon Stokely
Michael Bush

I think the trade is one sided towards the first team. Now it is a league between friends, but theres also money on the line (small amount, but enough.)

[yall hate]

the first team wins by a lot. 

Ryan is much better then Flacco

Steve Smith in theory is the best WR, but Delhomme sucks this year, and Smith has been bad.  Colston is probably better.

Welker is definitely better than Stokely.

Mason v. Bush is a semi wash, but Bush will have some use for the next two weeks or so, until McFadden gets back.

It's a bad deal.

[Donoghus]

As it currently stands, the party due to get Colston, Welker & Co. is getting the better end of it.

However, I don't think its lopsided enough to justify rejecting the trade.  It certainly is treading a line but an argument could be made for the other guy (getting some talent, its just underachieving right now)

I wouldn't veto it.

[nickagneta]

While its [dang] close to a dis-allowable trade, and maybe if it is shady it is meant to look just barely dis-allowable, I think you need to approve it as some FF owners just aren't very knowledgeable and could look at this trade as even.

Now if you are dealing with two guys that really know their stuff and the team that is receiving the Colston/Welker package has been doing well and the team receiving the Smith/Flaco package is doing poorly, I might reject it.

[Donoghus]

While its [dang] close to a dis-allowable trade, and maybe if it is shady it is meant to look just barely dis-allowable, I think you need to approve it as some FF owners just aren't very knowledgeable and could look at this trade as even.

Now if you are dealing with two guys that really know their stuff and the team that is receiving the Colston/Welker package has been doing well and the team receiving the Smith/Flaco package is doing poorly, I might reject it.

That would be the one variable that would make me look long and hard about vetoing the trade

[beantownboy171]

While its [dang] close to a dis-allowable trade, and maybe if it is shady it is meant to look just barely dis-allowable, I think you need to approve it as some FF owners just aren't very knowledgeable and could look at this trade as even.

Now if you are dealing with two guys that really know their stuff and the team that is receiving the Colston/Welker package has been doing well and the team receiving the Smith/Flaco package is doing poorly, I might reject it.

Well the two are both very knowlegable and have played fantasy football in the past.

The team getting the better package is 5-0 and the team getting the worse package is 1-3.

I am just worried that the fact that the team thats getting the better side is undefeated is making me biased

[nickagneta]

While its [dang] close to a dis-allowable trade, and maybe if it is shady it is meant to look just barely dis-allowable, I think you need to approve it as some FF owners just aren't very knowledgeable and could look at this trade as even.

Now if you are dealing with two guys that really know their stuff and the team that is receiving the Colston/Welker package has been doing well and the team receiving the Smith/Flaco package is doing poorly, I might reject it.

Well the two are both very knowlegable and have played fantasy football in the fast.

The team getting the better package is 5-0 and the team getting the worse package is 1-3.

I am just worried that the fact that the team thats getting the better side is undefeated is making me biased

I would reject it in a heartbeat then. The team trading Colston/Welker/et al could be making a deal to split a little something after the season in exchange for this deal. You would hope among friends this wouldn't happen but it's not unheard of.

[Donoghus]

While its [dang] close to a dis-allowable trade, and maybe if it is shady it is meant to look just barely dis-allowable, I think you need to approve it as some FF owners just aren't very knowledgeable and could look at this trade as even.

Now if you are dealing with two guys that really know their stuff and the team that is receiving the Colston/Welker package has been doing well and the team receiving the Smith/Flaco package is doing poorly, I might reject it.

Well the two are both very knowlegable and have played fantasy football in the past.

The team getting the better package is 5-0 and the team getting the worse package is 1-3.

I am just worried that the fact that the team thats getting the better side is undefeated is making me biased

If that's the case, as Nick just said, I'd veto it too.  Something's not right there and a trade like that going in favor of a 5-0 team is certain to create an uproar among the other teams.

[beantownboy171]

Well here's the thing, the original trade the was originally passed(and i kept this out because i wanted to see if the final trade was fair.) was as follows.

Thomas Jones
Joe Flacco
Steve Smith
Michael Bush
Brandon Stokely

for

Matt Forte
Matt Ryan
Marquese Colston
Wes Welker
Derrick Mason

And I passed it, because i saw it as close enough, with forte struggling and jones playing well. It was passed before this weeks game. But then Jones had a 32 fantasy point game and forte had a poor weekend. And they then announced that going into they had a clause in the trade that if forte continued to play poorly, they could switch the running backs back. And I don't see why the 1-3 team would ever agree to such a clause

And now i don't know what to do.

[Donoghus]

Well here's the thing, the original trade the was originally past(and i kept this out because i wanted to see if the final trade was fair.) was as follows.

Thomas Jones
Joe Flacco
Steve Smith
Michael Bush
Brandon Stokely

for

Matt Forte
Matt Ryan
Marquese Colston
Wes Welker
Derrick Mason

And I passed it, because i saw it as close enough, with forte struggling and jones playing well. It was passed before this weeks game. But then Jones had a 32 fantasy point game and forte had a poor weekend. And they then announced that going into they had a clause in the trade that if forte continued to play poorly, they could switch the running backs back.

And now i don't know what to do.

That certainly doesn't make the trade look any better, IMO.

[yall hate]

does the league routinely allow secret agreements about trades? 

seems like bs to me.


and adding in the Rb's makes this deal even more lopsided, as Forte is a much better player than Jones. 

[RebusRankin]

It seems one sided.

[Roy Hobbs]

I'm not expert on fantasy trades, but I'd vote to veto that one, even if there wasn't money involved.

[Aeacus]

I'd vote no, that clause about the RBs makes it even more unbalanced for the better team.  Thats a clear example of dumping your good players to a friend.  Especially with money involved.