Help Center
|
| Guest (Login) Help Center |
|
The Touch of Class League |
| *King of the Hill | 
Date Wed Apr 12 9:15:29 p.m. ET 2006
|
| Am I the only person who looked at that trade between the steam rollers and the cats and said "huh?" That trade seems kind of one sided, doesn't it?? |
| *Playmakers 3 |
Date Wed Apr 12 9:41:03 p.m. ET 2006
|
| Well sometimes when you want someone bad enough you have to just go get them. It seemed a bit 1 sided to me but I am sure people would say that about the trade I made to get the chance at Bush(maybe Marooney). I don't think that much of Benson but a Benson fan might say it would pay off in the long haul. I don't have a problem with it. |
| *King of the Hill |
Date Wed Apr 12 9:50:33 p.m. ET 2006
|
|
| I had Benson in another league too, but I cant imagine anyone giving up 3 picks for him, regardless of how big a fan they are of him... |
| Can't Touch the CATS |
Date Wed Apr 12 11:01:09 p.m. ET 2006
|
| Only two picks were given up in the deal, the 3rd one was a swap of picks in the same round. |
| *King of the Hill |
Date Thu Apr 13 11:20:57 a.m. ET 2006
|
|
| Well the way I looked at it was, the 3 picks were for Benson and the RB he gave up was for your 2 round pick...either way, a RB and and a first and third round pick for Benson still seems like a lot to give up...I am not sure that even the Vikings would give up that much for him 
|
| Can't Touch the CATS |
Date Thu Apr 13 2:25:01 p.m. ET 2006
|
|
| I think we need to keep in mind that the draft picks are going to be made from a pool of players that have supposedly had the 370 BEST players already selected from it. The first round pick is the 1.12 (Benson was drafted with the 1.4 pick last year) and I think it is misleading to not look at the deal as a whole rather than the parts. To not take into consideration the rosters of the two teams making the deal is part of the trade value as well. Beson has/had more value to the team with TJones already on their roster than th eother 10 teams. In fact, when I decided I'd deal Benson, the main reason that I started the talks first with the Steamrollers was because they HAD TJones on the roster and I figured Benson would be worth more to him. Another thing to consider is that TJones has never successfully held on to a starting job as the #1 RB when any semblence of compitition for the position was there. It would not be shocking to see Benson beat out TJones for the starting spot in Chicago. Steve and I went back and forth with several variations of this offer before settling on it, so it's not like it wasn't well thought out. The pros and cons looked at by both teams before making the final deal. Just some of my rationale behind the trade. I'll let Steve speak for himself if he feels the need/desire to on his side of it. Thanks, -bill (proud owner of the 8-18 that is on the rise) 
|
| *King of the Hill |
Date Fri Apr 14 10:47:35 a.m. ET 2006
|
|
| Like Dave, I wont shed any tears if the trade goes through, I just wondered why someone would trade 3 picks for a fumbling problem child who suffered 2 knee injuries that kept him out of all but 1 game last year. 
|
| *King of the Hill |
Date Fri Apr 14 11:28:34 a.m. ET 2006
|
|
| Like Dave, I wont shed any tears if the trade goes through, I just wondered why someone would trade 3 picks for a fumbling problem child who suffered 2 knee injuries that limited him to only one start last year.
|
| Can't Touch the CATS |
Date Fri Apr 14 11:54:18 a.m. ET 2006
|
|
| Well, I'm not going to say that I'm not happy with the way the trade ended up working out. I figured with this team's past record I needed to retool it with draft picks. I didn't realize until after I took the team over that the rosters were expanding, so that was an added bous for me. With the deals I've made so far, I have 5 of the top 25 picks in the draft and should be able to shore up my defense after using the number 2 pick to get my #3 RB. At least that is the plan right now. -bill |
| *SteamRollers |
Date Fri Apr 14 8:11:46 p.m. ET 2006
|
| Paul, The draft picks are the 1.12,2.01, and 3.12 and I received the 2.11 pick back. The top offensive rookies and the top few defensive players will be gone by the time the 1.12 comes up. These are NOT exactly premium picks, and would only net me some depth on my team. It's more important to me to lock up the Chicago RB's since T. Jones isn't exactly reliable and I have McAllister coming back from injury. As far as Benson, he was a top 4 pick in every one of these drafts last year, got to camp late and got injured. He was a top 5 NFL draft pick who's being paid as a starter, and I expect him to be starting at some point. T. Jones was healthy and motivated and played well, I'm not convinced he'll do it for long. Player's values change all the time, if T. Jones breaks his hand "reaching for the phone" tonight, Benson's value will soar. As far as the draft picks, I'll gladly give these same picks anytime for a player of Benson's talent. Everyone has their own opinions of an individual player's values, and only time will tell who's right. Apparently some value rookie draft picks more than I do, as I view any pick after the top half of round 1 as iffy, and there's not much available on the ww that would help my team, as I'm happy with my defensive players. So that's why I traded the draft picks, and I'll let my record in this league speak for itself. I also don't believe because a trade "seems a little one-sided" as you said is enough to question it. If I viewed every trade I see that way I'd question most every one, as I wouldn't make most trades I see one way or another myself. Dave Johnson wanted the trade reviewed for the exact opposite reason you did. (unfair the OTHER way). There's no collusion, the competitive balance of the league isn't compromised, and in the end both teams should benefit. Seems much ado about nothing. Steve SteamRollers |
| *King of the Hill |
Date Fri Apr 14 10:04:28 p.m. ET 2006
|
|
| Steve, The only reason why I asked Kirk to review it was because 2 other owners agreed with me that the trade seemed one sided (one way or another). If that seems out of line to you, i am sorry. Most trades, including this one, i dont care about...mainly because they have no effect on me. If no one had agreed with me, I would not have taken it any further. Regardless of anyones motives, I just thought that someone should take an unbiased look at it. Paul KOTH |
| *SteamRollers |
Date Fri Apr 14 10:24:36 p.m. ET 2006
|
| The only owner I was aware of that thought the trade should be looked at was D. Johnson, and he didn't agree with you, he in fact, thought the trade was unfair the OTHER way, which is totally DISagreeing with your interpretation of the trade. That in itself tells me it's fair. Seems to me you simply can't have it both ways. The other 3 owners that responded to your email to the commish had no problem. Steve SteamRollers |
| *King of the Hill |
Date Sat Apr 15 12:04:16 a.m. ET 2006
|
|
| Regardless of why he thought it was unequal, he still agreed that it was unequal. And the other owner was Playmakers who stated "It seemed a bit 1 sided to me...". And either way, like I said, if it goes through, which it is, I wont shed any tears over it. I am not however going to stand aside and let something that I feel needs to be reviewed, not get that review. I am sorry you have a problem with that, but that seems to be your problem alone, NONE of the other owners objected to me asking for said review, just that they did not have a problem with the trade. Paul KOTH |
| Commissioner |
Date Sat Apr 15 10:28:55 a.m. ET 2006
|
| I have no problem with the deal. Also keep this in mind... 6. The league has the ability to call for a trade veto within 48 hours of the trade becoming official during the regular season and 72 hours of the trade becoming official during the off-season. Making a case to call for a veto vote must consist of something more substantial than "I don't agree with the trade and I want to vote against it." The owner calling for the veto should post a rationale on the league message board and send out an email to the commissioner for consideration by the entire league. Once this occurs, the trade will be voted on by a 12-member panel of the GLFFL's Board of Directors, consisting of the owners who have the longest tenure and most representation in the GLFFL. This way, deals can be decided by individuals who are unbiased since they are not a part of the league in question. In the event that members of the Board of Directors are involved in the trade in question, they must abstain from the voting procedure. Trades will be vetoed if 60 percent (seven panelists) vote for a reversal within the 48-72 hour period. |