Help Center
|
| Guest (Login) Help Center |
|
The Beer & Peanuts League |
| TIG BITTIES | 
Date Mon Nov 14 9:20:25 a.m. PT 2005
|
| it seems to have vanished???
|
| CUTTER |
Date Tue Nov 15 12:32:56 p.m. PT 2005
|
| I understand the concept of trading TO this year. But I worry that allowing a trade of a calibur player such as TO with 4 years contract for much lesser players with only one more contract year may have a detramental effect on the future of this keeper league. I just hope everyone is planning on coming back next year and not trading away their future. |
| TIG BITTIES |
Date Tue Nov 15 1:45:25 p.m. PT 2005
|
|
| i dont get it....commish, your basically saying its an unfair trade because i will be having a great receiver next year??? vandals and i have been going back and forth with trade proposals for the last week or so. we both figured out one, that was in mine and his opinion fair. he wanted receivers because he wanted to make a good playoff push. ive seen unfair trades in this league before...but this is as fair as it gets. 2 waiver wire receivers....im insulted;-) jerry porter is always a second half producer and coles is just having qb problems. im not even the one who proposed this trade. Vandals, you have to back us up here. ps...im being partially sarcastic but still want to get my point across pss...scared you guys there with the holmes pickup huh... 
|
| Vandals |
Date Tue Nov 15 4:42:09 p.m. PT 2005
|
| As an owner who has never played before I suppose I should be thankful the Commissoner is looking out for my interests. However, I am not. I write that acknowledging there may be things I don't understand. What I do understand is that I've lost three games where one player may have made the difference. Two of those games were against teams who now lead the league and seem to be the only ones opposed to the deal (not implying anything but it is an observation). Had the deal gone through I still wouldn't have won this week and that is fair enough. My receiving corps is pretty poor free agency and waivers not withstanding (seems like all the good players are idle on other teams, but that is the point right?) There are six teams ahead of me in the standings and the average point value thier receiving corps produce are: 8, 8, 6.5, 6, 8, 7 Mine is 5, including the best receiver in the game who doesn't score anymore. Take him away and my guys get me three points. Adding Coles and Porter raise that average to five, so I hardly see that I'm losing that much or terribly disadvantaged. Oh by the way, both receivers would be on my roster next year as opposed to only Owens, who will probably play but might not. He might even play really well, he might not. You could argue it would give Tig an awesome receiving corps and unbalance the league. Yeah, I thought of that, and considering his corps of backs is only a little better than my receiving corps, it kind of evens out. Anyway, what's done is done. Barring some kind of epiphany as to the logic of your decision I'm going to remain miffed, and searching for WRs who can actually play. |
| Commissioner |
Date Tue Nov 15 11:27:04 p.m. PT 2005
|
| I didn't make the decision lightly regarding this trade but all in all I think it was pretty unbalanced in the long run. Granted, the Vandals need wr help right now but I see at least a few guys on the waiver wire right now that would fill in nicely and produce as well as Coles or Porter. Porter may produce well in the second half and he may not. Other than the one week he spiked to 27 points, he's been right at 5 ppg all year long. Coles is pretty much the same. So, in essence Terrel Owens would be acquired for no cost to Tig. Owens' suspension makes the situation a little more tricky but if you take a step back, it's just not a fair trade. Even after missing the last two games, Owens has almost as many points as Porter/Coles combined. Vandals, if you want some help with wr I'll gladly offer my advice on available free agents. If you guys want to work up another trade that is a little more balanced in terms of star power that's fine too. An unfair trade has to be viewed in many ways and the most important factor I see in this one is that it wouldn't cost Tig anything to get Owens. You can't say that the two wr's points add up to Owens therefore it's equal because an owner can only start two wr's total. Owens + wr "X" from the waiver wire is going to be better than Coles/Porter. Owens is a go-to, #1 wr and Coles/Porter are #3 guy's that won't even crack most fantasy team's lineup's barring injury. Now, to segue somewhat, this type of thing is why I suggested the roster size be reduced this year. I think we should all consider it again next year as I think it's obvious the pickings are very slim most of the time. I would much rather see owners having the opportunity to put together the best team possible each week rather than pawing through the scrap heap looking for a miracle. All the while, many, many players are collecting dust on rosters. | |
| TIG BITTIES |
Date Tue Nov 15 11:45:39 p.m. PT 2005
Edited Tue Nov 15 11:48:12 p.m. PT 2005
|
|
| can i just get more than two opinions on this....i'd hate to have a trade not to go through just because of one or two peoples opinion(mainly the comish, no offense) but this is a keeper league rite. and the owners are aware of their own actions...so if vandals wants to trade for a run now rather than later...then to his his own...rite? and whos to say that owens wont be a bust next year(dont make me talk about jamal lewis) and coles or porter have outstanding years. look at santana moss....i almost never started him last year, now he's a must start. im just saying that you never know. im sure vandals is aware of who he is getting rid of and who he is getting in return. bottom line is that i dont think that you guys have a big enough defense to vetoe that trade. i think that you just might not like TIG BITTIES 
|
| CUTTER |
Date Wed Nov 16 1:56:36 a.m. PT 2005
|
|
| I for one definitely like the Tig Bitties! The last time I voiced my opinion , I got cussed out, so thanks for going easy on me Tig!...lol Careful with those 2 for 1 trades guys! and especially those that help me this year and help you next year. That`s a double no - no in fantasy football! Everyone should see the logic in that! The commish and I aren`t concerned about this trade because we are near the lead... we are concerned because we plan on playing next year and the next..etc... |
| Queen Creek Dust Devils |
Date Wed Nov 16 12:42:46 p.m. PT 2005
|
| I know I may be chiming in late here but you asked for more than 2 opinions. IMO, this is a dynasty league, which by definition is a league of the future just as much as today. Also IMO, T. Owens for Porter/Coles just doesn't make sense when talking about the future. He may be gone for the season, but after that, he could be that #1 WR in the league again, when comparing that towards the #35 and #36 WR in the league, it doesnt' add up for me. Dynasty = Future Just one man's opinion. |
| Vandals |
Date Wed Nov 16 7:18:29 p.m. PT 2005
|
|
| I'm curious as to how the trade unbalances things in the long term? What did you take into account? What would have been fair? From my perspective, it appears your encouragement is to keep a now worthless receiver because he has potential. "Don't worry if it means you won't win any more games this year, he could be great next year!" What if Owens, who is kind of old, and a problem child, can't find a home? I trust everyone is going to offer me significant trade value for his potential. I'm already excited at the prospects of weighing the proposals! As a matter of fact, now that you know I might consider trades, I should be getting offers momentarily. Afterall he is the best receiver in the league. Dynasty league- look to the future men! Sure, I'm not too proud to accept free agency/line up advice from anyone willing to give it. So I appreciate the offer! This is my first time doing FF. I was skeptical of the concept to begin with and am not particularly impressed with the way this is turning out. Anyway, I'm game to see how this plays out. |
| Queen Creek Dust Devils |
Date Fri Nov 18 5:51:41 a.m. PT 2005
|
|
| My post was regarding value and value for the future. The Problem Child (T.O.) scored over 24 points in 3 different games this season, and eclipsed 11 points(his OFF game) in every game but 1. That's a serious horse when you're talking about production, now or in the future. No offense intended to the owners of these players btw, just the facts. Comparing that to Porter, who had 1 great game at 27 pts, and another off game by TOs standards at 12 pts, and the rest of the games, he didn't do much. And to that of L. Coles, who has two 12 pt games and a bunch of 5,6,7 pt type games. These are the type of numbers that can be found on the waiver wire each and every week. I always ask myself when contemplating trades in FF, would J. Porters or L. Coles future look that bright to say that they'd help you win a championship next season, over say a T.O. in the line up? IMO, no way Jose, not really even worth thinkin about to me. But I could understand a serious hatred towards the Problem Child as he is behaving like a total KNOB lately, and someone would want to cut bait with him, but that might not be in the best interests of the league. Sorry to be long winded, possible waiver wire WRs, could be Amani Toomer he had 13 pts last week, Marty Booker had 12 pts last week, Lee Evans had 18 even, I take no responsibility if these 3 suck for the remainder of the season HAHA! Good luck folks, The Devils are bringing the DUST! 
|
| Denver Bighorns |
Date Sat Nov 19 7:31:53 p.m. PT 2005
|
| Honestly, I'm amazed you guys blocked this. When you stopped it, I thought you were doing it because you thought Vandals was ripping off the other guy, not the other way around. Owens is out for the year. So his value is zero right now. He's also fairly old. He's also not playing for the Eagles and you don't know where he'll land -- if anywhere. Randy Moss is an awesome player, but there was surprisingly little interest around the league when the Vikes tried to trade him. T.O. has proven himself to be a huge distraction to two separate teams. I suppose someone else will want him, but you never know. If some team does pick him up, it could be a team like the Jets right now, which is basically starting a 4th string QB and will not be able to get enough passes even to a receiver like T.O. And going back to the Moss example, everyone thought he was going to light up the league in Oakland. We all know his talent level, but right now, he just isn't that great. Porter and Coles are currently underperforming, but they've both got potential. When Coles was catching passes from Pennington, he was a borderline elite WR. I remember because I've had him for years in another league. Porter has got great talent and great potential. So I'm a little weirded out that you guys have made the decision you have. Anyway, the business of voting on trades is bullshit. Players have responsibility for their own decisions. With the exceptions of cases where one guy clearly doesn't know what he's doing and the other guy is totally scamming him (and this clearly does not apply in this case), all trades should always be approved. | |
| Commissioner |
Date Sat Nov 19 11:28:42 p.m. PT 2005
|
| Well, we won't know until next week if Owens is actually out for the year so that isn't an argument at this point. Coles and Porter are waiver wire guy's. Coles has had his moments in the past but in general, he's just not in the same league as Owens. Owens is the best wr in football and trading him for nothing just can't be justified in a keeper league. | |
| Vandals |
Date Sun Nov 20 5:29:38 p.m. PT 2005
|
|
| Yeah, I see now how poor a player Porter is:angry: |
| Commissioner |
Date Sun Nov 20 5:53:50 p.m. PT 2005
|
| ...and how good was Coles? Porter has averaged 8.2 ppg this year, Owens may yet still play and you put up 100+ points and will win this week. Not getting Porter didn't affect you in any way. | |
| Denver Bighorns |
Date Mon Nov 21 11:50:18 a.m. PT 2005
|
| The likelihood of Owens playing again this year is very low. So okay, maybe his value's not at zero, but it's close. It's certainly zero until this issue is resolved. Waiver wire guys? Give me a break. | |
| Vandals |
Date Mon Nov 21 4:06:44 p.m. PT 2005
|
|
| They would have been good enough to give me about 30 pts at receiver as opposed to the 15 or so I have now. I'm playing to win. I hope you are right about Owens, but if he's a bust (I notice no one is offering me deals setting them up for the future) or Porter and Coles break out next year (when I'm again scavenging the draft and free agency), you won't hear the end of it. |
| Commissioner |
Date Mon Nov 21 4:37:16 p.m. PT 2005
|
| Up until this week, Porter and Coles weren't even top 30 wide receivers. Kevin Curtis, Eddie Kennison, etc. have put up better numbers than both and I wouldn't allow a Terrel Owens for Eddie Kennison trade either. Believe it or not, you'll be thankful for this in the long run. | |
| Denver Bighorns |
Date Tue Nov 22 8:39:17 a.m. PT 2005
|
| Both of these guys (esp. Coles) are in bad situations that will pass. The Jets' QB situation is the worst I've ever seen any team get into. No WR is going to put up lots of points when catching passes from Brooks Bollinger, an over-the-hill Testaverde and Kliff Kingsbury. Once they get Pennington back (or some other reasonable QB), Coles will be good again. Compare Burress's numbers now to when he was catching passes from Kordell and Kordell was sucking. The Raiders' passing game is not exactly clicking either. Don't know why, but Moss is not at his best either. Porter was an elite receiver the year they went to the Super Bowl and may very well be again. | |
| TIG BITTIES |
Date Tue Nov 22 10:22:11 a.m. PT 2005
|
|
| dont want to stir anything up but those points from coles and porter would have put him closer if not in playoff position.
|
| Commissioner |
Date Tue Nov 22 10:38:32 p.m. PT 2005
Edited Tue Nov 22 10:49:21 p.m. PT 2005
|
| That's true, it would have got him a little closer but I would have been a lot more inclined to put through the trade if you'd offered him one of your many rb's under contract as that would actually help him this year as well as next. I think the 0 points he got from having to start Frank Gore was more of a hit than his wr spot. The Vandals have a lot of rebuilding to do in next year's draft and I think doing that around Owens will give him a lot better start than around Porter. As I asked before, does Kennison or Curtis for Owens sound like a fair trade? If not, then Porter shouldn't either. As it stands now, he's going to have to draft two running backs, most likely with his first two picks. Maybe his third pick too, if there's any depth to be had. So, by the third, fourth or maybe later round will there be a viable wr to compliment Porter to make up for what he's losing in Owens? Owens is averaging 17.7 ppg and will be dominant next year if not the remainder of this year. Porter and Coles combined are at 16.3. Of course, you can only play one wr at a time so Coles is irrelevant, especially considering the Vandals already has Mason scoring more than Coles. Basically, Owens is twice the fantasy player that Porter is so it's just not a fair trade. | |
| Denver Bighorns |
Date Wed Nov 23 2:26:50 p.m. PT 2005
|
| Not to beat this thing to death, but you seem to forget that Owens is out for the year. By itself, that takes away a huge amount of his value. The other thing is that, once again, it really ought to be up to the players to decide what's fair. | |
| CUTTER |
Date Wed Nov 23 3:40:12 p.m. PT 2005
|
|
| You either have owner voting or a commish on trades. I think a commish is best if you have one who cares .. and we do. We should be thankful... comparing to other leagues with bias commissioners or voting when half the owners have little knowledge or just don`t care. Nobody will agree on every issue.. give the guy some slack! |
| Denver Bighorns |
Date Thu Nov 24 4:19:12 a.m. PT 2005
|
| I understand that voting occurs in most leagues, although I've never really seen it as necessary. I've played since 1999 and I've only seen one trade that I thought was bullshit. Mostly, I think voting on trades violates players' rights and does more harm than good. Even if you disagree with us, I think it's hard to deny that Vandals, TB and I have made a very strong case for why this trade works for Vandals. If you can make a strong case on both sides, then a trade should go through. If Owens was not suspended and Vandals was giving him up for Marshall Faulk because he thought Faulk was still putting up the numbers he did in 2000 or so, then stopping the trade might make sense. But Owens has had zero value for the last couple of games and will have none for the rest of the year. His future is very much in question. Coles and Porter are players who have been in the top 12 to 15 in the past, who may get there again, and as Vandals pointed out, people are not exactly lining up at his door offering trades of players of what the commish would consider to be comparable value. Vandals ought to be allowed to make his own decision. If the commish wants to stop the trade, I guess there isn't anything we can do about it. I just hope that he's a little more careful about stopping trades in the future. | |
| TIG BITTIES |
Date Thu Nov 24 2:59:52 p.m. PT 2005
|
|
| he traded for T.O. for a thomas jones and a future pick(i think it was a 3rd rounder)....i dont get it? my trade wasnt as fair as that? or was maybe because of how MY team would look next year....db has a good point. if there is a strong point on both sides. then their shouldnt be a problem especially when both owners want the trade. |
| Commissioner |
Date Thu Nov 24 4:43:05 p.m. PT 2005
|
| Before I explain my point of view, I want an anwer to whether or not Eddie Kennison or Kevin Curtis for Terrel Owens is a fair trade? | |
| TIG BITTIES |
Date Sun Nov 27 6:47:46 p.m. PT 2005
|
|
| before i answer that...i wouldnt trade porter/coles for kennison/curtis...so obviously i wouldnt trade kennison/curtis for owens. and why do you keep bringing them up. curtis is or was only doing good because holt and bruce were injured. |
| Commissioner |
Date Mon Nov 28 12:20:21 a.m. PT 2005
|
| The point is, Curtis and Kennison are still ahead of Porter in fantasy points this year and I don't think anyone would consider either of them fair compensation for a player like Owens. If they're putting up more points than Porter, then why would Porter for Owens be a fair trade? I think your opinion of Porter may be a little inflated since you own him. I appreciate the fact that you didn't propose the trade initially but that doesn't mean it was a fair trade and I have to look at the big picture. |