cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Cancel

Help Community

Announcements
Yahoo Help Community is also available in Spanish and Chinese.

Fair trade or no?

SOLVED
Highlighted
Reliable 'Hoo

Fair trade or no?

What would you do as commissioner if this trade happened in your league?

Aaron Rodgers for Sammy Watkins and Jacquizz Rodgers.
I know without any context this looks like a horrible trade, so let me give you a little background. The Aaron Rodgers owner also has Stafford and Siemian. He hasn't been pleased with Rodgers performances the first two weeks and made it known to the league that he was done with Rodgers and was putting him up for trade in return for a WR or RB. He has good starters at each position (Fournette, CJ Anderson, Sanders, and Tyreek Hill), but has no depth outside of that. Once he accepted the trade offer, it quickly received enough votes to go up for a commissioner ruling. With that, I asked the league for more info as to why they were objecting to the trade. There were a couple reasons. 1) they felt the trade was one sided, with very little compensation for arguably the best QB (even if he hasn't been playing like it), and 2) the other team becomes a powerhouse with the addition of A. Rodgers. (His team before the trade was Luck and Manning, Gordon, Ajayi, Cohen, Martin, and J Rodgers, K Allen, Hopkins, Parker, Watkins, and John Brown, Ertz, Broncos D, and Tavecchio)
The Rodgers owner chimed in to state that he has no intention of using Rodgers the rest of the year, even as a bye week replacement. Furthermore, he stated that he received 3 offers, and he felt this was the best one. One of the other offers was for Carr and M Lee in exchange for Rodgers and Eifert. While that offer may have been better compensation, Carr does him no good with his mind set on rolling out Stafford and Siemian the rest of the year. Plus he was asking for more in return than what he accepted. I have no idea what the 3rd offer was, but I guess that's irrelevant.
When I look at these trades, my main concern is if there is collusion. I'm pretty sure there isn't any collusion going on, as these two don't even know eachother outside of this league. I think the main thing is the Rodgers owner just has a weird sense on valuing fantasy players, as not only did he bench Rodgers in week 2 in what we all thought would be a shootout, he drafted Fornette in the 1st round with Jordy, AJ Green, Freeman, Howard, and Gordon all still on the board. Secondly I look at team needs. Rodgers owner felt like he didn't need him, as he felt he was underperforming and probably felt he was loaded with the other two guys. The Rodgers recepient was in need of a QB with Luck still on the shelf for another 3 weeks or so and Eli playing horribly.
I agree that it's a bit one sided, but I'm leaning towards letting it go through, as there's no collusion and the guy getting the "raw end" is happy with the compensation he's receiving.
What are your thoughts? Veto? Or approve it?
3 ACCEPTED SOLUTIONS

Accepted Solutions
Reliable 'Hoo

Re: Fair trade or no?

It's a pretty one sided deal, that's for sure. Watkins could become more productive with a little more time, Goff hasn't been playing horrible now that Fisher is gone. Gurley is running like a true RB1, which means the passing game will open up. If he stays healthy, that narrows the gap between this trade. 

 

Jacquizz is a solid RB and if something were to happen to Martin after he comes back, JRodgers has value. Especially on an explosive offense like TB. 

 

It's a bit lopsided but the guys is just making a futures bet while unloading a player he didn't want, even if that's a player no one else would give up on.

 

If there's no collusion and both teams agreed to the terms, which they have, I see no reason to veto it. 

Sports All-star

Re: Fair trade or no?

To be honest, you answered your own question just when I saw the length of it.  I only read the first couple sentences and thats all I needed to know.  Both teams had a need and both teams got it answered... good enough for me.  No need to veto

Contributin' 'Hoo

Re: Fair trade or no?

If there is no collusion, don't veto it. Don't be that guy.....

3 REPLIES
Reliable 'Hoo

Re: Fair trade or no?

It's a pretty one sided deal, that's for sure. Watkins could become more productive with a little more time, Goff hasn't been playing horrible now that Fisher is gone. Gurley is running like a true RB1, which means the passing game will open up. If he stays healthy, that narrows the gap between this trade. 

 

Jacquizz is a solid RB and if something were to happen to Martin after he comes back, JRodgers has value. Especially on an explosive offense like TB. 

 

It's a bit lopsided but the guys is just making a futures bet while unloading a player he didn't want, even if that's a player no one else would give up on.

 

If there's no collusion and both teams agreed to the terms, which they have, I see no reason to veto it. 

Sports All-star

Re: Fair trade or no?

To be honest, you answered your own question just when I saw the length of it.  I only read the first couple sentences and thats all I needed to know.  Both teams had a need and both teams got it answered... good enough for me.  No need to veto

Contributin' 'Hoo

Re: Fair trade or no?

If there is no collusion, don't veto it. Don't be that guy.....