Q:  Our commish put a halt to the two team trade.

Bears, DST DST CHI - Traded from BUCKS
Echemandu, Adimchinobe RB HOU - Traded from BUCKS
Johnson, Chad WR CIN - Traded from BUCKS
Marshall, Brandon WR DEN - Traded from BUCKS

for

Curtis, Kevin WR PHI - Traded from Purple Hayes
Heap, Todd TE BAL - Traded from Purple Hayes
Lewis, Jamal RB CLE - Traded from Purple Hayes
Titans, DST DST TEN - Traded from Purple Hayes

In our scoring system it’s 246pts for 246pts.

I stated my case that

CJ/Curtis are a difference of 98 pts to 89.
Both d’s are a wash 79 to 78
and finally
B. Marshall/A.E for J. Lewis/Heap both whom are recently healthy and could pay dividends down the stretch.

We were advised this trade is a no go b/c the purple hayes new line up would have Palmer, LJ, Parker, Colston, CJ, Marshall, Gates, Chi D

My line up would be
McNabb, Portis, L.Jordan/or Lewis (adds depth for me), Harrison, Jennings, Curtis, Heap, Dawson,Titans.

This is a 14 teams league.

A:   As your point system indicates, this trade is absolutely fair.  When evaluating a fantasy trade, it is important to consider a team’s current roster in the sense that they could be in desperate need of say a WR, which should mean that it is acceptable for them to slightly overpay for a WR.  What should not be a factor is how a team’s roster will look as a whole after the potential trade is completed.

That the Purple Hayes already have LJ, Palmer, Gates, etc is unrelated to the trade at hand and should have absolutely no bearing on the validity of this trade.

The trade should be allowed.

Q:   My question is a scoring issue.  Our league scoring awards 6 points for a defensive touchdown, and 2 points for a blocked field goal.  In the case of the San Diego Chargers returning the missed field goal for a touchdown this past Sunday the coach with the Chargers defense playing was not awarded points for this play as a touchdown.  It should also be noted that defenses are not awarded points for special teams’ returns/touchdowns.  Would you award the points based on the philosophy that the defense is awarded points for blocking the field goal, and therefore this is technically a defensive play, or not award the points based on this being considered a special teams play?

A:  Tough one.  As you stated, your particular league clearly does not award points for special teams touchdowns (as opposed to leagues that let you play a DST instead of just a defense).

While both sides of this argument have merit we feel a field goal return TD is much more like a punt return TD (points not counted) than an interception return TD (points counted) so the points should not be awarded.

Its definitely a situation not specifically addressed by your league rules so the easiest solution is to honor the way your league awarded (or in this case didn’t award) points.  Going forward your league should definitely vote on how such situations are handled in the future.  If the majority believes that it should be considered a touchdown (we’d probably vote this way based on your logic below), then there you have it.  For this particular situation, with no previously established rules, we don’t think its fair to overrule your league websites decision.

Q:  Our ESPN league recently had a trade made in which I feel as a 3rd party (Team C) I was wronged. I’m seeking damages. Here is the scenario:

Team A traded Nate Burleson, Sea WR to Team B
Team B traded Chris Chambers, SD WR to Team A
Team B traded Warrick Dunn, Atl RB to Team A
Team B traded Matt Schaub, Hou QB to Team A
This trade was highly scrutinized by the league members partly because Team A is undefeated and it seemed insane to make a trade that makes Team A better and partly because many felt it was lopsided.  In the middle of all the scrutiny Team C put together an offer to Team B.

Team C trade Antwaan Randle El, Was WR to Team B
Team B trade Chris Chambers, SD WR to Team C
Team B responded over email “Let’s do it”.  Team A set up the trade proposal on ESPN.  The trade was not accepted by Team B and after several emails and a voicemail the trade expired and the original trade was completed between Team A and Team B.

I feel a reasonable offer was made and the offer legally accepted in writing.  Please make a ruling on this matter including damages if any. I thank you in advance for your help in this difficult time.

A:  Hi Ross.  If this was a legal matter, you’d have sufficient proof that your trade (Chambers for Randle El) was accepted and that should be binding.

Unfortunately, in matters of fantasy football its a better philosophy to not consider a trade final until its been officially offered, accepted and approved through your league website.  By those standards, the first trade should be that one that is honored.  However, the first trade is clearly unfair with Chamber (38 recs, 509 yds, 1 TD) and Burleson (24 recs, 307 yds, 3 TDs) more or less of equal value.  Throw in Schaub and Dunn and this trade should be vetoed on the grounds of it being incredible lopsided.

We recommend vetoing the original trade but not forcing through the second trade.  It should be a clean slate and if team B decides to accept your offer or another legitimate offer going forward so be it.

Q:  Team A is 1-5 by the end of the 6th week and Team B is 4-2.  My 14-Man FF League is on yahoo.  Team A has P. Manning as his starting QB and he just acquired D. Brees from an owner that lacks projection.  The problem is Team A is having RB depth issues.  Instead of shopping Brees to the best available offer he shopped him to Team B his tight buddy for his POS J. Norwood.  I think that’s the worst trade of the year.  The problem is not the trade - it’s the owner.  Team A always does this each year.  We make fun of him everytime he does a dumba$$ move.  First of all, I would like to know if you think this trade is lopsided?  Second, how can we prevent owners from having brain farts???

A:   Brees, a proven quarterback whose taken great strides to regain his 2006 form in recent weeks for Norwood, a platoon RB on the 6th worst offense in the NFL?

We don’t like this one at all.  The trade is very lopsided and based on this owners track record of being an idiot and his close relationship with Team B, this looks like one part collusion, one part ignorance and we don’t think you should allow the trade to go through.

As for your second question, it all depends on how serious your league is.  If its just a forum to talk trash with your buddies than you’ll just have to accept the fact that you associate with some less than savvy fantasy owners and laugh it off.  If this is a serious league, you may have to consider booting this owner next year… before the legitimate owners split for greener pastures.  Good luck.

Q: A trade of Eli Manning and Frank Gore for Peyton Manning and Fred Taylor. Just wondering if you think this is a fair trade. The scoring is very standard for a Yahoo league. A side note, this is a trade between the first and last place team. The last place team is giving up Peyton Manning.

A: Well its that time of the season again. The true integrity of fantasy football owners - or more accurately the lack of integrity is coming to a head as an endless number of playoff contenders cut dishonest deals in bars, back rooms and chat rooms with those owners who’ve already starting thinking about April and fantasy baseball.

It’s collusion and as we’ve said before it’s presence needs to alter the way we evaluate the fairness of trades. In this scenario, based on the scoring you’ve included, one team is receiving on marginally more value in this trade:

Peyton and Taylor = 205.72 points
Eli and Gore = 197.32 points

We think this trade is very suspicious since the team trading Peyton is in last place. Unfortunately, that’s a difference of only 8.39 points or less than 1 point per week. We’d probably rather have the Peyton side of this trade but the Eli/Gore is clearly upgrading at RB (while also coming out of the trade with two starters as opposed to 1.5 starters since Taylor splits time). The team is definitely gaining value from the trade.

For this reason, and we don’t like it either, the trade has to stand. If this trade is vetoed, than based on the stats, you are setting a precedent to veto almost any trade offered. You should work immediately to set a rule that prevents any team mathematically
eliminated from playoff contention from participating in a trade in the future. But for now, this trade needs to be allowed.

Q:  I’m, Commish in a competitive league with 12 teams.  With two weeks to play, only one team has been eliminated from playoff contention.  This week, one team owner (call him “A”) agreed to trade Kevin Curtis & Rudi Johnson to the team eliminated (team “B”) for Reggie Bush, arguing that Curtis/Johnson (102 points in our league) was more than adequate consideration for Reggie Bush (50 points).  I denied the trade on the grounds that the eliminated Team B gained no competitive advantage in making a playoff run, but Team A obviously did.  Reggie Bush has started every game in our league, while Curtis and Johnson have ridden the pine more than 50% of the time combined.

A further review of the numbers reveal that while the point exchange was more than 2 to 1, Kevin Curtis racked up 52 of those points in week 3 and 20 in week 6, but other than that, has scored less than 2 points per week the remaining 6 weeks, AND Rudi Johnson has racked up 1 total point since week 3.  All of these players have had minor injury issues in recent weeks.  Reggie Bush is on a team gaining strength, and is now the featured back since Deuce McAllister went down in week 3 (and Reggie Bush has averaged nearly 8 points a game since taking over).  Kevin Curtis & Rudi Johnson are on teams in disarray and/or must overcome injuries and/or competition at their respective positions.

This trade did not pass my smell test, so I rejected it.  The league is now up in arms over the decision.  Tell me, was this a fair trade, or was I right in rejecting the trade?

A:  Hey guys.  The exchange of Curtis & Johnson for Bush is fair - there is no denying that.  It’s a classic example of giving up depth at multiple positions for a stud at on position (although using “stud” to describe Bush is a bit of a stretch at this point).  Regardless, Bush
has the most potential out of the group.  One thing to consider, however, is that a 2-for-1 trade like this frees up a roster spot that can filled with a player off the waiver wire, someone of the caliber of Randle El or Mike Furrey who could add value, so you can’t simply look at total points scored i.e. 102-50.

So the exchange of these players in a vacuum is fair, but you do need to consider the other factors.  Is this a keeper league?  Keeper league’s obviously change the situation since the eliminated team could be trying to strengthen their team for next season.   Most of
our non-keeper leagues have a built in rule that anyone mathematically eliminated from the playoffs is not allowed to make a trade.

It comes down to this.  Is there anything team B has left to work towards this season?  Can they bolster next season’s roster by picking up more keepers?  Does your league have a “toilet bowl” that non playoff teams compete in for some sort of prize?  If the answer is yes
to any of these questions, then the trade should be allowed.  If the answer is no, then the trade should be rejected since the only explanation of Team B’s participation in the trade is to help team A succeed - clearly collusion.  You should also use this opportunity to
enact a league rule that prevents teams eliminated from playoff contention from making a trade so you don’t run into the same problem again.

Q:  the third place team in our league traded away Frank Gore to the last place team for Derek Anderson. We play 1 QB, 2 RB 2 WR 1 TE 1 K and 3 Individual Defense. All TD’s are 6 points (passing running and catching).

Obviously I  I don’t think anyone would trade Anderson (the 4th best scorer in our league) for Gore who is injured and not performed well at all unless it was collusion.

A:  Hi Michael.  As we move towards league trading deadlines we have to adjust our opinion of which trades should be allowed and which should not primarily because of the growing threat of collusion.

We think this trade is a good example of that.  Earlier in the season, when hopes were much higher for Gore and suspicions much higher for Anderson the story told by the stats could be somewhat ignored.  But heading into the second half of the season and considering that a last place team is involved in this trade, we think this one has to be vetoed.

On a side note, if its a keeper league, and Gore is eligible as a keeper, than the trade be allowed.

Q:  This trade occurred in week 2: Mike Furrey for Phillip Rivers.

His need at WR is greater than my need at QB. The bigger picture here is this - this is a game of supply and demand suggesting that in analysing the fairness of a trade we need to consider looking at roster requirements and availability of quality players at each position and the value each player has to its owner. There are 32 starting QBs in the NFL, there are 16 teams here just starting 1 QB every week. There are 32 or so starting RBs in the NFL, there are 16 teams starting at least 2 (max 3) RBs every week.   There are 64 number 1 and number 2 WRs in the NFL, here we start anywhere between 3 and 5 WRs every week. Obviously, the rarer commodity here is RBs, then WRs, and then QBs.

A:  Hi Tom, thanks for the inquiry.  First off, while we agree that the veto rule is flawed we also believe that it is a necessary component of any fantasy league.  Furthermore, we agree that it is in place to prevent two teams from working together but also to prevent situations where the exchange of players is simply too unfair, even without evidence of collusion.  Your league needs to be protected from unintelligent owners to preserve the balance of power in the league.

So with that in mind, it is completely acceptable in our minds to veto a trade like this simply on the grounds that one team is gaining significantly more value.  The trade at hand, by a standard scoring system reveals the following:

Rivers - 1,639 yds, 10TDs, 8INTs = 56.7 points
Furrey - 29 recs, 360 yds, 1 TD = 24 points

That’s a very substantial difference.  Detroit has a very crowded receiving corp and with the recent success of their running game, Furrey will have an even harder time putting up points.  In a normal size league, this discrepancy would be too much and we’d recommend a veto.

But, as you correctly pointed out, supply/demand is a factor.  With 16 teams at 25 roster spots each that’s 400 players on a team which makes your free agent pool extremely barren.  In fact there are really only 150 receivers in the entire NFL that have put up any points this season.  And that’s a stretch, for example, Ashley Lelie is the 121st ranked WRs and he has only 5 catches for 72 yards and 0 TDs - which makes Furrey look like Terrell Owens in comparison (he’s in the top 60 WRs).

Again, we do believe that trades should vetoed simply because they are unfair and not just because two teams are working together.  But your league is about as deep as it gets, meaning that a very legitimate argument can be made that both teams benefit from this trade so we think the trade should be allowed.  If your other owners disagree they
should find a league with less teams and a more bountiful free agent pool where a Rivers for Furrey trade would never stand.

Q:  Hopefully you can give a good objective advice on how my league should implement a keeper limit change.  Our league managers have played together for about 8 years now.  This is my 2nd year as commish - and I’m the only girl in a 10-team league.  So, I want to make sure I announce the right and fair decision as to how the keeper limit change should go starting from next season.

Three years ago, we changed to a keeper league with proper league rules and everything.  We had it set up where you can keep a player not in the first 3 rounds for up to three years (player’s draft round gets “elevated” each year).

Now that we are in our 3rd year, many of the managers have complained that three years is too long.  So we had a vote and an overwhelming voted to change the keeper limit to two years.  This change will go into effect starting next season.  Now the problem is how to handle the change…

We had another vote and I gave them three options.  I asked if they wanted:
(a) The change to be ABSOLUTE?  You can keep your current 1st yr. keeper for one more year next year & cannot keep your current 2nd yr. keeper for another year next year.
(b) The change to allow GRANDFATHERING of current keepers?  Your current 1st and 2nd yr. keepers are NOT subject to the two year limit.  Therefore, you can keep your current 1st yr. keeper for two more years (total 3 yrs) & keep your current 2nd yr. keeper for one more year (total 3 yrs). New 1st yr. keepers at next year’s draft will have the two yr. limit though.
(c) The change to be a COMPROMISE between the two above? It will be a “limited grandfathering” combination where current 2nd year keepers are grandfathered so they can be kept for 1 more year next year (3 yrs. total) and current 1st year keepers are subject to the 2 yr. limit (can be kept for 1 more year only). All current 3rd yr keepers can’t be kept again anyways so this change doesn’t affect them. Any new keepers next year are also subject to the 2 yr. limit.

About 1/3 of the managers voted for each of the three choices.  I proposed option C because I thought that would be the fairest way to handle the limit change.  However, all that voted for option A think it’s a ridiculous proposal and won’t agree with me.  The ones that voted for option B won’t budge or agree with me as well.  I am against option A because it didn’t give enough time for the managers to change their draft/keeper strategy to factor in the two year limit during this past draft.

I’m a little afraid to just go with option B because the ones for absolute change will think that the decision is a personal one (assume that I have motive).  For example, I kept T. Brady (current 2nd yr. keeper in 8th round) and J. Addai (current 1st yr. keeper in 9th round).  If we go with option B, I will get to keep T. Brady for 1 more year and J. Addai for 2 more years.  Also, I should mention that I am currently undefeated in the league (8-0).  I know some of the guys will whine about that.  As for other teams, some managers will benefit the same way I would if we went with this option.

Anyway, how do you think we could fairly handle this limit change???  Thanks in advance for your help!

A:  Thanks for the inquiry.  This is an easy one.  You’ve stated that many of the managers have complained that three years is too long.  I’m willing to wager that those managers aren’t benefiting personally from the current rule.   Ask yourself who has the best keeper for next year under your current keeper rules and I’m sure they are not the ones pushing for the change.

We’re not trying to point out character flaws amoung your league managers.  We’re simply trying to bring to the forefront an underlying theme in fantasy football - when attempting to change a league rule - all league members will vote with their own personal best interests in mind. Everyone needs to admit this!

That said, your ONLY fair choice is option b) to grandfather in current keepers.  Leagues evolve and if the majority wants to change the keeper rule going forward, so be it.  But your league’s current keepers were selected and retained strategically based on your three year rule and to change that rule after the fact is to undermine everything the managers with effective keeper strategies have sacrificed.

To be fair, any change to a a fantasy football rule needs to go into effect when the playing field is level.  That means honoring the three year eligibility of current keepers and putting this new rule into effect for each new draft - when all managers have an equal opportunity to draft new keepers.

It’s not the popular solution, but is surely the only fair solution.

Q:  Team #1 trades Torry Holt  to  Team #2 for Lamont Jordan and Joey Galloway.

A:  Hi Greg.  We don’t see a problem with the trade.  The 2007 stats show Team #1 getting slightly more out of the deal, but a good argument could be made that Team #2 is still upgrading considerably at WR. Holt isn’t off to a great start, but he is still one of the most consistent WRs in the league in recent history and that should count for something.  You also have to keep in mind that Team #2 will have an open roster spot as a result of the transaction and while they won’t be able to find a player at the level of Jordan or Galloway, they will be able to add some value.  No need to overturn this one.