Review this trade

Team A sending Patriots defense to Team B for James Starks.

Patriots rank in this league -- #4, 20 pts a game average.

Starks rank in this league -- #28, 9 pts a game average

Team A record: 4-5 (currently in 8th place with 4 games to go)
Team B record: 6-3 (currently in 4th place)

Team A and Team B are husband and wife.

Originally posted by fortyninerglory:
Team A sending Patriots defense to Team B for James Starks.

Patriots rank in this league -- #4, 20 pts a game average.

Starks rank in this league -- #28, 9 pts a game average

Team A record: 4-5 (currently in 8th place with 4 games to go)
Team B record: 6-3 (currently in 4th place)

Team A and Team B are husband and wife.

I dont see how you veto this trade. Team A may need a RB badly and Stark is going to be starting. Team B may have a surplus of rbs and can use a top 5 defense. Who do you think is giving up too much?

Originally posted by Ninerjohn:

Originally posted by fortyninerglory:
Team A sending Patriots defense to Team B for James Starks.

Patriots rank in this league -- #4, 20 pts a game average.

Starks rank in this league -- #28, 9 pts a game average

Team A record: 4-5 (currently in 8th place with 4 games to go)
Team B record: 6-3 (currently in 4th place)

Team A and Team B are husband and wife.

I dont see how you veto this trade. Team A may need a RB badly and Stark is going to be starting. Team B may have a surplus of rbs and can use a top 5 defense. Who do you think is giving up too much?

Team B has Blount, J. Stewart and Forte riding the bench due to his injury.
Team A has Ivory, McCoy, Matt Jones, and also Eddie Lacy riding the bench due to injury. Team A also has the Seahawks Defense (ranked #2).

There is a history of collusion with these two so that's what I based my decision on too (so I did in fact veto this trade but they are causing a ruckus so just wanted some other opinions).

2 years ago the husband who had no chance of making the playoffs tried to gift the #1 defense in Seattle to the wifey via a scumbag trade. that was vetoed. But the wifey didn't need the defense anyway as Jamaal Charles scored 5 tds to give her the championship.

And there is also $500 riding on this league.

Originally posted by fortyninerglory:

Originally posted by Ninerjohn:

Originally posted by fortyninerglory:
Team A sending Patriots defense to Team B for James Starks.

Patriots rank in this league -- #4, 20 pts a game average.

Starks rank in this league -- #28, 9 pts a game average

Team A record: 4-5 (currently in 8th place with 4 games to go)
Team B record: 6-3 (currently in 4th place)

Team A and Team B are husband and wife.

I dont see how you veto this trade. Team A may need a RB badly and Stark is going to be starting. Team B may have a surplus of rbs and can use a top 5 defense. Who do you think is giving up too much?

Team B has Blount, J. Stewart and Forte riding the bench due to his injury.
Team A has Ivory, McCoy, Matt Jones, and also Eddie Lacy riding the bench due to injury. Team A also has the Seahawks Defense (ranked #2).

There is a history of collusion with these two so that's what I based my decision on too (so I did in fact veto this trade but they are causing a ruckus so just wanted some other opinions).

2 years ago the husband who had no chance of making the playoffs tried to gift the #1 defense in Seattle to the wifey via a scumbag trade. that was vetoed. But the wifey didn't need the defense anyway as Jamaal Charles scored 5 tds to give her the championship.

And there is also $500 riding on this league.

So team A has Seattle defense and has no need for NE defense. They also have Lacy and would love to get Starks. It is very smart from their end.

Team B has plenty of depth if Blount, Stewart and Forte are not even starting right now I dont know who Team B's starters are but there is not going to be a need for James Starks. I assume NE will be an upgrade in their defense. If that is the case, this trade makes sense on that end too.

NO way this deal should be vetoed unless there is something more that I am missing. ( and not past history)

Originally posted by Ninerjohn:

Originally posted by fortyninerglory:

Originally posted by Ninerjohn:

Originally posted by fortyninerglory:
Team A sending Patriots defense to Team B for James Starks.

Patriots rank in this league -- #4, 20 pts a game average.

Starks rank in this league -- #28, 9 pts a game average

Team A record: 4-5 (currently in 8th place with 4 games to go)
Team B record: 6-3 (currently in 4th place)

Team A and Team B are husband and wife.

I dont see how you veto this trade. Team A may need a RB badly and Stark is going to be starting. Team B may have a surplus of rbs and can use a top 5 defense. Who do you think is giving up too much?

Team B has Blount, J. Stewart and Forte riding the bench due to his injury.
Team A has Ivory, McCoy, Matt Jones, and also Eddie Lacy riding the bench due to injury. Team A also has the Seahawks Defense (ranked #2).

There is a history of collusion with these two so that's what I based my decision on too (so I did in fact veto this trade but they are causing a ruckus so just wanted some other opinions).

2 years ago the husband who had no chance of making the playoffs tried to gift the #1 defense in Seattle to the wifey via a scumbag trade. that was vetoed. But the wifey didn't need the defense anyway as Jamaal Charles scored 5 tds to give her the championship.

And there is also $500 riding on this league.

So team A has Seattle defense and has no need for NE defense. They also have Lacy and would love to get Starks. It is very smart from their end.

Team B has plenty of depth if Blount, Stewart and Forte are not even starting right now I dont know who Team B's starters are but there is not going to be a need for James Starks. I assume NE will be an upgrade in their defense. If that is the case, this trade makes sense on that end too.

NO way this deal should be vetoed unless there is something more that I am missing. ( and not past history)

I meant to say Team B is starting Blount and Stewart. Forte is on the bench.

Team B's starters:

Cutler (Big Ben hurt)
Blount
J. Stewart
Antonio Brown
Julian Edelman
H. Miller
B. Marshall
Steelers D/ST
J. Tucker

Team A's starters:

K. Cousins (Luck on IR)
C. Ivory
M. Jones (Shady and Lacy on bench)
B. Lafell
R. Woods
G. Olsen
D. Walker
Patriots D/ST
N. Novak

If anything, Team A needs receivers and running backs and she can get better than just James Starks, a one week stop gap until Lacy comes back, with the 4th ranked Patriots defense which is averaging 20 points a game in my league.

Defenses in my league have a boost to scoring and a shut down performance can turn a matchup around big time.

Anyway, since they are husband and wife you have to scrutinize their trades a little more in my opinion. They both benefit in the end if either wins the championship. Many have agreed with me and many trad analyzers online say the Patriots are worth much more than Starks.

Again, I dont see how this trade is that one sided. I can see why both teams are making the trades. And.. you have no idea if Starks is a one week stop gap. Basically Lacy has sucked and has lost his starting gig. Starks could be huge for the rest of the year and easily worth Team A's second defense that she will rarely play since she has Seattle.

Originally posted by Ninerjohn:

Again, I dont see how this trade is that one sided. I can see why both teams are making the trades. And.. you have no idea if Starks is a one week stop gap. Basically Lacy has sucked and has lost his starting gig. Starks could be huge for the rest of the year and easily worth Team A's second defense that she will rarely play since she has Seattle.

They first tried to trade Seattle defense for Starks and Snead. I vetoed that. Then they came back with this trade.

I warned them both that I'll be scrutinizing their trades with each other if they wanted to play again.

IMO if she really wants to win she can get more and if she has been attempting trades to do just that nd no takers then I might reconsider

Originally posted by fortyninerglory:

Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
Again, I dont see how this trade is that one sided. I can see why both teams are making the trades. And.. you have no idea if Starks is a one week stop gap. Basically Lacy has sucked and has lost his starting gig. Starks could be huge for the rest of the year and easily worth Team A's second defense that she will rarely play since she has Seattle.

They first tried to trade Seattle defense for Starks and Snead. I vetoed that. Then they came back with this trade.

I warned them both that I'll be scrutinizing their trades with each other if they wanted to play again.

IMO if she really wants to win she can get more and if she has been attempting trades to do just that nd no takers then I might reconsider

LOL. You shouldnt play in the league if you are so paranoid about any trades between the 2. All I know is I would be pissed if you vetoed this deal and I was one of the owners because the deal does make sense for both sides and it isnt badly one sided. In fact, one could easily make the argument that Starks>>>>> New England D.

Anyway, thats my 2 cents. See what others think

Originally posted by Ninerjohn:

Originally posted by fortyninerglory:

Originally posted by Ninerjohn:

Again, I dont see how this trade is that one sided. I can see why both teams are making the trades. And.. you have no idea if Starks is a one week stop gap. Basically Lacy has sucked and has lost his starting gig. Starks could be huge for the rest of the year and easily worth Team A's second defense that she will rarely play since she has Seattle.

They first tried to trade Seattle defense for Starks and Snead. I vetoed that. Then they came back with this trade.

I warned them both that I'll be scrutinizing their trades with each other if they wanted to play again.

IMO if she really wants to win she can get more and if she has been attempting trades to do just that nd no takers then I might reconsider

LOL. You shouldnt play in the league if you are so paranoid about any trades between the 2. All I know is I would be pissed if you vetoed this deal and I was one of the owners because the deal does make sense for both sides and it isnt badly one sided. In fact, one could easily make the argument that Starks>>>>> New England D.

Anyway, thats my 2 cents. See what others think

195 pts for 91 pts.

All I am asking for is something a little more balanced.

Her roster is effed up. His roster is still in good shape. Patriots D might be enough to put him over the top and then they both can spend an extra $500 for Christmas.

Have you ever played in a league with husband and wife owners?

Originally posted by fortyninerglory:

Originally posted by Ninerjohn:

Originally posted by fortyninerglory:

Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
Again, I dont see how this trade is that one sided. I can see why both teams are making the trades. And.. you have no idea if Starks is a one week stop gap. Basically Lacy has sucked and has lost his starting gig. Starks could be huge for the rest of the year and easily worth Team A's second defense that she will rarely play since she has Seattle.

They first tried to trade Seattle defense for Starks and Snead. I vetoed that. Then they came back with this trade.

I warned them both that I'll be scrutinizing their trades with each other if they wanted to play again.

IMO if she really wants to win she can get more and if she has been attempting trades to do just that nd no takers then I might reconsider

LOL. You shouldnt play in the league if you are so paranoid about any trades between the 2. All I know is I would be pissed if you vetoed this deal and I was one of the owners because the deal does make sense for both sides and it isnt badly one sided. In fact, one could easily make the argument that Starks>>>>> New England D.

Anyway, thats my 2 cents. See what others think

195 pts for 91 pts.

All I am asking for is something a little more balanced.

Her roster is effed up. His roster is still in good shape. Patriots D might be enough to put him over the top and then they both can spend an extra $500 for Christmas.

Have you ever played in a league with husband and wife owners?

.

Oh btw -- she didn't even make an attempt for Starks on the waiver wire when Lacy's status became in doubt. Husband picked up Starks yesterday with winning bid and there were three other bids.

If she was so high on Starks why didn't she attempt to grab him off the waiver wire?

Originally posted by fortyninerglory:

Have you ever played in a league with husband and wife owners?

No, that sounds awful. I mean, if it was a "just for fun" league, why not? But a league with money on the line? No way would I bother staying in that league, I'd get way too stressed out.

It's not nearly one sided enough to veto.

I don't see the problem with this trade at all.

Your example of 195 points for 91 points is completely irrelevant. Has nothing to do with who scored more points in the past, but rather how balanced the trade is from the day of completion.

No