1. Hi Guest, Registrations are now open. See you on the inside.
    Dismiss Notice

~ OFFICIAL 2015 TSF.COM FANTASY DRAFT TRADES (ANNOUCEMENTS & DISCUSSIONS) ~

Discussion in 'The Bill Nunn Draft Room' started by gpguy, Mar 8, 2015.

  1. Steel_Elvis

    Steel_Elvis Staff Member Mod Team

    8,159
    923
    Nov 4, 2011
    Well, If you want to run the draft next year and allow unlimited trading, I'm guessing gpguy wouldn't mind not having the headache. I'll play either way. Until then, he's putting in the thankless time running it, so I am good with him setting the rules.
     
  2. Blast Furnace

    Blast Furnace Staff Member Mod Team

    27,155
    2,259
    Oct 16, 2011
    If I was on the committee I wouldnt approve it either, I dont think GP has a personal power trip at all, IMO, its a very unrealistic trade. You're giving up on a top 10 pick after one season to gain what? A 31st pick? Might as well be in the 2nd rd. And they gave up their 2nd too.
     
  3. HugeSnack

    HugeSnack Well-Known Member

    5,233
    73
    Oct 17, 2011
    Nah, I'm gonna sit around, do the fun parts, and then complain about the bits I don't like.

    I do appreciate the work he puts in, as well as the others like yourself that help run it, as well as the participants. And I don't think there should be unlimited trading, just to avoid conspiracies. I think a committee of reasonable people that can connect this fantasy draft with reality is not a bad idea. I also think some other things neither of us want me to get into right now.
     
  4. TerribleTowelFlying

    TerribleTowelFlying Staff Member Site Admin

    21,926
    1,559
    Oct 12, 2011
    I got lost. This trade is approved now, right?

    [​IMG]
     
  5. HugeSnack

    HugeSnack Well-Known Member

    5,233
    73
    Oct 17, 2011
    According to the chart, it works out to an even trade if you assign Ebron a value of 240 points (70th overall - round 3, pick 6). There are a couple of points and questions:

    1. Most 1st rounders depreciate after the first year - even good ones. After a disappointing rookie season, has Ebron depreciated all the way to a high 3rd after only one season? I don't know about my opinion, but certainly to Detroit's current GM, and GB_Steel, and some others that have voiced their opinion. So it's debatable.

    2. Detroit's current GM did not draft Ebron. This guy is new. Is it possible he doesn't value Ebron as the 10th best new player in the country? Is it possible he never thought he was that good, and now has seen his NFL tape, and sees the 2015 Ebron as something of a 3rd rounder? What about including the circumstances? Maybe he views PJ Williams as a total steal. Maybe he considers Williams a top 10 talent. The committee's own Steel Elvis says Williams could be the best DB in the draft. Even if you value Ebron as higher than a 3rd round talent, it's extremely realistic for a team to fall in love with a player and pay a little too much to get him. Some pay a lot too much.

    3. Maybe it's not all about Ebron. Maybe the new GM loves Pettigrew and that other guy. Maybe the new RB Gordon has him feeling better about the offense and wants to lock down that D.

    4. What does allowing a trade have to do with agreeing with it? In my opinion, the committee's question should be, "Is this trade possible? Could it possibly happen in real life?" One quick look at real NFL trades will give you a resounding YES as an answer. With worse trades happening every year, I don't get how this can be viewed as unrealistic. Unfortunately, some think the committee's central question should be, "Would I do that trade? Do I think that team would do that trade in real life?" And so of course the answer is No. What they're forgetting is that the answer is No all the time for trades that really happen. I'd give that Carson Palmer trade a big fat No, but it happened. So it doesn't make the trades unrealistic - it makes us wrong about what's realistic and what's not.
     
  6. SC Gamecock

    SC Gamecock

    1,584
    151
    Oct 18, 2011
    Agree with all points
     
  7. numbah58

    numbah58 Staff Member Mod Team

    1,806
    8
    Oct 16, 2011
    I believe it is TTF lol
     
  8. gpguy

    gpguy Well-Known Member

    3,485
    21
    Dec 19, 2011
    This is why we have a trade committee! Not just me deciding things. Some will disagree/disapprove of a trade while others will like it and approve it. Most trades have gotten approved ever since we started having them approved...be it by myself or a committee.

    I wasn't going to even vote on this one, but i wanted to make it clear they needed a 3rd vote to get approval (as the GM already announced their pick before the trade was approved) and if I didnt vote then I would get questioned why I didnt. Had I known that this trade getting a no vote would start so much crap I would have just said yes, wow.

    But hey as with every year I've ran this...I've always been up for suggestions on how to improve this thing. That's what led to us having trades be approved, among other things (Steelers voting/etc). If we want to try the no approval needed method again we can...we can start right now and be that way the rest of the way (since this has been our only trade). Or we can do it that way for next year. Either way I'm cool with it.

    As in reality most trades since the year or 2 that had the crazy ones (that prompted approvals process) most people have learned or those people (beastly anyone?) are no longer around or do not take part in the draft.

    So what would you guys like to do?
     
  9. gpguy

    gpguy Well-Known Member

    3,485
    21
    Dec 19, 2011
    Yes!
     
  10. Blast Furnace

    Blast Furnace Staff Member Mod Team

    27,155
    2,259
    Oct 16, 2011
    That right there is why, I dont care what the chart says, IMO, that trade would never happen, no GM is making that deal. Further more, if they wanted a CB so bad, they wouldn't have taken a *RB with their first pick while Peters and Collins were still both there and Williams as well of course.

    *(Just my opinion BG, not trying to signal you out)
     
  11. blackandgoldpatrol

    blackandgoldpatrol Well-Known Member

    2,555
    207
    Dec 5, 2011

    if I had snatched a cb first, then I would've traded back into the first for Gordon, so no big difference
     
  12. HugeSnack

    HugeSnack Well-Known Member

    5,233
    73
    Oct 17, 2011
    So how do you respond to all my examples of far less "realistic" trades that were very real? This kind of thing absolutely happens. I'm not saying it will with Ebron. It's ridiculous to try to guess trades like that.

    You are looking at this so specifically. You need the big picture. It's as simple as this: if every year a couple teams pay $100 for a candy bar, then why can't our fantasy draft include a team that spends $20 on a candy bar? You can call it stupid all you want, and I might even agree. But you can't call it unrealistic. You can't say no team would ever do that, when teams do worse all the time. You can say trades like that shouldn't happen, but you can't say they don't happen.

    Maybe where we differ is instead of looking at a trade and judging if it's in the realm of possibility, you're looking at that specific team, their real-life GM and real history, and deciding if that's something they would probably do. But we're the GMs. Unless it's on the other side of Carson Palmer, I don't see how you could say it would never happen.
     
  13. Steel_Elvis

    Steel_Elvis Staff Member Mod Team

    8,159
    923
    Nov 4, 2011
    My approach to reviewing a trade is to ask myself if it looks like one of those instances we experienced in the past where a GM is simply gutting a team for picks. If my answer is no, I approve and don't consult the pick value chart. I don't have reason to believe that anyone involved in this year's draft is going in that direction. I don't have to agree that it's a good deal. Lots of one sided deals get done in the real NFL.
     
  14. Blast Furnace

    Blast Furnace Staff Member Mod Team

    27,155
    2,259
    Oct 16, 2011
    2 of your examples involved QB's so you can throw that out the window and I am trying to recall ever seeing a team trade it's first rd pick, a pick that went as high as Ebron did and I'm not coming up with anything. I just don't see a team doing that and forfeiting a 2nd rd pick no less.

    SC, GP and myself think its unrealistic, you don't have to agree but thats why there is a committee. But hell, its for fun, lets go back to the example Elvis gave with trading Brees away and hoarding picks :thumbs_up:

    I personally don't know why anyone would give up picks in a fantasy draft, hey I got Breese, yes! Oh crap, I have no more picks, I'm out of the draft, funs over.
     
  15. GB_Steel

    GB_Steel Well-Known Member

    2,138
    117
    Oct 20, 2011
    I'd say keep it the way it is. Not for the sake of keeping trades realistic, but for the sake of keeping the draft moving on task and organized. If we start allowing unchecked trades then things can quickly get out of hand with who is picking where, who is on the clock, etc.
     
  16. SC Gamecock

    SC Gamecock

    1,584
    151
    Oct 18, 2011
    I agree that there needs to be a committee, especially for reasons like GB just said, control and organization!
     
  17. TerribleTowelFlying

    TerribleTowelFlying Staff Member Site Admin

    21,926
    1,559
    Oct 12, 2011
    This wouldn't have anything to do with your mancrush on Ebron, now would it? :twisted:
     
  18. TerribleTowelFlying

    TerribleTowelFlying Staff Member Site Admin

    21,926
    1,559
    Oct 12, 2011
    My opinion is that lobsided trades happen from time to time, so as long as it doesn't seem like a GM is trading away the farm for a ton of picks and extra fun in the fantasy draft, it probably doesn't warrant heavy scrutiny. The Ebron trade gave me a moment's pause, but it really wasn't that far fetched to me.

    If I had a suggestion, it would probably be to lower the trade committee approval to 2. Just a suggestion as I think it's fine the way it is, but this thing is already at a crawl...
     
  19. SC Gamecock

    SC Gamecock

    1,584
    151
    Oct 18, 2011
    Probably should be 3 don't you think? So there's a majority rule
     
  20. Steel_Elvis

    Steel_Elvis Staff Member Mod Team

    8,159
    923
    Nov 4, 2011
    Yeah, but people aren't always around and we wouldn't want delays to occur because of a trade review. I like TTF's suggestion of 2. I think that would be adequate to catch anyone being silly just to hoard picks.
     
  21. Blast Furnace

    Blast Furnace Staff Member Mod Team

    27,155
    2,259
    Oct 16, 2011
    :lolol: I was waiting for that.

    I just have a hard time seeing that happen, if it's Ebron or whomever. You see some crazy deals for sure but I don't think I've ever seen something like that occur. I'd have an easier time with it if the return was a top 20 pick but not pick 31.
     
  22. chitown steeler3

    chitown steeler3 Well-Known Member

    431
    32
    Feb 25, 2013
    Well BF if it makes you feel better I'm not that high on Ebron.
    But when he was offered I logically thought that with better QB play he could improve dramatically. And since Jimmy Graham was never really used that much in the blocking department I at least think Ebron can get some production (so long as he stops dropping passes).

    I really wanted more picks in general, but this way I got a need and a pick.
     
  23. Blast Furnace

    Blast Furnace Staff Member Mod Team

    27,155
    2,259
    Oct 16, 2011
    No :lolol:

    I don't like the trade, whats it matter, who am I? E.F. Hutton? It's just my opinion, who cares.
     
  24. HugeSnack

    HugeSnack Well-Known Member

    5,233
    73
    Oct 17, 2011
    Well, I'm not sure why a position throws my examples out the window. I know QBs are worth more, but the point is those trades were insanely lopsided for the talent and impact of the player, even the QBs I listed. No one would give up a 1st for Landry Jones, right? So if it happened, wouldn't I be able to point to it as an example of a terrible trade? I shouldn't have to throw that out. My other examples stand perfectly well, especially the pick swap between New England and Carolina. The #33 for the #89, straight up. Practically a 1st rounder for a 4th. That's a bad trade.

    You're right that not many 1st round picks are traded so soon, but it has nothing to do with talent level. If the guy is an All-Pro, why trade him? He's pretty cheap on a rookie contract. If the guy stinks, who is going to want him? You're better off hoping the guy lives up to his potential rather than trade him for something like a 7th. Ebron is actually the type I could see being traded - someone that is underachieving with the potential to improve with a change of scenery. Kinda like Trent Richardson, a #3 overall pick, who, by the way, should have been traded for a 3rd round pick (or less), not a 1st round pick. I'm sure the Colts would currently agree. How's that for apples to apples?

    You're right that trading a 2nd year player is pretty unusual/unrealistic in itself, but it's got nothing to do with value. It's because it's rarely called for, and would be a self-indictment no GM would ever make. Not having to worry about looking bad is one of the things that makes this draft better than the real one. Also, we can do the kinds of things we always want to do, but don't seem to ever happen in real life. Is the committee in the business of stopping completely fair and even trades, if they don't think the team would really do that? If the answer is no, then who cares what style trade it is?


    I want points for not bringing that up, BF, even though it was definitely running through my mind. :lolol: You go ahead and crush on whoever you want.
     
  25. SC Gamecock

    SC Gamecock

    1,584
    151
    Oct 18, 2011
    Doesn't matter to me one way or the other...just throwing suggestions
     

Share This Page

Welcome to the ultimate resource for Steelers fans. Sign Up Here!