ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 23 of 34
« First < 131920212223 2425262733 > Last »
Fantasy/CasinoPlanet>CP $100 Fantasy Football League (Update to other thread with rules in thread starter)
doomy3 08:03 AM 07-23-2010
Alright guys, here is a new thread for the CP $100 Fantasy Football League. The settings are listed below.


Buy-In will be $100 and will be due 1 week before the draft. Please get your payments in earlier than that though, so we can have the draft order generated. I will not have draft order generated before everyone has paid. We will be using Paypal for payments. I have sent payment instructions out to everyone, so please start getting this paid. If you need the instructions again, please let me know.


As soon as everyone has paid, we will have a draft order generated by using a random order generator online (we used one of these last year, and it worked great). Everyone's emails are entered into the system, and everyone receives the email with the draft order direct from the website, so it is fair to everyone.

I will allow the trading of draft picks as well, and ESPN is set up for such.

Now, please send me some entry fees, and let's get this going.

2011 Final Standings

League Champions: doomy3 - $650

2nd Place: NW Chiefs Fan - $400

3rd Place: Utah Ute - $150



2012 Final Standings

League Champions: Beating for 2 - Wutamess ($650)

2nd Place: Suck Mike Ditka - pkane ($400)

3rd Place: Team Fubar - shorman ($150)



Payouts:

$650 first
$400 second
$150 third



Site: ESPN
Draft: Online, Thursday September 1 at 8:00 Central Time


Rosters:

POSITION STARTERS MAXIMUM
(QB) 1 4
(RB) 2 8
(RB/WR) 1 N/A
(WR) 2 8
(TE) 1 3
(D/ST) 1 3
Place Kicker (K) 1 3
Head Coach (HC) 1 No Limit
Bench (BE) 6 N/A


Scoring:


[Reply]
blazzin311 10:47 AM 10-07-2010
Originally Posted by doomy3:
I'm very confused by that trade. That was accepted after Portis was injured, unless chiefen chiefs didn't know he was hurt. Not sure how that deal makes any sense though.

I sent the owner of that team an email just in case he didn't know Portis was out 6 weeks when he accepted it. I'll push it through when I hear from him.
That was my brother who made that trade. Portis wasn't the reason he made the trade though. Marshall was. He if I'm correct parted with Colston yes? He told me he was growing tired of Colston not doing much thus far this season and he though Marshall would be a better fit on his team at this point in time. Portis was just a filler since he traded away a RB in that trade also if I'm not mistaken. Having said that he's gonna have to get by with Peterson and Snelling as his main two backs it seems until Portis comes back. Portis's injury doesn't require surgery so I'd assume he' be back in about 6 weeks or so. Also I think my bro. just want to shake things up a bit on his team given he's 1-3 and all. Can't get to much worse I guess. I'm not anyone to really talk though. My record is also 1-3. Got some catchin up to do I guess.
[Reply]
doomy3 10:47 AM 10-07-2010
Originally Posted by BigCatDaddy:
Since when does a league commish do that? Are you going to let us know if a guy was traded or hurt that a guy was playing behind as well so we shouldn't trade him away? He sent me the offer and I think you are over stepping your authority on this one. If you let him back out of this one, then you need to let Shorman back out of his.
You're right, and I upheld the trade.

The commish shouldn't have to send a message like that, but I can't see any justification for this trade at all. It is awful on every possible level.

Perhaps you would like to start a poll in the Casino Planet about this one too. I would imagine your feedback would be much different on this than the last one you posted, that most people said it was pretty even.
[Reply]
doomy3 10:49 AM 10-07-2010
Originally Posted by blazzin311:
That was my brother who made that trade. Portis wasn't the reason he made the trade though. Marshall was. He if I'm correct parted with Colston yes? He told me he was growing tired of Colston not doing much thus far this season and he though Marshall would be a better fit on his team at this point in time. Portis was just a filler since he traded away a RB in that trade also if I'm not mistaken. Having said that he's gonna have to get by with Peterson and Snelling as his main two backs it seems until Portis comes back. Portis's injury doesn't require surgery so I'd assume he' be back in about 6 weeks or so. Also I think my bro. just want to shake things up a bit on his team given he's 1-3 and all. Can't get to much worse I guess. I'm not anyone to really talk though. My record is also 1-3. Got some catchin up to do I guess.
Yes, he traded away a top 10 back in Bradshaw as well as Colston.
[Reply]
blazzin311 11:01 AM 10-07-2010
Originally Posted by doomy3:
Yes, he traded away a top 10 back in Bradshaw as well as Colston.
Yea Bradshaw that's who it was he traded away...I knew it was someone good. The Colston for Marshall part of the deal I think by season's end will be pretty even...Colston hasn't done much yet but he'll come on eventually I think. He could have a good matchup this week against a weak Ariz. secondary actually. At the same time Marshall has been putting up some decent stats to this point. I'm not really sure how similar his and Colston' stats are right now but I think last time I checked Marshall's numbers were a bit ahead of Colston's at this point in time. Again don't hold me to that. I can tell you though that he thinks there's too many weapons in NO fantasy wise and that's why Colston hasn't produced much yet this season. Basically he just grew impatient. I still think he and Marshall are pretty even fantasy receivers by season's end. I think he also thought he'd have to throw in Bradshaw though to get Marshall's owner at time to bite on the trade. I told him try Colston for Marshall straight up first if he wanted him that bad and maybe throw in Snelling if he had to just to sweeten the deal but that from the get go Colston and Bradshaw was too much to give up unless he knew for sure that he had to. That's kind of my take on it as far as I understand it anyhow. If Portis was currently healthy, that deal would look a lot better for my brother I feel though. I'd still have to give the advantage to the team he traded with though. Colston and Bradshaw is a pretty darn sweet deal for him especially with the team he's already got.
[Reply]
doomy3 11:04 AM 10-07-2010
Originally Posted by blazzin311:
Yea Bradshaw that's who it was he traded away...I knew it was someone good. The Colston for Marshall part of the deal I think by season's end will be pretty even...Colston hasn't done much yet but he'll come on eventually I think. He could have a good matchup this week against a weak Ariz. secondary actually. At the same time Marshall has been putting up some decent stats to this point. I'm not really sure how similar his and Colston' stats are right now but I think last time I checked Marshall's numbers were a bit ahead of Colston's at this point in time. Again don't hold me to that. I can tell you though that he thinks there's too many weapons in NO fantasy wise and that's why Colston hasn't produced much yet this season. Basically he just grew impatient. I still think he and Marshall are pretty even fantasy receivers this year. I think he thought he'd have to throw in Bradshaw though to get Marshall's owner at time to bite on the trade. I told him try Colston for Marshall straight up first if he wanted him that bad and maybe throw in Snelling if he had to just to sweeten the deal. That's kind of my take on it as far as I understand it anyhow. If Portis was currently healthy, that deal would look a lot better for my brother I feel though. I'd still have to give the advantage to the team he traded with though. Colston and Bradshaw isn't a bad deal for him at all.
Marshall is a much better fantasy receiver than Colston, and has been much better than him so far this season. I think you're right though and Colston will turn it on.

Bradshaw is a top 10 RB though, and pushes the deal so far out of whack it isn't funny.
[Reply]
BigCatDaddy 11:04 AM 10-07-2010
Originally Posted by doomy3:
You're right, and I upheld the trade.

The commish shouldn't have to send a message like that, but I can't see any justification for this trade at all. It is awful on every possible level.

Perhaps you would like to start a poll in the Casino Planet about this one too. I would imagine your feedback would be much different on this than the last one you posted, that most people said it was pretty even.
There were like 2 comments on the trade :-)

It's about on the same level, you and I both won our deals IMO. You just can't be hypocritical and accept deals where you win, but put on a hold on similar deals between others because you don't have a dog in the fight.
[Reply]
doomy3 11:07 AM 10-07-2010
Originally Posted by BigCatDaddy:
There were like 2 comments on the trade :-)

It's about on the same level you and I both won our deals IMO. You just can't be hypocritical and accept deals where you win, but put on a hold on deals between others because you don't have a dog in the fight.
I would say that this deal was uneven if Portis was healthy. With Portis's groin disconnected from his bone and out 6 weeks, this is so uneven it isn't even justifiable.

As others in the poll you posted said, I won my deal, but it wasn't lopsided.

Should we see what people say about this one?

And besides, I pushed it through, so you can quit complaining about this now. I'm sure there will be something else to complain about soon enough.
[Reply]
blazzin311 11:09 AM 10-07-2010
Originally Posted by doomy3:
Marshall is a much better fantasy receiver than Colston, and has been much better than him so far this season. I think you're right though and Colston will turn it on.

Bradshaw is a top 10 RB though, and pushes the deal so far out of whack it isn't funny.
That's what I tried to tell him. You dont give up too much if you don't have to...in a sense lowball the team your trying to trade with first. I don't necessarily mean lowball them to th point that you'd be screwing them over or anything. If the owner didn't like that deal I told him to start adding other players to the trade, Snelling or someone else for example...but never sell the farm right of the bat on a trade. Thats just ludacris. Also yea that's what I thought about Marshall's numbers to this point (him being better than Colston thus far I mean). I just wasn't for sure on that and didn't feel like looking it up to be honest. Lol.
[Reply]
BigCatDaddy 11:10 AM 10-07-2010
Originally Posted by doomy3:
I would say that this deal was uneven if Portis was healthy. With Portis's groin disconnected from his bone and out 6 weeks, this is so uneven it isn't even justifiable.

As others in the poll you posted said, I won my deal, but it wasn't lopsided.

Should we see what people say about this one?

And besides, I pushed it through, so you can quit complaining about this now. I'm sure there will be something else to complain about soon enough.
That's fine, but you said trades could only be declined if collusion was suspected. Was collusion suspected here? I'm just trying to figure out which way we are going. Collusion, or the commish doesn't like the trade unless his team benefits, which standard are we going to use?
[Reply]
BigCatDaddy 11:12 AM 10-07-2010
Originally Posted by blazzin311:
That's what I tried to tell him. You dont give up too much if you don't have to...in a sense lowball the team your trying to trade with first. I don't necessarily mean lowball them to th point that you'd be screwing them over or anything. If the owner didn't like that deal I told him to start adding other players to the trade, Snelling or someone else for example...but never sell the farm right of the bat on a trade. Thats just ludacris. Also yea that's what I thought about Marshall's numbers to this point (him being better than Colston thus far I mean). I just wasn't for sure on that and didn't feel like looking it up to be honest. Lol.
Also postion ranks don't mean jack after 4 weeks. Using early numbers or rankings to justify trades is dumb. A lot of trades are made based upon future expecations.
[Reply]
blazzin311 11:17 AM 10-07-2010
Originally Posted by BigCatDaddy:
That's fine, but you said trades could only be declined if collusion was suspected. Was collusion suspected here? I'm just trying to figure out which way we are going. Collusion, or the commish doesn't like the trade unless his team benefits, which standard are we going to use?
Well I'll just say this and use it as a hypothetical situation mind you. But if two teams are trading...one team is lets just say 1-3 and the other team is 3-1 or perhaps even 4-0. Now just imagine for a second the 3-1 team is getting the way better part of the trade, to the point where it's not even a remotely close trade. Why then would he or whomever the commish in this given situation allow the rich to get richer. I mean adding a stud receiver and stud back to an already stud team while the weaker team is getting ripped off (even though the weaker team proposed the trade) just doesn't seem right on some level. Now I'm not saying there's any truth to this or not...but I could see how some Commissioners of leagues if they can prevent the trades might look at it that way. That's just my theory anyway.
[Reply]
shorman22 11:22 AM 10-07-2010
Originally Posted by blazzin311:
That's what I tried to tell him. You dont give up too much if you don't have to...in a sense lowball the team your trying to trade with first. I don't necessarily mean lowball them to th point that you'd be screwing them over or anything. If the owner didn't like that deal I told him to start adding other players to the trade, Snelling or someone else for example...but never sell the farm right of the bat on a trade. Thats just ludacris. Also yea that's what I thought about Marshall's numbers to this point (him being better than Colston thus far I mean). I just wasn't for sure on that and didn't feel like looking it up to be honest. Lol.
Exactly just don't cave in or give a worse deal like I did because your tired of arguing. I'm hoping that vjackson get traded to New England and if that happens I'm set again.
[Reply]
blazzin311 11:26 AM 10-07-2010
Originally Posted by BigCatDaddy:
Also postion ranks don't mean jack after 4 weeks. Using early numbers or rankings to justify trades is dumb. A lot of trades are made based upon future expecations.
Exactly...well maybe not. I mean I definitely see what your getting at. I try not to put too much faith in numbers if the player is a stud fantasy player and isn't performing to expectations early in the season. Of course this can vary depending on certain situations I suppose. On the other hand if players are playing out of their mind early in the season and have been consistent doing so for a few games in a row, then I might put some faith behind such a player...take A. Foster for example. I didn't think he be nearly as unstoppable as he's been (in all fairness I'm sure not many out side of Hou. fans saw this one coming) but at this point I'd buy in and say he's the real deal even though he's only had a short sample size to work with thus far this season. Another example this year might be M. Clayton in Stl. A non factor for the first several years of his career for the most part, but since he's arrived in Stl. this year he's been putting up solid fantasy numbers week in and week out. I'd say he's the real deal this year, even though like I said sample size this season is short. Now does that make any sense what I'm trying to say?
[Reply]
doomy3 11:26 AM 10-07-2010
Originally Posted by BigCatDaddy:
That's fine, but you said trades could only be declined if collusion was suspected. Was collusion suspected here? I'm just trying to figure out which way we are going. Collusion, or the commish doesn't like the trade unless his team benefits, which standard are we going to use?
Perhaps you missed my first reply to you here I started my post with you're right. That's why I pushed the trade through. Do you complain just to read your keystrokes?

I do feel that injury is a different animal and if a guy didn't know that a player just went on IR or was missing the rest of the season, then that's what I was saying. If you don't feel that taking advantage of a guy who didn't know Portis was missing the next 6 weeks or longer was a big deal, then more power to you.
[Reply]
pkane 11:27 AM 10-07-2010
The simple fact is that this trade was crazy lopsided one way. I don't like vetos and if the two people agree to a trade then thats fine. But there is no way you can compare this to Doomys and Shormans trade at all.
[Reply]
Page 23 of 34
« First < 131920212223 2425262733 > Last »
Up