Author |
Topic: Trade... (Read 667 times) |
|
MordecaiCourage
Guest
Back to top
|
Tim, I think it depends on what each guy needed. For instance, if the guy who got Westbrook needed a starting RB more than anything else, then he would likely have to give up more to get him. I think Moss and Bledsoe may be a little much, but only if the guy had no other quality at the positions he gave up. If I had say, Manning, Delhomme, and Bledsoe on my roster and Holt, Moss, and Driver and my RB's were Kevin Barlow, Warrick Dunn, and Marion Barber. Well then I would say I would need to package a deal to another team to get a starting RB...hence the trade I just made makes sense....catch what I'm saying?
|
|
 Logged |
|
|
|
GM
# 532
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 308
Back to top
|
 |
Re: Trade...
« Reply #2 on: Jul 23rd, 2006, 6:21pm » |
 Quote  Modify
|
Kenny,
Here is a new look at both teams that were involved in that trade.
Team A:
QB-
Brunell
Green
RB-
T. Barber
Westbrook
Moore
Alstott
A. Smith
Haynes
WR-
Fitzgerald
S. Moss
Driver
Team B:
QB-
Bledsoe
Volek
RB-
Anderson
McAllister
Jackson
Lewis
Bennett
Dayne
WR-
Glenn
R. Moss
McCardell
Curtis
Bruce
So what do you think now, my problem is Team B, strengthened his team to the point where he pretty much is the team to beat, Team A on the other hand, crippled it. That's just what I'm seeing, you had Two Moss's w/Fitzgerald, with Bledsoe QB'n. Might have been a little weak in the RB depart., but I think losing Bledsoe/Moss & picking up Brunell/Westbrook, you would have been better keeping what you had, and searching the waiverwire, RB's always pop up.
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19699
Back to top
|
 |
Re: Trade...
« Reply #5 on: Jul 25th, 2006, 2:36am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jul 23rd, 2006, 6:50pm, Philly wrote:| I've always subscribed to the idea that as long as there is NO evidence of collusion in a trade, it should be approved. |
|
Moreover, if it was "guy one" who offered the deal; then, the deal REALLY should not be contested. The deal is surely lop-sided favoring "guy two", the guy to whom the deal was offered. I'm like Philly, though... If the league is comprised of competent, "consenting adults", there is no reason to be voting on trades. I digress... Frankly speaking, allowing voting on trades by rule is indicative of a weakness in a league. I understand that it may be a necessary evil, especially in the early formative years of a league or in leagues put together on the spot, especially over the net, but it should be looked at as a negative and something that should motivate a league to improve and something that a league should work to and hope to eliminate. The trade should stand even though, rosters notwithstanding, it's not a good deal for "guy one", but, again, he offered it... 
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
steelkings
Guest
Back to top
|
Its really hard to be to judgemental at this point in the season about lopsided trades. A lot of the fun of FF is letting some of that play out.
I.E: I had a owner in my league last year ready to pull a preseason trade with him sending T.O to me for Lamont Jordan. He didnt do it because everyone blew him a bunch of crap. "Ya cant send Owens for a 2 back" I for one am glad they changed his mind. Ya just dont know do ya!
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
|
Home
Help
Search
Members
Games
Login
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print
Remove
You don't want to (too drastically) decrease the (generally perceived) value of your team.
