| 0 |
Subject: Trade Review
Posted by: Great One
- Sustainer [053272014] Fri, Nov 09, 2007, 09:29
Keeper League
Team #1 trades
Ladanian Tomlinson
Chris Cooley
Jerry Porter
Team #2 trades
Frank Gore
Kellen Winslow
Plaxico Burress
Would you vote against this trade? |
| 1 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Fri, Nov 09, 2007, 10:10
|
cant see any honest reason to veto that one. (W/O knowing the complete rosters, hard to say definitively, but cant off the top of my head, see any valid reason to veto it.)
|
| 2 | holt
ID: 129202215
Fri, Nov 09, 2007, 16:33
|
trades don't have to be completely balanced. as long as both managers are trying to improve their team then what's the prob?
|
| 3 | wiggs
Sustainer
ID: 04991311
Fri, Nov 09, 2007, 17:46
|
the problem is 1 team is completely eliminated from the play offs and the other team is going to make the playoffs. I dont see how giving up 3 players for 1 will help
|
| 4 | Great One
ID: 201155199
Fri, Nov 09, 2007, 17:50
|
I think its helping because he's acquring Ladanian Freakin' Tomlinson and its a keeper league. So he's acquring him for a long time.
|
| 5 | wiggs
Sustainer
ID: 04991311
Fri, Nov 09, 2007, 17:55
|
GO, dont get so mad, I am just saying why i think it needs to be looking at.
Please list the 4 keepers he will be keeping after the trade.
|
| 6 | holt
ID: 129202215
Fri, Nov 09, 2007, 18:19
|
are you afraid that someone is improving their team? that's the whole purpose of making a trade. veto power should be used to stop collusion, or incredibly ridiculous trades (say like Randy Moss for Terry Glenn). what's the major problem with this trade anyway?
|
| 7 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Fri, Nov 09, 2007, 18:25
|
...veto power should be used to stop collusion, or incredibly ridiculous trades...
Agreed...100%.
|
| 8 | Great One
ID: 201155199
Fri, Nov 09, 2007, 18:36
|
I'm not mad, but there is no reason to veto, so it just seems like we are wasting time "looking at it"... the reasons for a veto are 1. Collusion, 2. RIDICULOUSLY out of whack trade.
Its pretty clear its neither of those.
And I don't really care who his 4 keepers are. Its irrelevant. We don't know what he's planning to do. Maybe he's gonna trade his non-keeper guys for injured guys (Cadillac, Duece etc)... maybe he is gonna fill out his keepers by giving up draft picks before the draft for peoples leftovers.
I did that same exact thing in another league to get LT. I traded Maroney, Shaun and Chad to get LT last year. Then since I had little depth, I gave up 7th and 8th round picks and scooped up peoples leftovers like Boldin and Ronnie Brown to round out my keepers. But it was worth it to me cause I had the absolute #1 guy in the game who can single handedly carry a team all by himself.
|
| 9 | wiggs
ID: 51013815
Fri, Nov 09, 2007, 18:43
|
GO,
Remember I also said I wasnt vetoing the trade, I just didnt think it should be pushed through in less then a day.
|
| 10 | Tree
ID: 57102918
Fri, Nov 09, 2007, 19:07
|
the problem is 1 team is completely eliminated from the play offs and the other team is going to make the playoffs. I dont see how giving up 3 players for 1 will help
14 team league. first place team is 6-3. last place team is 3-6. NO ONE is eliminated with four games still to play.
additionally, he's getting LT - the best RB in football. as tight as this league is, that might be enough to boost him into the playoff scene.
|
| 11 | wiggs
ID: 51013815
Fri, Nov 09, 2007, 23:35
|
Technically he isnt eliminated, but in order for him to make the play offs he needs to run the table and win games big time, and he will still need alot of help. `
|
| 12 | KrazyKoalaBears
ID: 149141616
Sat, Nov 10, 2007, 08:48
|
If it's a keeper league, then I can't imagine why anyone would even consider vetoing this trade. The whole point of a keeper league is that you can sacrifice this year for next (and beyond). NFL teams do it and keeper league emulate it.
We have a guy in our keeper league trading current players for next year's draft picks and nobody's vetoed anything because it all makes sense. He's all but eliminated and is rebuilding for next year. He got himself a nice set of keepers and an extra 2nd round and 3rd round pick for next year already.
Just like he's sacrificing this year for next, others are sacrificing next year for this.
The #1 team in our league (the guy with Tom Brady) just traded the last place team a draft pick for Kevin Curtis. Was I pissed? Absolutely. But only because I hadn't considered/offered it, not because I thought it was unfair or should be vetoed.
|
| 13 | Great One
ID: 201155199
Sat, Nov 10, 2007, 09:54
|
The point is - its not being vetoed, as there isn't a reason to. So what is the point of having it sit out there for 2 more days?
|
| 14 | wiggs
Sustainer
ID: 04991311
Sat, Nov 10, 2007, 11:57
|
My only point was it was a big trade as mentioned by someone else in the 101 tread, i forget who. Then I said I though it needed to be atleast kept on the board for more then a couple hours. (your right, it might not have gotten a single veto, but it also might have) Whats the harm of letting it sit there, it wasnt going to effect this weeks games to push it through last night rather then yesterday morning before anyone had a chance to see it. Finally I posted asking you not to push this through right away and you did it anyways. I told you right from the start I wasnt planning on vetoing the deal, but some people might like a chance to atleast consider it.
|
| 15 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Sat, Nov 10, 2007, 11:59
|
that I owuld be inclined to agree with. Managers should IMHO, be given the opportunity to review a trade on the table, and make a decision as to whether to veto or not.
|
| 16 | KrazyKoalaBears
ID: 149141616
Sat, Nov 10, 2007, 12:33
|
#14, agreed. All managers need to have their say before a trade should be "pushed through." If all managers have said, "No Veto," then I don't see a problem with pushing a trade through. Until then, it should wait.
Also, note that I said "all managers." I don't think it should be just a majority as a manager could come along after the majority and raise a major point that others did not consider and, upon reconsideration, decide to veto.
|
| 17 | Slizz
ID: 471041011
Sat, Nov 10, 2007, 12:54
|
Everyone is paying the same dues to be in the league. Its highly doubtful that someone would intentionally tank/collude the league with a trade.
Here is how I broke it down:
GO is giving up the #1 pick, (#2 or #3, at the latest next year in non-keepers) in LT who has a shelf life of 2, maybe 3 more good years at a high level.
Sure Frank Gore is young, but hes arguably the most injury prone "feature" RB in the NFL (not counting DeShaun Foster). Gore has done nothing this year and GO is trading away the "best" RB in the NFL for a "?". In order to do that hes gotta get some type of other compensation.
As for the other part of the deal, GO gave up Cooley, a solid TE who typically is big in the 2nd half of the season anyways. Check his game logs for the for the Redskins over the past two years if you dont believe me. Yea, he got Winslow, who is 80-100 with the chance of a TD each week, but I would contend that Cooley brings the same threat of a TD each game too...
Last part of the deal was Porter (obviously a throw-in b/c he is terrible) for Burress (injury prone). Sure Burress has the upside and is the feature WR in the NYG offense, but can his ankle hold up for the remainder of games?
Don't get it twisted, GO is taking a huge risk on players with some significant injuries for two proven players who have been injury free their entire careers.
Also, we should take tabs like I am going to do in the Rivers/Housh for Burress/Eli thread...than we'll see if the trade even made a difference or not!
As for the notification...I think GO was wrong in not leaving it up there until at least this morning considering games arent played until Sunday. That way it would allow all managers a chnace to review and throw their two cents in. Chances are, nobody was going to complain about this anyways. Going forward, I contend that we should adhere to that unless a deal is struck, say on a Saturday night.
|
| 18 | Tree
ID: 221042109
Sat, Nov 10, 2007, 13:01
|
i think 24 hours is more than enough time to review a trade. 48 hours is a long time, and if you want to move onto another trade immediately after this one, it makes it tougher.
i also think that if it's obvious there is no collusion in a trade, then there is no reason to wait for one, lone, dissenting manager holding things up.
|
| 19 | Slizz
ID: 471041011
Sat, Nov 10, 2007, 13:05
|
I would contend that mostly everyone posting on Rotoguru is proactive in checking their rosters and updates each day. That being said, give the remainder of the managers at least 24-36 hours to throw their two cents, if its even necessary.
In this case, I had no problems with it...its a bold trade but hey, he got his keepers locked. The way I see it, if the draft started tomorrow, LT would go #1 or #2, would gore even crack the 1st round?
|
| 21 | Great One
ID: 201155199
Sat, Nov 10, 2007, 16:02
|
Wiggs, the trade was up there way longer than a couple hours.
The trade was accepted Thursday afternoon and I pushed it through Friday morning. You are giving the impression to those giving opinions in this thread that it was accepted and then pumped right through.
Also, if you look at your post and mine - you can see they occured one minute apart on the home page. So I must have pushed it through while you were typing up your response.
|
| 22 | wiggs
ID: 51013815
Sat, Nov 10, 2007, 18:12
|
GO, Once again, i dont think you are cheating in anyway. I dont know what time the trade was accepted, but I do know it was not up for 24 hours.
|
| 23 | wiggs
ID: 51013815
Sat, Nov 10, 2007, 18:17
|
i think 24 hours is more than enough time to review a trade. 48 hours is a long time, and if you want to move onto another trade immediately after this one, it makes it tougher.
i also think that if it's obvious there is no collusion in a trade, then there is no reason to wait for one, lone, dissenting manager holding things up.
this is a ridiculous post. 24 hours is more then enough? you are right, if it was up for 24 hours then it is more then enough, it wasnt up for 24 hours. 1 lone dissenting manager should be more then enough to stop a trade from being pushed through if the trade will still make it through before the games start.
|
| 24 | Twarpy
Leader
ID: 386242821
Sat, Nov 10, 2007, 20:11
|
Wiggs, weve played in many leagues together, but I don't see what the big issue with this trade is, Im not going to go into why I think this trade is fair I've done that already.
It seems like you are upset because you are contending with GO this year. I am eliminated from the playoffs this year (95% sure), but it is a keeper league. In all the keeper leagues I have ever been in there are constantly the bottom tier teams giving up packages to try and improve their team next year. Much like MLB contending teams at the trading deadline load up on players is what GO is doing.
Even though I dont know GO that well, we are still paid the same dues, and last I checked there was a $50 penalty for finishing last in this league (which I think is good) and this in no way gives GO the title, but pushes the teams in contention to weigh their options of what they should be doing with their teams to make a run for this year, or go for next year.
|
| 25 | Great One
ID: 201155199
Sun, Nov 11, 2007, 11:05
|
Thats true, I forgot about my penalty. The teams at the bottom are also fighting to still get better to avoid that $50. So they can't go nuts selling the farm either.
And heck yeah, I gave up my ideal set of keepers for a mish-mashed unit of producing talent none of which is a Tier 1 keeper in my eyes... trying to make a little push this season.
|
| Rate this thread: | If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time. If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating. If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here. |
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|