Can't Veto Stupid, Correct?

[golfishgrace]

So we drafted this past friday night, $200 acution, 12 teams PPR, passing touchdowns 6 points and lots of bonus points for yardage levels.

 

One guy drafts Brees for $69 (the most paid for any player taken) this is the guys first player selected. Then he follows up with Kaepernick for $36. So now he has over half his stake gone and two quarterbacks, but no one else. then he picks WR's a TE and ends up with RB's Bilal Powel, Ryan Matthews and Jonathan Stewart, does not draft a defense.

 

So yesterday a trade in announced first guy trades;

 

Brees

J. Stewart

 

for

 

Romo

M. Ingram and

Seattle Defense.

 

When asked about it the guy getting brees say it was a win win, He says...."I offered a starting QB on his favorite team .. a top Def .. and a starting RB ... see if you can match it ... "

 

Then he added...."I tried to put something together that worked better .. but I need Murray until week 5 when both my other RBs are off .. don't think another trade down the road hasn't been discussed or thought of .. If you don't like the trade vote against it .. but you better put out an offer that is more than equal .. "

 

We have not as of yet heard the side from the buy who traded Brees....

 

Thoughts ??? LIke i said while colusion is suspected but of course there is no evidence....

[delusions of grandeur]

Seriously?

 

Sounds like the guy who bought 2 QBs either had buyer's remorse that he didn't have enough money left over to build a strong team, or more likely, that he purchased 2 high end QBs with the idea of trading one of them. Not the way I roll (I don't think you ever draft with the idea of trading, unless the price and value is just too good to pass up, though maybe he felt that way with Kaepernick).

 

Option 3, he doesn't know what the hell he's doing.

 

In sum, yes, you can't veto stupid. You'd need far more than that to suspect collusion, especially when the trade appears to be filling a deficiency he has.

[Bronco Billy]

Why would it be collusive when it's obvious the guy needs a D?

 

And I'm not seeing where that trade remotely meets the criteria of even being unfair. I'm drafting in a league tomorrow night where the projected season FF pts for each of the components of the trade described are the following:

 

Brees 401.91

Stewart 80.98

 

 

Romo 319.72

Ingram 153.96

Seattle 224.49

 

So the guy giving up Brees actually gained 215.28 FF pts. In that league, the guy trading Brees could have been accused of royally screwing the guy getting him.

 

Mind your own business and run your own flippin' team

[Big Country]

Why would it be collusive when it's obvious the guy needs a D?

 

And I'm not seeing where that trade remotely meets the criteria of even being unfair. I'm drafting in a league tomorrow night where the projected season FF pts for each of the components of the trade described are the following:

 

Brees 401.91

Stewart 80.98

 

 

Romo 319.72

Ingram 153.96

Seattle 224.49

 

So the guy giving up Brees actually gained 215.28 FF pts. In that league, the guy trading Brees could have been accused of royally screwing the guy getting him.

 

Mind your own business and run your own flippin' team

 

 

But what do you project Kap getting?

 

 

Can't veto stupid, and really can't call it stupid just yet, even if I would not do that deal as the Brees owner.

[Zooty]

looks fine to me. Guy may be stupid but he also doesn't seem smart enough to put together a complex collusive plan

[golfishgrace]

Thanks Guys.... Apriciate the feedback...

[BA Baracus]

Definitely not collusion at this point. Mtherchivesers gotta run their own teams.