craiginthecapital Posted November 4, 2005 Share Posted November 4, 2005 I give up Delhomme, Glenn, and Mike Anderson I get Vick, L. Fitzgerald, S. Alexander Seem balanced, or am I too obviously trying to take this guy for a ride? He get s a QB and WR upgrade while losing at RB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearcatTom Posted November 4, 2005 Share Posted November 4, 2005 If he is willing to give up SA, go for it. With Edge and SA at RB, and Plexi and Fitz/Smith at WR, you are definitely good to go! Trades are just about one player, but should be about making the overall team potential better. While he is giving up a lot at RB, he may be gaining enough at QB to offset the loss. Hard to say without seeing rosters, but I wouldn't look twice at this trade as being unfair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craiginthecapital Posted November 4, 2005 Author Share Posted November 4, 2005 (edited) Sorry, guess posting his roster would have helped, huh? Current Starters: Vick, Michael QB Alexander, Shaun RB Taylor, Fred RB Fitzgerald, Larry WR Johnson, Chad WR McMichael, Randy TE Wilkins, Jeff K STL Bengals, DST Current Bench: Dorsey, Ken QB Barber, Marion RB Duckett, T.J. RB Jenkins, Michael WR Williams, Mike WR Falcons, DST I actually doubt he'll pull the trigger on anything involving Alexander like you said -- it's too much player to give up, but he's definately hurting at QB and has no reliabel depth at WR. With all of AZ's problems, I'd be hard-pressed to reply on Fitz long term. If he does pull the trigger, I'm rolli the rest of the season, no doubts. Edited November 4, 2005 by craiginthecapital Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zooty Posted November 4, 2005 Share Posted November 4, 2005 You have to do that. Any chance to get SA is worth it and your not giving up too much to get him Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craiginthecapital Posted November 4, 2005 Author Share Posted November 4, 2005 (edited) I also mentioned that I'd be willing to get Julius Jones invoved in the trade somehow if he was interested. I'd plug Julius in and pull Anderson or Glenn back and never think twice about it. Edited November 4, 2005 by craiginthecapital Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steelhead Posted November 4, 2005 Share Posted November 4, 2005 I like your thinking on this one. I wouldn't hestitate with Jones either. High ankle sprains are so tricky, and getting Alexander is HUGH! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mls13 Posted November 4, 2005 Share Posted November 4, 2005 I agree with the above. You make this deal for Alexander. I'd be surprised though if he bites. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mls13 Posted November 4, 2005 Share Posted November 4, 2005 I agree with the above. You make this deal for Alexander. I'd be surprised though if he bites. 1122267[/snapback] On second thought, he may do it to upgrade at QB where he's weak - Vick doesn't do much, in my league anyhow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craiginthecapital Posted November 4, 2005 Author Share Posted November 4, 2005 On second thought, he may do it to upgrade at QB where he's weak - Vick doesn't do much, in my league anyhow. 1122271[/snapback] Vick doesn't do much in any league. When LT threw for a TD this year, I think he passed Vick's fantasy numbers in the air. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ksu70 Posted November 4, 2005 Share Posted November 4, 2005 Go ahead and try it. NO chance that he will take it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NAUgrad Posted November 4, 2005 Share Posted November 4, 2005 Go ahead and try it. NO chance that he will take it. 1122322[/snapback] Exactly. Based on his lineup, there is no way he trades SA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kicker22 Posted November 4, 2005 Share Posted November 4, 2005 Go ahead and try it. NO chance that he will take it. 1122322[/snapback] I f I offered that to the SA owner in my league I would get spit at...that is truly an insulting offer and should be vetoed if he accepts...Where do you think Glenn is an upgrade over Fitz regardless of Boldin's injury. JMHO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craiginthecapital Posted November 4, 2005 Author Share Posted November 4, 2005 I f I offered that to the SA owner in my league I would get spit at...that is truly an insulting offer and should be vetoed if he accepts...Where do you think Glenn is an upgrade over Fitz regardless of Boldin's injury. JMHO 1122404[/snapback] So you're saying it's a little on the weak side? It's hard to tell..... Glenn is a better option than Fitz because: 1) More DAL targets means that he's not going to be the CB's favorite, 2) Bledsoe vs whoever's playing QB for Arizona this week, 3) a solid running in DAL means better passing opportunities, 4) Glenn's yards/reception is higher, meaning he's better at breaking longer plays (these are bonuses in our league), 5) with injuries in ARZ, Fritz is about to be double teamed left and right -- bad enough for a good QB, impossibile for their QBs.... ....of course, this is just what occurs to me off the top of my head. I'm sure there's more out there. As for vetos, not to get too off topic, but why veto? Just because Alexander is involved? To me, that's an abusive veto. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craiginthecapital Posted November 4, 2005 Author Share Posted November 4, 2005 Oh, and I agree with those saying he's not going to go for it. This was put out there on the chance he really is sick of having no QB week in, week out. If he were to take me up on my offer to include Jones and he begins to produce, then maybe there's something there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kicker22 Posted November 4, 2005 Share Posted November 4, 2005 (edited) So you're saying it's a little on the weak side? It's hard to tell..... Glenn is a better option than Fitz because: 1) More DAL targets means that he's not going to be the CB's favorite, 2) Bledsoe vs whoever's playing QB for Arizona this week, 3) a solid running in DAL means better passing opportunities, 4) Glenn's yards/reception is higher, meaning he's better at breaking longer plays (these are bonuses in our league), 5) with injuries in ARZ, Fritz is about to be double teamed left and right -- bad enough for a good QB, impossibile for their QBs.... ....of course, this is just what occurs to me off the top of my head. I'm sure there's more out there. As for vetos, not to get too off topic, but why veto? Just because Alexander is involved? To me, that's an abusive veto. 1122522[/snapback] It should be vetoed becuase there are signs of collusion there with SA involved. If it was any RB other than SA, LT or Edge then I could say it is somewhat equitable. That kind of trade would never fly in my league unless Draft picks were involved. Oh and regarding Fitz versus Glenn...check out their weekly performances...Fitz is by far better I totally disagree regardless if he is in a better system. Sometimes superior talent overcomes inferior systems...see LT first three seasons. Personally I would offer it myself, but I know it would be turned down the second I say SA. Edited November 4, 2005 by Kicker22 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craiginthecapital Posted November 4, 2005 Author Share Posted November 4, 2005 It should be vetoed becuase there are signs of collusion there with SA involved. If it was any RB other than SA, LT or Edge then I could say it is somewhat equitable. That kind of trade would never fly in my league unless Draft picks were involved. Oh and regarding Fitz versus Glenn...check out their weekly performances...Fitz is by far better I totally disagree regardless if he is in a better system. Sometimes superior talent overcomes inferior systems...see LT first three seasons. Personally I would offer it myself, but I know it would be turned down the second I say SA. 1122722[/snapback] On the Glenn/Fritz disucssion, the are litterally within a point of each other in terms of total points this seaosn in my league (just to add salt, Glenn is 1 point better). Talent can overcome system (see R. Moss, TO, S. Moss, and countless others), but right now that DAL system is doing good things for its receivers. Given that and the other ARX problems already mentioned, I think Glenn is a better bet down the stretch. As for the vetos, there is no collusion. In fact, there's probably a better chance he's laughing at me for the offer than there is that we've discussed it. We don't trade in picks in our league for historical reasons, so that's out. Just because a Top 5 RB is invloved doesn't automatically mean collusion. As someone said earlier, it should be about improving the team overall and not just about one player. Delhomme has outperformed Vick by 20+ points easily for several weeks -- Alexander has done the same over Anderson, and Jones could easily be on par with the Top 5 RBs once he returns. It's giving at one position for another; that's all. The trade is emant to test what position he's willing to weaken in order to get a performing QB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kicker22 Posted November 4, 2005 Share Posted November 4, 2005 On the Glenn/Fritz disucssion, the are litterally within a point of each other in terms of total points this seaosn in my league (just to add salt, Glenn is 1 point better). Talent can overcome system (see R. Moss, TO, S. Moss, and countless others), but right now that DAL system is doing good things for its receivers. Given that and the other ARX problems already mentioned, I think Glenn is a better bet down the stretch. As for the vetos, there is no collusion. In fact, there's probably a better chance he's laughing at me for the offer than there is that we've discussed it. We don't trade in picks in our league for historical reasons, so that's out. Just because a Top 5 RB is invloved doesn't automatically mean collusion. As someone said earlier, it should be about improving the team overall and not just about one player. Delhomme has outperformed Vick by 20+ points easily for several weeks -- Alexander has done the same over Anderson, and Jones could easily be on par with the Top 5 RBs once he returns. It's giving at one position for another; that's all. The trade is emant to test what position he's willing to weaken in order to get a performing QB. 1122743[/snapback] Can I play next year....I would love to play in a league that would allow a trade like that to fly... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearcatTom Posted November 4, 2005 Share Posted November 4, 2005 It should be vetoed becuase there are signs of collusion there with SA involved. If it was any RB other than SA, LT or Edge then I could say it is somewhat equitable. That kind of trade would never fly in my league unless Draft picks were involved. Oh and regarding Fitz versus Glenn...check out their weekly performances...Fitz is by far better I totally disagree regardless if he is in a better system. Sometimes superior talent overcomes inferior systems...see LT first three seasons. Personally I would offer it myself, but I know it would be turned down the second I say SA. 1122722[/snapback] How are there signs of collusion just becuase SA is involved? Collusion is defined by Webster's as - Secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful pupose. Not sure how you think this trade and the comments made fit that definition. I've seen way too many posts this year crying about whether or not a trade was fair or not and that it should be vetoed becuase in their eyes it was obviously lopsided and unfair and that one team got way too much! Stop the crying and complaining. You only veto if you can prove there is collusion, as defined above. You can't veto for stupidity or perceived unfairness. Each owner has the right to do what they want, given what they feel is the best for their team, as long as they are not intentionally dumping players or cheating. Thank god I'm not in your league. Sounds like a bunch of whiney bitches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craiginthecapital Posted November 4, 2005 Author Share Posted November 4, 2005 How are there signs of collusion just becuase SA is involved? Collusion is defined by Webster's as - Secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful pupose. Not sure how you think this trade and the comments made fit that definition. I've seen way too many posts this year crying about whether or not a trade was fair or not and that it should be vetoed becuase in their eyes it was obviously lopsided and unfair and that one team got way too much! Stop the crying and complaining. You only veto if you can prove there is collusion, as defined above. You can't veto for stupidity or perceived unfairness. Each owner has the right to do what they want, given what they feel is the best for their team, as long as they are not intentionally dumping players or cheating. Thank god I'm not in your league. Sounds like a bunch of whiney bitches. 1122791[/snapback] Thanks Bear. couldn't have said it better myself. I think vetos are used way too loosely in many leagues. If you ever need a face to fill another spot in your leagues, let me know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craiginthecapital Posted November 4, 2005 Author Share Posted November 4, 2005 Can I play next year....I would love to play in a league that would allow a trade like that to fly... 1122785[/snapback] My friend, I dare say you've been playing in "Big Brother" leagues too long if this is the clearest example of collusion you've seen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent_Mulder Posted November 4, 2005 Share Posted November 4, 2005 No brainer. Do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kicker22 Posted November 4, 2005 Share Posted November 4, 2005 How are there signs of collusion just becuase SA is involved? Collusion is defined by Webster's as - Secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful pupose. Not sure how you think this trade and the comments made fit that definition. I've seen way too many posts this year crying about whether or not a trade was fair or not and that it should be vetoed becuase in their eyes it was obviously lopsided and unfair and that one team got way too much! Stop the crying and complaining. You only veto if you can prove there is collusion, as defined above. You can't veto for stupidity or perceived unfairness. Each owner has the right to do what they want, given what they feel is the best for their team, as long as they are not intentionally dumping players or cheating. Thank god I'm not in your league. Sounds like a bunch of whiney bitches. 1122791[/snapback] Bearcat I understand your argument....but be honest are you telling me that a league that has a trade as presented is competitive...I would be peeved if my chances to make the playoffs were affected by allowing someone that stupid to play in our league...I am glad I play with the guys that I do because THEY KNOW HOW TO PLAY AND EVALUATE THE TALENT...THE CHALLENGE IS WHAT IS ENJOYABLE. Trades like this take the whole challenge and thrill of victory out of the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearcatTom Posted November 4, 2005 Share Posted November 4, 2005 Bearcat I understand your argument....but be honest are you telling me that a league that has a trade as presented is competitive...I would be peeved if my chances to make the playoffs were affected by allowing someone that stupid to play in our league...I am glad I play with the guys that I do because THEY KNOW HOW TO PLAY AND EVALUATE THE TALENT...THE CHALLENGE IS WHAT IS ENJOYABLE. Trades like this take the whole challenge and thrill of victory out of the game. 1122902[/snapback] Trades aren't about you. They are about the other teams involved. Hopefully if you execute a trade, it does lower the chances of other teams getting in the playoffs. If you aren't improving your team, why would you do the trade? Why would you do the trade if you weren't trying to win the league, thereby limiting the chances of other owners. I have seen some pretty stupid trades over the years and the only ones that have really irritated me were the ones where it was obvious one owner was giving up on the season. The trade was allowed, but we kicked both owners out the next year. No collusion, no veto, no matter how stupid. You take care of poor owners in other ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craiginthecapital Posted November 4, 2005 Author Share Posted November 4, 2005 (edited) How's this for a real world example: The Rams traded a RB they thought would be out of the league in a couple years to the Steelers for players who have since disappeared into the great beyond. For those of you unfamilir, the RB was Bettis. Now, clearly the Rams didn't evaluate his potential as effectivly as the Steelers, but, as in all sports, mistakes and stupidty are as inevitable as tight a$$es and idiots. But, the trade went though, Rams got worse, and Steelers got better. It's a little thing we call life, and we all must learn to live with it and get no with it. As for your season, if I was in your league, as Tom noted, my entire goal WOULD BE to limit your chances in favor of my own. And it's not like the other guy in my trade offer is not getting anything for this. I still maintain the WR situation could easily be viewed as an upgrade, and the QB I'm offering is a huge upgrade to what he currently has. I'm not offering Carr, Lelie, and Droughns for Alexander -- I'm putting up good solid starters. What we're taklking about here are opinions, and at what point yours should rule over the owners involved in a trade. There is no colusion, and that's the only answer you need, because at that point, your opinion should not rule the day unless you're one of the teams involved. Stupidity is not illegal. If it was, we'd all be guilty depending on the standard used to judge. Edited November 4, 2005 by craiginthecapital Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearcatTom Posted November 4, 2005 Share Posted November 4, 2005 How's this for a real world example: The Rams traded a RB they thought would be out of the league in a couple years to the Steelers for players who have since disappeared into the great beyond. For those of you unfamilir, the RB was Bettis. Now, clearly the Rams didn't evaluate his potential as effectivly as the Steelers, but, as in all sports, mistakes and stupidty are as inevitable as tight a$$es and idiots. But, the trade went though, Rams got worse, and Steelers got better. It's a little thing we call life, and we all must learn to live with it and get no with it. As for your season, if I was in your league, as Tom noted, my entire goal WOULD BE to limit your chances in favor of my own. And it's not like the other guy in my trade offer is not getting anything for this. I still maintain the WR situation could easily be viewed as an upgrade, and the QB I'm offering is a huge upgrade to what he currently has. I'm not offering Carr, Lelie, and Droughns for Alexander -- I'm putting up good solid starters. What we're taklking about here are opinions, and at what point yours should rule over the owners involved in a trade. There is no colusion, and that's the only answer you need, because at that point, your opinion should not rule the day unless you're one of the teams involved. Stupidity is not illegal. If it was, we'd all be guilty depending on the standard used to judge. 1122990[/snapback] I really like that last line there, can I steal it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.