Matt07chs Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 (edited) 0.5ppr Team 1 receives Robby Anderson Team 2 receives DeMarcus Robinson & Auden Tate Fair or unfair? We start 3 WRs and 1 Flex Team 2 WRs: - K. Allen, Golladay, Metcalf, R. Anderson, Godwin Team 1 WRs: - Kupp, J. Brown, G. Tate, T. Williams, A. Tate, D. Robinson Edited October 16, 2019 by Matt07chs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
8rattoon Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 Totally fine trade. Do not veto. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tank2125 Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 Why would you veto that?? That’s a totally decent trade to me lol I thought I was coming into see CMC for like Conner or something like that lmao Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveK Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 Nothing wrong with the trade, let it go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt07chs Posted October 16, 2019 Author Share Posted October 16, 2019 I think he's taking advantage of the kid, but, I guess I have to be unbiased. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smitticus Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 Wish more trades were like this. Most are so lopsided or just goofy. I can see how this might make both better. Robby may improve the QUALITY of the one whereas the other side may need to increase the QUANTITY of his wr’s. 👍🏼 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBlue41 Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 Who would veto a trade like this? Seriously? You brought the question here, so there must be legitimate concerns. Are you wanting to veto? Are others in your league considering it? What's the story? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt07chs Posted October 16, 2019 Author Share Posted October 16, 2019 2 minutes ago, GoBlue41 said: Who would veto a trade like this? Seriously? You brought the question here, so there must be legitimate concerns. Are you wanting to veto? Are others in your league considering it? What's the story? I'm gonna accept it. I guess this is more of a personal thing against a certain team. He likes to take advantage of the young or the not so smart teams. It's fair, yes. But there's no sane person who wouldn't take the Robby Anderson side of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tasandmnm Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 This trade is just fine, just dont see the problem. I wish I could make a trade like this in my league but if I want to even get someone interested I have to make it very lopsided in their favor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XFlash Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 nothing wrong with the trade. classic 2 for 1. If Team both team like it why is it a veto? If it was clearly lopsided, say a Barkley for Gore and Duke, then you have something, but this trade is not an issue. Owners are quick to scream foul, but they normally do not offer any trades. Trades do not happen much unless you have very small bench slots. Owners to chicken to take risks, but quick to complain when someone does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunterville69 Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 (edited) there was an instance where someone wanted to trade roethlisberger for mahomes last year bc this guy liked roethlisberger better during playoffs and it got vetoed, and sure enough roethlisberger was better week 15 and 16 overall. it was a late trade deadline. it sounds like an idiotic trade but everyone has their logic and vetos should really only be used when there is no logical explanation behind each side of the trade. the issue there was a late trade deadline Edited October 16, 2019 by gunterville69 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turbotooslow Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 Come on guys...! Only collusion warrants veto consideration. This is about as normal a trade as it gets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montana is da Man Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 Crap for crap, why veto? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 1 hour ago, Matt07chs said: I'm gonna accept it. I guess this is more of a personal thing against a certain team. He likes to take advantage of the young or the not so smart teams. It's fair, yes. But there's no sane person who wouldn't take the Robby Anderson side of it. Guess I'm insane, but I'd probably want the Robby Anderson side of this deal. Tate is on a mediocre offense and is likely about to start losing targets to AJ Green. With Hill back, Robinson is way down the pecking order for targets and as Hill gets phased back in even more Robinson will likely see fewer snaps and even fewer targets. Anderson on the other hand is on an upward trajectory with Darnold back and a friendly schedule going forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sid2355 Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 seems okay. if it was anderson for cmc than yes lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Badfinger Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 58 minutes ago, Montana is da Man said: Crap for crap, why veto? This^ 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.