Avernus Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 it's last day for transactions today and theres a new trade for me to approve... eric johnson and nick goings for antonio gates... does this warrant a veto at all?... If I'm just being a jack***....let me know...seriously... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skylive5 Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 Well, Goings is the starter. And Johnson was on fire earlier just like Gates is now. I don't see a veto in the air. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 it's last day for transactions today and theres a new trade for me to approve... eric johnson and nick goings for antonio gates... does this warrant a veto at all?... If I'm just being a jack***....let me know...seriously... 573447[/snapback] Why? Buy low, sell high. Chances are, Goings was a recent pickup and if so on one level it's Johnson and a waiver move for Gates. Given that the guy probably NEEDs an RB this one is fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rellen13 Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 Looks fine. Not very bright for the long haul, but fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted November 24, 2004 Author Share Posted November 24, 2004 Well, Goings is the starter. And Johnson was on fire earlier just like Gates is now. I don't see a veto in the air. 573450[/snapback] alright...I just thought it was funny because the Gates owner owns Crumpler as well...so why would he need another TE when he can solidify another spot....especially getting Goings...when he's only had 1 good game... I guess this falls more under the idiot category more than the cahooting category... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted November 24, 2004 Author Share Posted November 24, 2004 Why? Buy low, sell high. Chances are, Goings was a recent pickup and if so on one level it's Johnson and a waiver move for Gates. Given that the guy probably NEEDs an RB this one is fine. 573453[/snapback] he has cumar, tiki and k jones Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skylive5 Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 I guess this falls more under the idiot category more than the cahooting category... 573459[/snapback] I can go with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted November 24, 2004 Author Share Posted November 24, 2004 thanks for the input...I'm going to allow the trade and just laugh at the Gates owner when I see him....lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted November 24, 2004 Author Share Posted November 24, 2004 tough call not knowing what the teams look like that are proposing this trade and if they are still in the hunt for the post season. also is this a keeper league? but with just a look at it even quickly it seems ok. Yes Gates is better than Johnson and since San Fran still sucks I doubt Johnson will keep up his early season production. As far as goings goes I feel he had 1 great game and will come back to earth this week, he may still get some decent production but not like last week even if you combine his stats the rest of the year. I say let it go and No you are not being a Jack***!!! 573463[/snapback] preciate the input....the Gates owner is in 1st in his division...the other owner is in a dogfight for a playoff spot in another division....both have a couple good RB's.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 I'd rather have the Gates end of the deal. But it isn't so egregious to warrant a veto. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 alright...I just thought it was funny because the Gates owner owns Crumpler as well...so why would he need another TE when he can solidify another spot....especially getting Goings...when he's only had 1 good game... I guess this falls more under the idiot category more than the cahooting category... 573459[/snapback] I'm in a yardage league and have started Goings the last two weeks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted November 24, 2004 Author Share Posted November 24, 2004 very well then...I got what I wanted out of the post.... thank you all for your input.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedroz13 Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 it's last day for transactions today and theres a new trade for me to approve... eric johnson and nick goings for antonio gates... does this warrant a veto at all?... If I'm just being a jack***....let me know...seriously... 573447[/snapback] I would agree it looks a little suspect , but Goings is a hot commodity right now. Eric Johnson started off the season on a torrid pace , so he has the potential. Think of it this way ...if someone would have traded for Droughs ( in a trade similar to the one you mentioned ) the first week he got the start ....many would have thought it suspect as well. I say let it go through . It may backfire , but let them worry about that . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PackerFanX Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 No reason to veto this one. The team giving up Gates must be pretty thin at RB f they are after Goings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 Tough call? Are you guys nuts? The guy giving up Gates should call a cop, because he's getting robbed. No reason to veto it though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bender Rodriguez Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 I've seen and approved worse. Not a very good trade for the guy giving up Gates IMO though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TecmoBeast Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 (edited) no veto, it's a bad trade but not veto-able Edited November 25, 2004 by TecmoBeast Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted November 25, 2004 Author Share Posted November 25, 2004 No reason to veto this one. The team giving up Gates must be pretty thin at RB f they are after Goings. 573630[/snapback] as I said...he has Cumar...Tiki and K Jones 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.