Ralph Furley Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 Peyton sucks. He should stick to doing his stupid commercials because thats about all he is worth at this point. I loved the statement he made recently about how he's going to try and overcome the loss of Edgerin James, which was basically that he (Peyton) would start trying to run the ball more often. Oh that will work out great pretty-boy. In fact, I can't wait to see your pasty white ass try that...I wonder what the end result would be? Volek could very easily be better than the pretty-boy this year based on the weapons that he will have and the fact that he's put up strong numbers in the past as well. This year will be the turning point in Manning's career. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 we agree to disagree. it's all good. i like vanilla, most appear to like chocolate. to me, volek for manning is in no way a square trade. i can't be convinced otherwise. manning is an mvp canidate. assuming both players are healthy manning is close to a lock for 30 td's. he's a top 3 qb in pretty much any scoring system. you can't say the same for volek. not even close. i think most of us would agree volek is a temp solution until vyoung is deemed ready by the titans to take over the reins. manning is the starter for years to come, volek will be lucky if he starts 14 games in 2006. he's quite possibly a career backup. most of you here are very savy ff players. no one would trade manning for volek. in my league if the commish let that trade go through i would see it as 1 sided. to the point that has been made multiple times, there has to be trust in the other owners. i agree. the league for the most part polices it's self. 9 out of 10 owners deleted the trade proposal when it hits the inbox if it's 1 sided. Last year You would have said the owner trading TO for SSmith was getting screwed. You would have said the guy giving Culpepper for any number of other QBs including the likes of Bledsoe, Carr, Brunell, Brooks etc was getting screwed. You would have said the guy giving Walker for SMoss was getting screwed. You would have said the guy giving TO for Galloway was really getting screwed. Point is your crystal ball is no better than anybody else's. Why should YOU or the other owners in the league get to decide what is fair and not fair. If you had an owner last year that had agreed to a trade where he got Galloway for TO and you/your league shot the trade down would you have given him his money back? Awarded him the SB? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 (edited) we agree to disagree. it's all good. i like vanilla, most appear to like chocolate. to me, volek for manning is in no way a square trade. i can't be convinced otherwise. manning is an mvp canidate. assuming both players are healthy manning is close to a lock for 30 td's. he's a top 3 qb in pretty much any scoring system. you can't say the same for volek. not even close. i think most of us would agree volek is a temp solution until vyoung is deemed ready by the titans to take over the reins. manning is the starter for years to come, volek will be lucky if he starts 14 games in 2006. he's quite possibly a career backup. most of you here are very savy ff players. no one would trade manning for volek. in my league if the commish let that trade go through i would see it as 1 sided. to the point that has been made multiple times, there has to be trust in the other owners. i agree. the league for the most part polices it's self. 9 out of 10 owners deleted the trade proposal when it hits the inbox if it's 1 sided. I'm guessing you have never been in a salary cap / contract league. 10x more interesting than a plain ol' dynasty league and 1000x more interesting than a redrafter. If, say, a team had Manning for $100, McNabb for $55 and Brady for $50 on their roster ... and the cap for an entire 24 man roster was only $500, what would you have the man do? Keep 40% of his cap spent on his starting and two back up QBs? Just cut Manning outright to recoup the $100? Or, instead, should he try to get SOMETHING for him in trade? Like maybe Volek, who is signed to a four year contract at $1? Or, what if it was a league where you could only keep two players at a position and where each player kept would cost you a draft pick based on some formula driven by where they were drafted last year ... and the PManning owner also had Carson Palmer, Larry Johnson and Torry Holt ... and to keep Manning would cost a 1st rounder, Holt a 2nd rounder, LJ a 4th rounder and Palmer a 5th rounder ... and by getting Volek, he would spend a 17th rounder on Volek and free up his 1st rounder to be used on a RB like Clinton Portis... Would it be a bad trade then? You simply don't have enough information to maintain your closeminded views... There are loads of variables that go into making one trade a good one and another trade a bad one. Scoring rules. Lineup requirements. Salary cap considerations. Keeper considerations. Etc. Edited June 30, 2006 by muck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldsheet Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 muck - your right about other variables. my opinions stated are based on a redraft format. the original post never mentioned anything about dynasty, contracts, etc. since most leagues are redraft my assumption and opinions stated are based on a redraft format. in the leagues you mentioned there certainly could be scenarios where you have to make a salary dump or will lose the player to contract expiration where you have no choice but to take less for a player. my previously stated opinions relate to redraft only. the scenario you laid out is another story. grits - no one knows what will happen but there are some bets that are safer than other. in a redraft there's no way you trade LJ for walli lundy. my point is some trades should not be allowed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted July 1, 2006 Share Posted July 1, 2006 And, if you're in a league where morons exist, either deal with it and take their money or go find another league. Life is wayyyy too short to be in a league that requires the micro-managing of other owners like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardrocker Posted July 2, 2006 Share Posted July 2, 2006 muck - your right about other variables. my opinions stated are based on a redraft format. the original post never mentioned anything about dynasty, contracts, etc. since most leagues are redraft my assumption and opinions stated are based on a redraft format. in the leagues you mentioned there certainly could be scenarios where you have to make a salary dump or will lose the player to contract expiration where you have no choice but to take less for a player. my previously stated opinions relate to redraft only. the scenario you laid out is another story. grits - no one knows what will happen but there are some bets that are safer than other. in a redraft there's no way you trade LJ for walli lundy. my point is some trades should not be allowed. I cant really disagree with anything that you say...but the point is that if you and I make an agreement becuase I think giving you Manning for Volek is a good deal, even if you think I am stupid...that is my perogative, and should not be overrulled if I really believe I am making a good deal. As commissioner of my local, I have never vetoed a trade, but I always ask each party to explain their rationale. I dont have to agree with the logic, but as long as the guy doesnt say, "im out of it so I figured what the hell" Im gonna give it a pass. I have not come across something so blatent as say...Marion Barber for LT2, but I would listen to an arguement. Someone in my league drafted Lee Suggs in the second round last year...we didnt cancel the draft... OF course we all tried to trade with that team. 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.