matt770 Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 The following trade was approved by the commish and two owners are not happy: Steven Jackson Vincent Jackson Braylon Edwards for Maurice Jones-Drew Larry Fitzgerald Lee Evans Jacoby Jones The league rules state that the commish will allow all trades unless there is evidence of collusion, or if a trade is so completely lopsided that it appears to be collusion or a team giving up. Does the above trade warrant a commish veto on those grounds? Commish feels that the team getting Jackson obviously got the much better end of the deal but gave up a lot in value also, so there is not clear evidence of collusion or cheating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 Well, there never is any evidence of collusion, so the operative rule is: if a trade is so completely lopsided that it appears to be collusion or a team giving up The answer no. i don't think that its even close. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 Idefinitely like the Jackson side better, but I would not go so far as to say that this is clear collusion. Fitz and Evans are clearly big upgrades at WR, or at least should be and if MJD is able to produce like he did at the end of last season, it may not be very lopsided at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatman Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 This is a great example of why trying to judge someone's trade as lopsided is dumb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuckyone Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 (edited) Doesn't seem like a bad trade really. Sure Jackson is the next best thing to LT, but the two WR attached haven't proved much yet. The second group with Jone-Drew is stronger if you go by last years stats. But if F Taylor is healthy all year the guy who gave up SJ will regret it. Evans and Fitz are an upgrade over V Jackson and Edwards, and with Jacoby Jones thrown in it doesn't seem like an out of line trade at all imho. Depending on what angle you take, almost any trade can be positioned to look unfair. Edited September 7, 2007 by Chuckyone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Wiggy Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 As others have been saying, the trade is nowhere near lopsided. Especially since we do know what the rest of the rosters look like for the 2 teams. Does the team trading Jackson have great RB depth but no WRs? The reason you have 2 pissed owners is because the team getting Jackson just got a lot better - jealousy pure and simple. Your commish is right - no way this trade should be vetoed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
giantsdave Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 The trade seeems OK depanding on the other rosters, Giving up #1 WRs for #1 RB. Sounds like sour grapes from the other 2 who couldn't pull it off 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.