Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Commish Question


Recommended Posts

The following trade was approved by the commish and two owners are not happy:


Steven Jackson

Vincent Jackson

Braylon Edwards




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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Chuckyone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...

Important Information