SpinalTapp Posted September 13, 2007 Share Posted September 13, 2007 The owner giving up Palmer also has Bulger. He believes that Ward will keep the starting job all year. A backup RB (ward) holding the job of the starter till he gets back plus an injury prone WR (stallworth) that has yet to prove he fits in his new system in exchange for the #2 best QB in the league straight up? Am I crazy, or is this a deal that should be nixed? I normally do not kill deals, but this one seems so lopsided I am not sure that I can let it go through. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted September 13, 2007 Share Posted September 13, 2007 It is a sucky deal but if Stalworth gets 1100 yards and Wards runs for a 1000 that guy is gonna be pissed. It is not so sucky it should be vetoed IMO unless the 2 guys have a background or there is some other reason to believe collusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLGRAF Posted September 13, 2007 Share Posted September 13, 2007 It is lopsided, in my opinion. But, if the guy trading Palmer for Ward is desperate for a RB, based upon his current roster, then I may not assume it to be collusion or anything. If you are not sure, you might want to put it up for a league vote. Or, if that is not an option in your league rules, let the trade go through, and if someone complains, suggest that the rules be changed to allow for a league vote on protested trades in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chumlie Posted September 13, 2007 Share Posted September 13, 2007 I too am a commissioner and unless I have very good evidence the trade is not being made in good faith I let them go. Is it a good trade? Only for the guy getting Palmer. Ward will not start all year and Stallworth will be a #3 soon enough, if he stays healthy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpinalTapp Posted September 13, 2007 Author Share Posted September 13, 2007 In our 12 man leauge a trade has to get seven NO votes for it to be killed. Unfortunately, what ends up happening is that some owners go on a lobbying mission to secure four YES votes to ensure that if all other owners kill the deal, the trade goes through with only six kill votes. The owner looking to acquire Ward has LJordan and SJax. However, his best receiver is Reggie Brown. What he should be doing is moving Palmer or Bulger for a #1WR. However he is being lobbying to accept this deal. I will reject the deal if it is put up for a vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted September 13, 2007 Share Posted September 13, 2007 In our 12 man leauge a trade has to get seven NO votes for it to be killed. Unfortunately, what ends up happening is that some owners go on a lobbying mission to secure four YES votes to ensure that if all other owners kill the deal, the trade goes through with only six kill votes. The owner looking to acquire Ward has LJordan and SJax. However, his best receiver is Reggie Brown. What he should be doing is moving Palmer or Bulger for a #1WR. However he is being lobbying to accept this deal. I will reject the deal if it is put up for a vote. Do you suspect collusion? if not vetoing a deal like this is coaching another team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Wiggy Posted September 13, 2007 Share Posted September 13, 2007 Do you suspect collusion? if not vetoing a deal like this is coaching another team. Agreed. Unless your league has a rule outlawing stupidity, you have to let the deal go through. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted September 13, 2007 Share Posted September 13, 2007 And if Palmer has an off year an Stallworth or Ward or both blow up, this owner will look like a genius getting them. Too many times I have seen owners complain about a trade that looks lopsided only to have the side everyone thought was getting shafted come out way ahead, and not because of injury, but because of a player performing well. YEs, on the surface I think I'd prefer to have Palmer, but I definitely wouldn't veto the deal. If anything, if I saw a guy with Palmer and Bulger and felt I could use a QB, I';d be targeting him to as more than likely a guy with those two QBs is weak elsewhere and in a position to want to deal without having a ton of leverage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted September 13, 2007 Share Posted September 13, 2007 What do your league rules says about trades? Unless the commissioner/league can veto a trade because one of the owners is a dumbass, there is nothing that you can/should do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donutrun Jellies Posted September 13, 2007 Share Posted September 13, 2007 And if Palmer has an off year an Stallworth or Ward or both blow up, this owner will look like a genius getting them. Too many times I have seen owners complain about a trade that looks lopsided only to have the side everyone thought was getting shafted come out way ahead, and not because of injury, but because of a player performing well. YEs, on the surface I think I'd prefer to have Palmer, but I definitely wouldn't veto the deal. If anything, if I saw a guy with Palmer and Bulger and felt I could use a QB, I';d be targeting him to as more than likely a guy with those two QBs is weak elsewhere and in a position to want to deal without having a ton of leverage. CORRECT It all depends on each team's individual situations and each owner's individual comfort with risk. I just made a deal to get Chad Johnson from the Jacobs owner for Curry and Wade -- because all he had for RBs (start 2) were LJ, Jacobs, and Betts. In that 12 team league, there is NOTHING on the waiver wire (or at least after I snagged Wade and CBrown). With Portis having a nice week, he wanted Wade. Curry gave him a great upside WR to plug into his lineup of deep WRs ... I like the deal for me, it meets his needs -- and if Curry has the sneaky big year I expected when I drafted him in the 9th round, he'll have done well to patch his RB mess and still stay strong at WR. It's time to put away the pre-season magazines and start judging moves on what each owner needs at that very moment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bootron Posted September 13, 2007 Share Posted September 13, 2007 Unless you are certain there is colllusion, you should never veto a trade, IMHO. It isn't your job to keep people from making stupid trades, it's your job to find people to make stupid trades with (in your favor) ! Keep the bureaucracy out, let the people do what they want to do. If a guy is savvy enough to dupe someone else into making a bad trade, doesn't he deserve to win? I think so. 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.