FootballMom3 Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 (edited) Is it fair to approve of this trade: Jason Campbell for Kurt Warner? You should know that the guy who has Kurt Warner has already "thrown in the towel" and doesn't seem to care. (He is 0-5.) He has Peyton Manning, who is on a bye this week, and hasn't picked up any player until this week. He had the first pick this week and picked up Warner--but immediately requested to trade with a guy who is 3-2 and has Jason Campbell. It LOOKS like the two of them were in cahoots before the add/drops were even processed. Thanks for your help and input. Edited October 11, 2007 by FootballMom3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bat_2721 Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 I don't see any major collusion here. I would let the trade go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 By and large, I'm not in favor of vetoing trades unless it really seems bad and this one doesn't. The only thing strange to me is that dude only needs a QB for this week and Warner has a better matchup than Campbell. Don't know if that's enough to nix the trade tho Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearcatTom Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 As stated above, you don't veto trades due to stupidity, but collusion. It is ok to arrange a trade based on waiver wire order, but ususally the trade involves switching diff type players. I.E. you need a RB and a player later in the order needs a QB, it is ok to pick up Warner and trade for a RB. If you think this guy has already thrown in the towel, then have a conversation, not email, with him. Ask him about it straight up. If you have concerns with his commitment. If he tells you that he is just doing this to screw someone else over or that he doesn't care, then the trade should be vetoed due to his ruining the league's integrity. Then you don't invite him back the next year and have a heart to heart with the other owner also and let the league know that fire sales and throwing in the towel is not allowed. If he responds with some sort of logic behind the trade, then you have to let it go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarbonThief Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 Although you did attempt to bias our opinions with a circumstantial story filled with conspiracy and drama, the trade is not that bad. Campbell is proving himself to be consistent and reliable in a mediocre offense, while Warner has upside potential to light it up in AZ. I say let the trade go through. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FootballMom3 Posted October 11, 2007 Author Share Posted October 11, 2007 Thanks a lot for your input. I really think what has happened is that the guy who is 0-5 has some serious problems to deal with at home and now doesn't have time and so isn't "fully invested" in participating. Knowing that, the guy who is 3-2 just approached the guy with problems who agreed to the trade without even caring one way or the other. Anyway, thanks again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scrappyone75 Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 I agree with above, don't veto over stupidity! But is it that stupid, Kurt Warner, at his age remaining healthy enough to help the 3-2 guy out all season long? Don't think so, he will go down and they will replace the knocked out immobile man with Rattay. Let that guy have Cambell as the backup to Manning. 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.