PPIchamp Posted September 25, 2010 Share Posted September 25, 2010 This deal seems terrible to me. I realize Mathews has the high ankle sprain and could miss a few weeks or longer if he aggravates it, and McFadden is slipping into a committe or potentially losing his starting job altogether to Bush. Both situations are in flux, but Mathews has a higher floor and a much higher ceiling IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackass Posted September 25, 2010 Share Posted September 25, 2010 no Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetsfan Posted September 25, 2010 Share Posted September 25, 2010 This deal seems terrible to me. I realize Mathews has the high ankle sprain and could miss a few weeks or longer if he aggravates it, and McFadden is slipping into a committe or potentially losing his starting job altogether to Bush. Both situations are in flux, but Mathews has a higher floor and a much higher ceiling IMO. I hope you're joking, McFadden will have much better stats this year than Matthews. I would make that trade in a heartbeat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wpayers Posted September 25, 2010 Share Posted September 25, 2010 Deal appears to be slanted BUT does not warrant a veto. Veto should be for collusion only. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dino88 Posted September 25, 2010 Share Posted September 25, 2010 (edited) This deal seems terrible to me. I realize Mathews has the high ankle sprain and could miss a few weeks or longer if he aggravates it, and McFadden is slipping into a committe or potentially losing his starting job altogether to Bush. Both situations are in flux, but Mathews has a higher floor and a much higher ceiling IMO. That's exactly why it should NOT be vetoed. Let people play their own game. Edited September 25, 2010 by dino88 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLGRAF Posted September 25, 2010 Share Posted September 25, 2010 Deal appears to be slanted BUT does not warrant a veto. Veto should be for collusion only. +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slambo Posted September 25, 2010 Share Posted September 25, 2010 no, ridiculous to even suggest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flemingd Posted September 25, 2010 Share Posted September 25, 2010 Nice trade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
efi4eye Posted September 25, 2010 Share Posted September 25, 2010 shouldn't be vetoed imo. McFadden's stock is much higher now than at beginning of.season and Matthews's stock much lower than before. Buying high on McFadden, selling low on Matthews Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djryan21 Posted September 25, 2010 Share Posted September 25, 2010 I've got Matthews on my team and I don't think I would trade for McFadden. He's played well, but against terrible defenses and without Bush. Matthews still has plenty of upside (hopefully Tolbert can be handcuffed.) See my posts! DJR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wpayers Posted September 25, 2010 Share Posted September 25, 2010 slanted which way? I should have said only slightly slanted. The season is still young and many trades are still based on preseason hype, reputation or projections. IMO, as things stand today, Mathews is riding a wave of potential while most people still think of McFadden as a fragile underperformer. Notwithstanding McFadden's nice start, the deal appears to be in favor of the side getting Mathews. Realistically, this trade could go either way - it certainly should not be vetoed! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Favre4ever Posted September 25, 2010 Share Posted September 25, 2010 It's thinking like this that has ruined FF and many leagues...Run your team and your team only...Vetoes are only when 2 buddies,brothers ,cousins or just cheaters are straight out cheating... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captain77 Posted September 25, 2010 Share Posted September 25, 2010 It's thinking like this that has ruined FF and many leagues...Run your team and your team only...Vetoes are only when 2 buddies,brothers ,cousins or just cheaters are straight out cheating... I have been in the same league for over 10 years (like many others i'm sure). 9 of the league members have been in it since it's conception and the other 3 have been in the league for over 4 years...ALL are good friends not to mention there are 4 brothers in the league. And all in all the history of the league is what makes it fun and I would not want to replace one single owner we currently have...that being said we have had some issues with trades over the years. In the past trades were not voted on but certain owners did get taken advantage of so we implemented "the oz rule" (oz being the nickname of the owner who made poor decisions). The "oz rule" meant that for a trade to pass the trade must receive a majority of yes votes from the league. Over the years his decision making got much better and is not really a problem. Another situation that has occurred is that an owner who is not having a good year gets offered a trade by another owner and since he has no real shot of making the playoffs he will make a bad trade either to A) spice it up by trading his only good player (which makes no sense to me) or just make the trade because they no longer care. Basically what I am getting at is that there are other reasons than collusion that trades need to be monitored. What is the best way? When a horribly one sided trade happens it does not just affect the two owners involved, it affects the whole league. How can you prevent those situations without voting? Thanks, Owner looking for trade voting solutions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flemingd Posted September 25, 2010 Share Posted September 25, 2010 We have a rule to cover that. It's called the "don't be a dick" rule. If you're a dick you don't come back. Seriously, how can true friends do something like that and think it's acceptable? And how can true friends allow people to do that to them? You know what they say about people with friends like that .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pistolkid Posted September 25, 2010 Share Posted September 25, 2010 And I continually shake my head in disgust of how overrated Ryan Mathews is this year. He is only a rookie and he is starting to look like Adrian Peterson with fumbling and now his durability is in question. I found it ridiculous that some people took him in the first round in their drafts back during the pre-season and I still do now. He does have some potential being the normal starter in a high scoring offense though. It's not a terrible trade by any means. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearBroncos Posted September 25, 2010 Share Posted September 25, 2010 slanted which way? Exactly. I'm confused by this whole thread! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUMbotron Posted September 26, 2010 Share Posted September 26, 2010 Deal appears to be slanted BUT does not warrant a veto. Veto should be for collusion only. Agreed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0-16 Again Posted September 26, 2010 Share Posted September 26, 2010 you got to be kidding me, no way in heck that can be vetoed Help: http://forums.thehuddle.com/index.php?showtopic=332137 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeyb7 Posted September 26, 2010 Share Posted September 26, 2010 Definitely not a veto candidate....good trade IMO 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.