Archive

Trade Veto.

  • Raw Dawgin' it
    I made a trade - Eli/Charles for Peyton/Colston. A girl in the league vetoed and responded with this email...
    Something's not right, seriously consider VETO-ing!!!

    hey all...first of all, this is FF and not personal...so with that said...

    i think this trade between Tenderfoots and Land of Pleasant Living is really
    fishy. First of all, why would LoPL, who already has Aaron Rodgers and
    Peyton...want another QB that is lesser than Peyton? Also...trading a lesser
    RB for a better WR? That basically means they're giving 2 good players for 1
    marginal one???

    Plus the teams that are trading are 1st and last placed teams. Does anyone
    not find this CRAZY!?!?!?!?! come on people...please take a seriously look
    at the proposal and veto!

    Happy Thursday:)
    I hate people who veto because their team isn't involved.
  • Dr. KnOiTaLL
    Raw Dawgin' it;1310014 wrote:I made a trade - Eli/Charles for Peyton/Colston. A girl in the league vetoed and responded with this email...



    I hate people who veto because their team isn't involved.
    There's your problem...
  • Commander of Awesome
    Thatr girl is doing you a favor. You're getting pwned in this trade, wish you were in my league.
  • like_that
    Raw Dawgin' it;1310014 wrote:I made a trade - Eli/Charles for Peyton/Colston. A girl in the league vetoed and responded with this email...



    I hate people who veto because their team isn't involved.

    Who else is supposed to veto? The person you are trading with? Nice fail.
  • Raw Dawgin' it
    like_that;1310119 wrote:Who else is supposed to veto? The person you are trading with? Nice fail.
    that's what's called a "grasping at straws pwn"
  • like_that
    Raw Dawgin' it;1310150 wrote:that's what's called a "grasping at straws pwn"
    Butt hurt, because nobody joined your "boo hoo, fuck that woman!" bandwagon? Got it.
  • Raw Dawgin' it
    like_that;1310197 wrote:Butt hurt, because nobody joined your "boo hoo, fuck that woman!" bandwagon? Got it.
    my butt is very hurt
  • jmog
    The trade isn't even, but it isn't so bad it's vetoable.
  • Raw Dawgin' it
    jmog;1310505 wrote:The trade isn't even, but it isn't so bad it's vetoable.
    How is it not even? All players are top 10 in their positions.
  • jmog
    Raw Dawgin' it;1310558 wrote:How is it not even? All players are top 10 in their positions.
    Trading Gronkowski for Brees is trading the top player at each position, but good lord the trade wouldn't even be close.

    Some positions are worth more than others.
  • Rotinaj
    Raw Dawgin' it;1310558 wrote:How is it not even? All players are top 10 in their positions.
    Peyton is a much better option than Eli and Charles had ONE monster game and 2 other good ones but doesnt do much for the most part. Colston on the other hand has been a monster 3 of last 4 weeks and that will stay the course for the rest of the season(esp in PPR)
  • Raw Dawgin' it
    jmog;1310660 wrote:Trading Gronkowski for Brees is trading the top player at each position, but good lord the trade wouldn't even be close.

    Some positions are worth more than others.
    Colston and Charles (before last week) were separated by 12 points and Peyton and Eli were separated by 16. Over 8 games that's not exactly huge, comes out to 3.5 a game.

    She would have gotten RB depth and I would have gotten WR depth. Your comparison isn't close.
  • Commander of Awesome
    You're still QQing about this?
  • jmog
    Raw Dawgin' it;1314162 wrote:Colston and Charles (before last week) were separated by 12 points and Peyton and Eli were separated by 16. Over 8 games that's not exactly huge, comes out to 3.5 a game.

    She would have gotten RB depth and I would have gotten WR depth. Your comparison isn't close.
    So you are saying a top 5 WR is worth as much as a top 5 RB?

    Interesting, next season set up your draft cheat sheet with that in mind and go for the highest available player on your own board in each round.

    You will have stud WRs and absolutely terrible RBs and your team will suck donkey balls.

    That is the exact reason why RBs are still worth more, not because they score more points (they actually don't) but because you still have to start just as many RBs (or more) and the RBs that are worth a crap are VERY rare.

    Think about it, right after the draft do you trade Ray Rice even up for Andre Johnson or Roddy White (all around 3rd/4th for their position at the draft)?
    You'd say a person who did so was retarded right?

    Why is a similar trade "top 5 at their position" so much a better idea 8 weeks into the season?
  • Raw Dawgin' it
    jmog;1316047 wrote:So you are saying a top 5 WR is worth as much as a top 5 RB?

    Interesting, next season set up your draft cheat sheet with that in mind and go for the highest available player on your own board in each round.

    You will have stud WRs and absolutely terrible RBs and your team will suck donkey balls.

    That is the exact reason why RBs are still worth more, not because they score more points (they actually don't) but because you still have to start just as many RBs (or more) and the RBs that are worth a crap are VERY rare.

    Think about it, right after the draft do you trade Ray Rice even up for Andre Johnson or Roddy White (all around 3rd/4th for their position at the draft)?
    You'd say a person who did so was retarded right?

    Why is a similar trade "top 5 at their position" so much a better idea 8 weeks into the season?
    We start 1 RB, 2 WR and a flex. If WRs score more according to you, wouldn't be in my best interest to have more WR studs and go 3 WR and 1 RB starting?

    I traded Ray Rice for Wes Welker last year in a PPR, worked out pretty well for me, but by your logic I'm a retard. It's about depth at position. I had RB depth and wanted WR depth.

    Colston scored 14 and Charles scored 9 (because of injury) in my league last week. I'd rather have a top receiver than a #1 RB on the worst team in football.