Team A gets:
Kurt Warner
Antonio Gates
Team B gets:
Dallas Clark
Josh Johnson
There are 237 users in the forums
Veto this trade?
Veto this trade?
Oct 15, 2009 at 7:13 PM
- Chief
- Veteran
- Posts: 28,271
Oct 15, 2009 at 7:30 PM
- toeknee
- Veteran
- Posts: 54,571
If I were to decide to veto I'd look at the quality of their teams, is one getting richer?
Oct 15, 2009 at 7:39 PM
- RonMexico
- Moderator
- Posts: 74,760
why would u not, both are super star TEs but one team is getting an a lot better QB
makes no sense
makes no sense
Oct 15, 2009 at 7:50 PM
- YungBird
- Veteran
- Posts: 21,475
Originally posted by RonMexico:
why would u not, both are super star TEs but one team is getting an a lot better QB
makes no sense
Oct 15, 2009 at 7:52 PM
- crzy
- Hall of Fame
- Posts: 40,285
edit
[ Edited by crzy on Oct 15, 2009 at 19:58:33 ]
[ Edited by crzy on Oct 15, 2009 at 19:58:33 ]
Oct 15, 2009 at 10:08 PM
- krizay
- Veteran
- Posts: 24,730
Originally posted by RonMexico:
why would u not, both are super star TEs but one team is getting an a lot better QB
makes no sense
Well the one gets the best TE this year in football. Clark >>>>>> Gates. I only assume the original owner doesn't need Warner.
Which is a good trade for him and if the other owner can use Warner good for both teams.
Not even close to veto material.
Oct 16, 2009 at 3:55 AM
- phatbutskinny
- Veteran
- Posts: 27,247
Originally posted by krizay:Originally posted by RonMexico:
why would u not, both are super star TEs but one team is getting an a lot better QB
makes no sense
Well the one gets the best TE this year in football. Clark >>>>>> Gates. I only assume the original owner doesn't need Warner.
Which is a good trade for him and if the other owner can use Warner good for both teams.
Not even close to veto material.
my QB's are Josh Johnson and Garrard. Im essential giving up my #1 Te for a Decent Qb and a decent TE.
Oct 16, 2009 at 3:58 AM
- SLICK
- Veteran
- Posts: 11,197
Originally posted by krizay:Originally posted by RonMexico:
why would u not, both are super star TEs but one team is getting an a lot better QB
makes no sense
Well the one gets the best TE this year in football. Clark >>>>>> Gates. I only assume the original owner doesn't need Warner.
Which is a good trade for him and if the other owner can use Warner good for both teams.
Not even close to veto material.
Yeah. Unless there is cheating involved, trades should NEVER be vetoed.
Oct 16, 2009 at 9:05 AM
- Chief
- Veteran
- Posts: 28,271
Yah, I was thinking about it and figured not to. The trade is a little one sided but it's not fully crazy. It seems like the players of the league are going to veto it anyway, its a 12 team league and if 6 vote to veto it does, there have been 5 votes and still an eight hour wait until the trade goes through. If the team owners vote against it then the population has spoken and they will have to reformulate their trade.
Oct 16, 2009 at 9:12 AM
- krizay
- Veteran
- Posts: 24,730
Originally posted by Chief:
Yah, I was thinking about it and figured not to. The trade is a little one sided but it's not fully crazy. It seems like the players of the league are going to veto it anyway, its a 12 team league and if 6 vote to veto it does, there have been 5 votes and still an eight hour wait until the trade goes through. If the team owners vote against it then the population has spoken and they will have to reformulate their trade.
And if that happens. It's Bulls**t. Both teams improve their teams. If the owner wants to give up his backup QB to gain points at TE. He should be allowed to do so.
He's not just giving up Warner for nothing. He's giving him up to improve one of his positions. It helps both teams and that what trades are suppose to do. Owners in your league have issues if this gets vetoed.
Oct 16, 2009 at 9:36 AM
- Chief
- Veteran
- Posts: 28,271
Originally posted by krizay:Originally posted by Chief:
Yah, I was thinking about it and figured not to. The trade is a little one sided but it's not fully crazy. It seems like the players of the league are going to veto it anyway, its a 12 team league and if 6 vote to veto it does, there have been 5 votes and still an eight hour wait until the trade goes through. If the team owners vote against it then the population has spoken and they will have to reformulate their trade.
And if that happens. It's Bulls**t. Both teams improve their teams. If the owner wants to give up his backup QB to gain points at TE. He should be allowed to do so.
He's not just giving up Warner for nothing. He's giving him up to improve one of his positions. It helps both teams and that what trades are suppose to do. Owners in your league have issues if this gets vetoed.
Well maybe, but this trade gives two top players for one top notch and a scrub. I do understand how they can think it is a little one sided.
Oct 16, 2009 at 9:58 AM
- krizay
- Veteran
- Posts: 24,730
Originally posted by Chief:Originally posted by krizay:Originally posted by Chief:
Yah, I was thinking about it and figured not to. The trade is a little one sided but it's not fully crazy. It seems like the players of the league are going to veto it anyway, its a 12 team league and if 6 vote to veto it does, there have been 5 votes and still an eight hour wait until the trade goes through. If the team owners vote against it then the population has spoken and they will have to reformulate their trade.
And if that happens. It's Bulls**t. Both teams improve their teams. If the owner wants to give up his backup QB to gain points at TE. He should be allowed to do so.
He's not just giving up Warner for nothing. He's giving him up to improve one of his positions. It helps both teams and that what trades are suppose to do. Owners in your league have issues if this gets vetoed.
Well maybe, but this trade gives two top players for one top notch and a scrub. I do understand how they can think it is a little one sided.
Looking at names is the ONLY way this looks lopsided. Votes should not be cast based on names. But rather if a trade helps both teams or just one.
Looking at names is the problem with alot of the average FF players.
Oct 16, 2009 at 10:05 AM
- SybErkRimInAL
- Veteran
- Posts: 59,184
it's basically a Warner for Clark trade. The other two players really don't mean squat. No veto.
Oct 16, 2009 at 10:06 AM
- crzy
- Hall of Fame
- Posts: 40,285
It's a stupid trade either way. In a non-PPR league, Clark only has scored 8 more fantasy points this season than Gates.
Giving up Kurt Warner for that small increase from Gates to Clark is dumb.
Giving up Kurt Warner for that small increase from Gates to Clark is dumb.
Oct 16, 2009 at 12:27 PM
- RonMexico
- Moderator
- Posts: 74,760
Originally posted by AmpLee:Originally posted by krizay:Originally posted by RonMexico:
why would u not, both are super star TEs but one team is getting an a lot better QB
makes no sense
Well the one gets the best TE this year in football. Clark >>>>>> Gates. I only assume the original owner doesn't need Warner.
Which is a good trade for him and if the other owner can use Warner good for both teams.
Not even close to veto material.
Ahem. I beg to differ. Gates is averaging 11.43 fantasy points per week in standard format. And your best TE hands down... 11.36.
Don't be fooled, Gates is back to elite form, and by the numbers, is the top TE in fantasy football so far. Basically, it's a wash between Gates and Clark except Gates has already had his bye week and has slightly better numbers on a weekly average. So in essence it's a trade of Warner for Josh Johnson. Not really a good trade, but I wouldn't veto it if there's no reason to suspect collusion.
ya I thought clark was having a better year but i looked at that stats
gates has only 92 fewer yards they both have 2 tds and gates has played in 1 less game
so this trade is josh johnson for kurt warner
come on guys.... look at the stats here, this trade is retarded
[ Edited by RonMexico on Oct 16, 2009 at 12:28:55 ]