Jones for Landry proposed and i threw a fit :-/ (1 Viewer)

[rafbennett]

need some opinions please. last place stated he was going to give julio jones to the guy in 7th place for landry and d. williams because he is 0-9 and out of playoff contention. 7th place  is obviously fighting for that last playoff spot. I made a big stink about it because last place guy made it known he was only trading because he is no longer in contention. Am I wrong to go against this trade? Any responses are appreciated.

 

[DropKick]

need some opinions please. last place stated he was going to give julio jones to the guy in 7th place for landry and d. williams because he is 0-9 and out of playoff contention. 7th place  is obviously fighting for that last playoff spot. I made a big stink about it because last place guy made it known he was only trading because he is no longer in contention. Am I wrong to go against this trade? Any responses are appreciated.

Any time someone is giving away their players because they're out of contention is a reason to go AJ Green on their buttox.

 

[wlwiles]

If the guy hadn't said anything and just made the trade I'd say you're out of line.  It's a lopsided trade yes, but maybe the Julio owner is worried about ATL offense and Julio's injury proneness, thinks Landry is due for more big games and needs RB depth at the same time.  I've seen worse trades that were allowed because owners had a hunch, or were just bad at this game.  BUT - The guy admitted collusion.  When you say "i'm going to just give player X away because I'm out of it" then you are throwing off the competitive balance of the league, actively choosing which teams to help (and which not to help) and that shouldn't be tolerated.  Lock that dude's team and don't invite him back next year. 

 

[Gally]

I agree with wlwiles.......the only reason to veto a trade (and really there should be no trade committees....it should be up to the Commish to decide if collusion is involved otherwise all trades should be allowed - provided all injury situations are known) is collusion.  Since this guy essentially admitted he didn't care are was just giving the guy what he wanted I would say that is enough for collusion and the trade should be disallowed.