What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Priests Homes for Greg Jennings (1 Viewer)

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

sepporepi

Footballguy
In my league Priests Homes was just traded for Greg Jennings.

We got 4 Vetos, but needed 6. I think this trade is bull#### and its only

purpose can be to hand the new Jennings owner an significant advantage

in the playoffs, which the new Holmes Owner will likely miss.

Holmes was picked up as free agent monday morning and the best idea you

got is trading the 15th best receiver for him :goodposting:

What do think? Anyone sees this might be a fair trade??

 
no collusion no veto - not that crazy of a deal is Priest5 starts a few weeks and the guy needed a RB

And move to AC forum before you get bombed by the FBG righteous right group!

 
Seems fair to me. A guy hoping that Holmes will be able to step and give RB#20 numbers for the 15th best receiver. I see no problem with this at all. I would not have made the trade if I were a Jennings owner, but I can understand someone doing it.

 
MDSkinner said:
Seems fair to me. A guy hoping that Holmes will be able to step and give RB#20 numbers for the 15th best receiver. I see no problem with this at all. I would not have made the trade if I were a Jennings owner, but I can understand someone doing it.
Click to expand...
The above is how I see it.Sounds like the owner who picked up Holmes outplayed the other owners by finding value where others couldn't.Silly to veto this trade just because your percieved value in a player is different from another owner. Maybe you should pay more attention to the other rosters and owner tendancies.Trades rarely should be vetoed. This case is no exception.
 
You people that are so opposed to trading unless the deal is between two players who's fantasy point total is not only equal, but will be equal for the rest of the year (yawn) need to just remove trading altogether from your fantasy leagues. It's a joke. The guy who got Priest was probably sitting on his waiver position to be able to make the move he did and was able to take advantage. Good for him and you my friend look like a fool for even bringing this nonsense to everyone's attention.

However, I don't see this as much of an advantage. Do you think Favre and Jennings are going to hook up for 60 yard bombs in December in Lambeau? Plus, the pass defenses they face at home in December are playing very well. I guess it could happen but I don't see it. Jennings will not keep up his current pace. I live in Milwaukee and the weather in the last week has gone from sweatshirt to winter coat. It's still not as bad as it's going to get.

 
I assume you were a veto vote.

That's exactly why most are against vote vetoes. You are looking at YOUR interest in YOUR team, not the possible benefit to each of theirs. Based solely on the players involved, you can't seriously think this is a vetoable trade.

Now if you told me that the Jennings owner traded his only decent WR for Priest, when he already had other 3 stud RBS - that might be relevant - but I'm willing to bet that both owners benefited their teams from this trade. In which case, your motive for veto is purely jealousy based on the fact that the trade may have helped someone elses team.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BLOX said:
Do you think Favre and Jennings are going to hook up for 60 yard bombs in December in Lambeau?
Click to expand...
Yes. Favre doesn't exactly have a history of curling into the fetal position in December. I'd say he'll still be able to throw in the cold.That said, there is no way I'd veto this trade.
 
Michael J Fox said:
BLOX said:
Do you think Favre and Jennings are going to hook up for 60 yard bombs in December in Lambeau?
Click to expand...
Yes. Favre doesn't exactly have a history of curling into the fetal position in December. I'd say he'll still be able to throw in the cold.That said, there is no way I'd veto this trade.
Click to expand...
True. I guess my point was more about trying to quit predicting the future when looking at deals. Voting on trades is rediculous anyway.
 
Here's a suggestion. Why don't you veto the trade but if the Priest has a good half season, un veto it? All your games for the rest of the year can be conditional and your league can vote collectively after the season is over whether the trade was fair or not. and recalculate wins and losses accordingly. While you are at it, let all the owners go back and reset their lineups for each week based on who scored the most points.

:blackdot:

 
sepporepi said:
In my league Priests Homes was just traded for Greg Jennings.We got 4 Vetos, but needed 6. I think this trade is bull#### and its onlypurpose can be to hand the new Jennings owner an significant advantagein the playoffs, which the new Holmes Owner will likely miss.Holmes was picked up as free agent monday morning and the best idea yougot is trading the 15th best receiver for him :blackdot: What do think? Anyone sees this might be a fair trade??
Click to expand...
Jeez- you had four people selfish and shortsighted enough to VETO this trade? Whomever vetoed should have their voting rights revoked. NO reason to revoke a trade. First you only veto for collusion, second this trade is not even lopsided... just because a team benefits doesnt mean you selfishly veto. Id leave a league like this in a heartbeat.
 
pettifogger said:
Here's a suggestion. Why don't you veto the trade but if the Priest has a good half season, un veto it? All your games for the rest of the year can be conditional and your league can vote collectively after the season is over whether the trade was fair or not. and recalculate wins and losses accordingly. While you are at it, let all the owners go back and reset their lineups for each week based on who scored the most points. :bag:
Click to expand...
Survivor league style trades, hmmm...Waiver wire management resulting in trades can be frustrating for the other owners in a league.This is especially irritating with panicked owners not even negotiating. In this case, was Kolby Smith still on the wire? Did he negotiate? Did he ask some other guys in the league what they would give him for Jennings? Did he research and mention the current facts on LJ & Holmes?Or just panic and trade. Educate him. Your league will become better. Seem your out of luck now though.If my season isn't over, usually reply "I don't negotiate with terrorists."Just part of the game.
 
Kiddnets said:
no collusion no veto - not that crazy of a deal is Priest5 starts a few weeks and the guy needed a RBAnd move to AC forum before you get bombed by the FBG righteous right group!
Click to expand...
He's not asking for advice on his team, so this isn't an AC thread.
 
SSOG said:
Kiddnets said:
no collusion no veto - not that crazy of a deal is Priest5 starts a few weeks and the guy needed a RBAnd move to AC forum before you get bombed by the FBG righteous right group!
Click to expand...
He's not asking for advice on his team, so this isn't an AC thread.
Click to expand...
All team or league specific advice requests are AC forum threads. Collusion/trade veto issues fall in that category.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Zow
Trade issue in new league - drama ensues
2 3
Replies
138
Views
9K
5-ish Finkle
5-ish Finkle
T
Travdogg's FA/1st round predictions
2
Replies
82
Views
3K
Ray_T
R
B
Titans wide receivers 2024 summer
2
Replies
75
Views
4K
Bri
B

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top