[KalamMekhar]

thats no trouble, thats a qb you sit on so no one else has him if you cant get a good player for him

[teholbeddict]

Wow! I didn't even notice this trade! Well I would definitely say it's lopsided, there's no way a straight up trade of Favre for McCoy is fair. Not only is Favre one of the best QB's in the league, but McCoy is on a team that relies more on the pass than any other team right now. They Eagles are completely disproportionate when you look at their pass to run ratio, they rarely run the ball. Add that to the fact that last time Westbrook was out they passed even more than usual and McCoy really didn't do much when he did have the ball and this trade looks even worse. I know Eddie had said he was looking for an RB for one of his QB's, and it didn't have to be someone stellar, but I still think he is getting very little, and there needed to be someone else added to that trade at the very least. If Eddie is willing to accept it then, I guess we can't gain say him, but he is being robbed and I am sure Daser knows he's getting a ridiculous deal.

As for Eddie having a top QB already, yes this is true. However we are in a super deep league and there is something to be said for hancuffing or sitting on a player. You are far better off sitting on someone like Favre than you are trading him, especially if all you are going to get for him is McCoy. You may not be improving your RB situation by keeping him, but you are also not handing someone 18+ points a game, and that can be a huge advantage. There are very few consistent 18+ point RB's in this league, and McCoy certainly isn't one of them, so you actually are better off keeping Favre. It's better to deny someone else a top QB even if you aren't using him than to have him out there getting someone else points. If you wanted an RB of McCoy's level that could have been had off of waiver or in a trade for much less.

That is my honest opinion on this one. I am going to put a veto vote in, but if the rest of you are okay with the trade that's fine. I just don't want to see Eddie get nothing when he deserves alot more for his QB.

This post has been edited by teholbeddict: 17 November 2009 - 09:27 PM

[Eddie Dean]

Heres the deal: I have made multiple trade offers for Farve or Brees to anyone with a "worse" QB than those two. I have been turned down cold every single time. Now, Westbrook is out for the rest of the year, my 2nd RB would be Jamal Lewis. Every team in the league has a decent enough QB that noone will give me anything better than what I'm getting because its just not worth it on their end. I don't have any other choice quite frankly than to get screwed because I can't get anything else.

[teholbeddict]

I understand that point but you should have at least made Daser add something to go with McCoy. Even if you do have to take a second string RB and get screwed in that respect, you could have got one off a team that relies on the run more. You could have tried to get a WR thrown in as you have Bowe on your team who is now suspended. Just saying, I don't like to see someone being taken advantage of that's all. I would have offered a better trade than that and never played Favre, rather than seeing you just get McCoy. If you are happy to take it though, then I guess it's okay.

This post has been edited by teholbeddict: 17 November 2009 - 09:43 PM

[KalamMekhar]

i know i dont have stellar RB's by any means, but you dont always have to try and trade to people who have worse QB's, shit if you would have offered me favre, i would have been inclined to offer you brandon jacobs and atleast someone else to make it fair, who hasnt had the best year, but he is a clear #1 back who has a lot of room to improve on how he has started this season, so i could sit on favre, and let no one else have him, there is some strategy other than just looking for players for your own team.

and there is a RB out there right now that has some upside you could most likely have gotten off of waivers.

This post has been edited by KalamMekhar: 17 November 2009 - 09:43 PM

[Eddie Dean]

KalamMekhar, on 17 November 2009 - 09:42 PM, said:

i know i dont have stellar RB's by any means, but you dont always have to try and trade to people who have worse QB's, shit if you would have offered me favre, i would have been inclined to offer you brandon jacobs and atleast someone else to make it fair, who hasnt had the best year, but he is a clear #1 back who has a lot of room to improve on how he has started this season, so i could sit on favre, and let no one else have him, there is some strategy other than just looking for players for your own team.

and there is a RB out there right now that has some upside you could most likely have gotten off of waivers.

Sold. Send me a trade offer and I'll cancel this one right now and take yours. Oh, and I'm trying to get a couple guys off waivers as a backup plan.

[teholbeddict]

Eddie Dean, on 17 November 2009 - 09:57 PM, said:

KalamMekhar, on 17 November 2009 - 09:42 PM, said:

i know i dont have stellar RB's by any means, but you dont always have to try and trade to people who have worse QB's, shit if you would have offered me favre, i would have been inclined to offer you brandon jacobs and atleast someone else to make it fair, who hasnt had the best year, but he is a clear #1 back who has a lot of room to improve on how he has started this season, so i could sit on favre, and let no one else have him, there is some strategy other than just looking for players for your own team.

and there is a RB out there right now that has some upside you could most likely have gotten off of waivers.

Sold. Send me a trade offer and I'll cancel this one right now and take yours. Oh, and I'm trying to get a couple guys off waivers as a backup plan.

If he doesn't have one you like hit me up, and I will offer you something. I won't play Favre, I just don't want to see you get screwed.

This post has been edited by teholbeddict: 17 November 2009 - 10:05 PM

[KalamMekhar]

cant propose trades for a player already in an accepted trade.... my offer is for jacobs and evans or buck and evans.

i did vote against this trade when it first went through.

This post has been edited by KalamMekhar: 17 November 2009 - 10:11 PM

[teholbeddict]

Either of those options are better than the straight up McCoy trade. Jacobs alone has better numbers than McCoy and at least the Giants run the ball more.

[Eddie Dean]

Well crap, it won't let me cancel it either. If it gets vetoed hit me up and well give it a shot.

[teholbeddict]

Eddie Dean, on 17 November 2009 - 10:15 PM, said:

Well crap, it won't let me cancel it either. If it gets vetoed hit me up and well give it a shot.

You would have to talk to TT and have people vote against it. Even if you don't take KM's offer or a trade offer from me, I think it should still be blocked, because the trade is extremely lopsided. As a straight up trade that is ridiculous.

[teholbeddict]

I just checked the rules, apparently it takes four votes to veto a trade. You don't actually need to talk to the Tobissioner.

This post has been edited by teholbeddict: 17 November 2009 - 10:32 PM

[Daser]

I cant believe this.

Little more than a day without checking and the trade i was "OFFERED" is Vetoed.

How can you veto a trade for a player that has been on the tradingblock since week 3 or 4. You all had atleast 5 weeks to get this guy or trade for him.

I have worked hard each week to make alot of trade offers, some good some bad and finally someone noticed and offered me a trade i liked and you Veto it.

As late as last week did i offer L. McCoy to Eddie for a WR and he declined, then this week he offer Favre for McCoy. How can you say he dont know what he is doing? He has tried to get upgrade for Favre for eternity and i wouldnt have taken the deal if my QB wasnt slumping badly.

I have absolutely no respect for the idea that having a good player on your bench is better than others having him unless i am WINNING everything. They are there to play or be traded for upgrades if possible.

A few facts to end this. Philly has been throwing it for years. It isnt new that they are unbalanced. Despite this Westbrook has put up good numbers for years. This year McCoy has 3 starts where it was known before that Westbrook was out. He has scored 15, 15 and 11 in those 3 games.

[teholbeddict]

Daser it has nothing to do with you personally, the issue was that the trade was completely lopsided. You admit you tried to trade McCoy for a WR last week, that would have been fair. McCoy straight up for Favre though is not. Whether you want to admit it or not that trade was ridiculous. McCoy is not Westbrook so quoting his numbers mean nothing. In fact if you read any report on McCoy it says that with Westbrook out, he is now at best a possible flexspot consideration for deep leagues. You can not trade someone who's possible flex spot player in deep leagues for one of the top qb's in the league. Even Westbrook when he was healthy wouldn't be worth a straight up trade for Favre. I wasn't saying the Eagles relying on the pass was anything new, I was just stating the fact that McCoy is a revicer on a team that doesn't run the ball.

As for you liking the trade, I'm sure you did, it was beyond a steal, and you would have been getting a hell of a lot for absolutely nothing. That doesn't mean it was right. If it were someone else who had made a trade like that, you'd be all over it saying it wasn't fair.

Regarding sitting on a player, you may not agree with it, and I know this is your first time playing fantasy football, but it is something that happens. Handcuffing and sitting on people are a well known fact of fantasy play. Look up any fantasy website and you will see this is the case. It's a strategic aspect of the game, and a lot of fantasy football is strategy. There's a reason we have bench spots and people can use them however they choose.

If you want a better QB, that's fine, but offer someone a decent trade in order to do so. You can't expect a trade for a starting QB like Favre to go through when you are only giving up one player and he's not anywhere near good enough to be worth a straight up trade.

This post has been edited by teholbeddict: 18 November 2009 - 03:10 PM

[Daser]

Bullshit.....I call Bullshit.

1. Matt cassel went for old injured Willie parker who had lost the starting job.

2. Palmer went for D. Sproles who is 2nd and barely see a touch unless it is Kick/punt return.

These are the 2 backup Qb trades before Eddie offered Favre to me. Are you blaming me for not declining and offering more?

Or what about giving me a chance to say what i think before it is Vetoed.

Or what about another trade for Favre so i have no chance to make a counter offer?

Or what about trade deadline making it impossible for me to get him at all now.

I have enjoyed everything (even my unbelieveble loss last week) until now, but this is utter bullshit.

This post has been edited by Daser: 18 November 2009 - 07:17 PM

[teholbeddict]

Excuse me but if I remember correctly at the time of the Sproles Palmer deal you thought I was getting the better end of the stick. In fact you claimed I knew I was getting a good deal and I was cheating slum which is why I was defending the deal. At the time of that trade Sproles was starting because LT was injured. Not to mention Sproles gets me about 11 pointsin return yards on a weekly basis so yes it was fair. Now you want to turn it around and say Slum traded for nothing! Before you accuse anyone of anything you need to get your shit straight. If you want to argue with me I will quote everything you had to say about that trade!

At the time of the Cassel trade Parker was still playing and considered their number one RB! And you can't possibly argue with me about Cassel. Give me a break! I needed him for a bye week and KM couldn't use him as he had the same bye week as Brady. On the week I used Cassel he got me eight points he didn't even throw for a td! You want to agrue with me about an eight point QB who heads up the KC Chiefs! Cassel is not Brett Favre!


For the last time this is not about you personally, it is about the fact that the trade was unfair. It takes four people or more to veto a trade so clearly other people agreed. Don't call me out and quote my past trades. Especially when you had an opposite opinion of one to start with. Those trades were weeks ago and no one voted against them, or had a problem with the Cassel trade. This is not a conspiracy theory and no one is out to cheat you.

Whether you or Eddie made the original offer it was not even, which is why it was vetoed. Eddie owns Favre, as the trade was vetoed he has the right to trade Favre for whoever he wants to. No one was looking at a trade deadline and saying we better drag this out so Daser can't play him. A counter is something that's done if a trade is offered. Eddie did not offer you another trade so the idea of you countering something is a non-issue.

No one purposely denied you the right to give your opinion. Even hearing what you've had to say does not change the fact that McCoy for Favre in a straight up trade is not fair. As I said before at least four people agreed which is why the trade was vetoed. You know if someone else had been involved a trade for Favre and was only giving up a RB who is flex quality at best that you would have called them on an unfair trade. You just don't like that you were the one who was denied the huge steal.

This post has been edited by teholbeddict: 18 November 2009 - 07:22 PM

[Daser]

Bullshit again.

You bring up that i think the Palmer trade was bad. Dont that just show i am consistent in my belief that QBs(Backups) are not worth much and both trades in our league proves it. I didnt Veto this trade even tho i think it was a mistake by Slum.

Cassel was traded in week 6 for W. Parker. W.Parker got hurt in week 3. Here are his scores for week 4 to 10. 0-0-0,5-0,7-0,2-0,0. If that isnt stunning evidence of how little they are worth what is? I didnt Veto this either.

About me taking it personal.

Isnt it a bit wierd that KM accually overbids a trade in action. That is one way to get 2 fast veto votes. His and Eddies. I could see it getting vetoed and everybody having a chance to say and do stuff. But where was my chance to do anything here?

Tuesday i am accepting a trade for a player. A day later it is vetoed and another trade involving him is in action. YES I HAVE VETOED THAT TRADE JUST TO SHOW I AM PISSED OFF.

Maybe KM would like to come and explain. Because i dont think it is cosher to overbid trades others are involved in. Veto it = Good. Complain about it = Good. But bidding higher on a trade = Bullshit.

KM might also explain how this trade helps his team, if he feels kind enough.

[teholbeddict]

Listen Daser get your facts straight before you make some fucktard comment and then call youself consistent. When I first made the Palmer/Sproles trade you had an issue because you thought Sproles was too much for Palmer. In your post today you claimed that Sproles wasn't worth that trade because he only gets return yards. So what is the truth here either Sproles was too much for Palmer or he wasn't enough. So no it doesn't show that you are consistent. It shows that you like to jump all over people and make a big deal without considering what you're saying and it in fact shows you're incosistent in the things you say. The trade was vetoed end of story it has nothing to do with me or KM or anyone else, it has to do with the players involved! Stop pointing fingers and calling other people out. I'm sure you think KM offered too much, but that's because you always want something for nothing. If you really wanted Favre you should have offered something fair! I will answer the rest of your stuff when you get home. Although I don't even know why I bother as you refuse to listen to reason.

[KalamMekhar]

maybe if i feel kind enough when i get home later.... just maybe....

[teholbeddict]

Now on to addressing the rest of your post. KM did not overbid for Favre, Jacobs and Evans in exchange for Favre is actually even. I think you look at it as overbidding because you tend to offer very little in trades. You seem to want big players for very little. There aren't alot of RB's that would be worth a straight up trade for Favre, and Jacobs isn't one of them, so KM added someone else to the deal. There is nothing shady about that.

Regarding Parker he was injured in week three and was out for three weeks, hence his zeroes that only makes sense. He was still considered the number one RB for the Steelers and should have been getting carries. He returned from injury the week after the trade! At the time it was a good trade, KM actually held on to him for quite a while. It was expected that he would get the start back from Mendenhall as soon as he came back from injury. No one knew Mendenhall was going to take off the way he did, and that Parker wouldn't produce his usual numbers this year. I haven't had him for four weeks, I really did expect him to do well this year, he was my second RB pick in the draft! You are bringing up stuff that isn't even relevant to the trade! Beyond all of that, you should stop and think about the fact that you are arguing about Matt Cassel! You are trying to make it sound like I got some huge deal! It was for a bye week! I used him once, got eight points, lost my match up and then dropped him! This is Matt Cassel on KC! Clearly the deal couldn't have been that unfair as no one even mentioned it at the time! Don't act like you are doing me a favour by not voting against a trade! There is no reason for you to vote if the trade is fair! If you don't think it is at the time say something about it then, and feel free to vote! Unless something is grossly unfair I don't see the point though.

All you are proving by voting against the new Favre trade because you are angry is that you are a poor sport. You are blowing this way out of proportion and voting for no reason is childish. The original trade was unfair, it was vetoed, to do that four or more people needed to vote, so clearly more than one person thought that was the case. Favre is Eddie's player he can accept trades as he sees fit, that is his right. Unless it's really lopsided there is no reason to vote against it. Now please realize this is not a conspiracy, it's nothing aganist you, it was about the players involved in the trade. Bringing up past trades helps nothing and if they were unfair people would have voted against them at the time. We're in week eleven so bringing up stats of players now, weeks after they were traded makes no sense.