 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted - 11/12/2009 12:31:37 AM |
 |
 |
Shananagins
|
|
|
|
| when u trade u should either b trying to fill a posistion or improve on a posistion. here the Bruins achieved neither.uh yeah lets trade equal backs and ill give u one of the hottest recievers in the league 4 that same teams third opp. complete bullshit |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/12/2009 5:09:55 AM |
|
|
two cents
|
|
|
|
my first take on it is that it seems like all four of the players are somewhat equivalent, and that the owners are making their trade based on how they think each of the players will be finishing out the season. the two eagles receivers have 25 rec / 3 TD (Maclin) and 26 rec / 5 TD (Jackson) for the season, and in the last five weeks Maclin has the edge with 19 rec / 3 TD and Jackson has 14 rec / 3 TD. and as for the big Brandon Jacobs, i'm not sure who'd i'd rather have - to be honest, i'd probably rather have Ricky and it's not just because he and i both like mary jane. has Jacobs ever finished a season injury free? plus, the Bruins get an extra week of production because Jacobs has a bye remaining and the other players are bye-free.
that being said, that's just my opinion and we can certainly proceed with a formal Shenanigans vote if one is called for.
and in the end it will be academic, as the Blast are still getting blasted this weekend. fear the Skullsplitters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/12/2009 7:03:29 AM |
|
|
put that mother fucker
|
|
|
|
| to a vote. Anytime an 0-9 team trades away their 2 best players for a rookie WR and 35 year old doper, there is cause for concern. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/12/2009 7:23:06 AM |
|
|
Why you holding down the 0-9er?
|
|
|
|
Williams has more fantasy pts than Jacobs at this point. Have you been watching the Giants? Takes Jacobs 7 downs to get 6 yds. And though Jackson has more value, Maclin has the same QB and he likes them both. Take away Jackson's kick return #'s and they are pretty similar.
COME ON MAN!
But whatever. In a season of firsts for me, why not vote down my only accepted trade. Fuck it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/12/2009 7:36:06 AM |
|
|
P.S.
|
|
|
|
I'm fairly fucking insulted that anyone would think I'm dumping my team, or pulling a fast one on the league. Any past player would've closed shop, or sabatoged the league weeks ago. I've been fairly quiet and patient. I've been one of the most loyal and present owner in the past ten years.
That doper has 7 TD's!? WTF!? Jacobs has TWO.
Jacobs is hardly my best player. Mendenhall has twice as many TD's (and only a starter part of the season), both my QB's, K's, and Def are far out producing Brandon Jacobs. Hell, my starting WR's have more TD's than Jacobs and two of them are rookies. Don't add insult to injury. I've been better to you than that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/12/2009 7:51:27 AM |
|
|
Let it Be Known
|
|
|
|
1.that the trade was proposed to the blast by the bruins with no prior contact.
2. Maclin is option #2, with all of those stats that keith said.
3. I'll trade jacobs to any one right know if they think he has any more value than a #3 RB.
4. the fairness committee should call and have a vote instead of jealous bitches cryin on the board. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/12/2009 8:47:56 AM |
|
|
Whether we vote or no, I think this trade should stand
|
|
|
|
I understand why people were initially surprised by the trade, if only because of the names of the players involved. But while Zach, Billy, and Keith have already made very sound points about the statistical validity of this trade, a shenanigans rule vote really should come down to whether or not there is evidence that there was either collusion or an intent to harm the league. The vote should not be on whether we think it was a good or bad trade.
There is no way in hell that Billy or Zach would try to harm the league or collude between each other. NO WAY IN HELL. And as such, there's no way I would vote against this trade. Shenanigans votes are about the integrity of the owners, and you couldn't have picked to vote on owners with more integrity.
Oppositions to trades are a slippery slope. Every year there are trades that seem imbalanced. And sometimes they are. Take last year's egregious trade between me and Aarik of an aging and underperforming Edgerrin James for the young superstar WR Andre Johnson. That really helped me alot. Should that trade have been overturned? Sometimes the imbalance turns 180 degrees, like when we all freaked out about the indefensible trade of superstud LaDainian Tomlinson for superdud DeAngelo Williams. Should that trade have been overturned? Even this year, I know I was disappointed to see the Dynasty steal Jennings and Forte away from Kent for a retread RB from Cincy. So far I've been wrong about who got the better of that deal. Should that trade have been overturned? Is the trade between Billy and Zach any different than these?
The call for a vote on this feels like a vote against the merits of the trade, not the merits of the owners' integrity. I very much do not want to go down a path of owners voting on other owners' trades. To me, it's a huge mistake that will do way more damage than it could ever prevent. We already bicker like little girls enough as it is. God knows I'm part of that problem (I think Will pointed that out quite elegantly last year). And here we are doing it again. All we should ever be voting on are shenanigans, obvious attempts to submarine the league. The shananigans rule was put in place to keep shitty owners from hurting the league. At this point, with the 12 great owners we have, we should never again need a shenanigans vote. That goes for this trade as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/12/2009 12:08:53 PM |
|
|
My $.02 on the trade.
|
|
|
|
| Zach seems to be eliminated from the playoffs. This is not a move to win this year. His franchise player is more suspect than mine (and I don't like mine.) He has a rookie options before the trade. In my opinion he still has no option worth while after the trade (the rookie rule is only usefull for RB's.) I would only be looking for options for next year, I don't think he has. On the other hand, it's not my friggin' team and he should do with it as he wishes. Maybe he likes Maclin and wants him as a rookie? Who knows. In any event Zach is the manager and should be able to do with it as he wishes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/12/2009 12:40:23 PM |
|
|
Half Penny, Two Penny...
|
|
|
|
When I saw the trade listed, I thought it was a pretty fair deal. One team was upgrading a little at RB while the other was upgrading a little at WR. Any of the 4 players involved is capable of going nuts the rest of the season and making the deal look unbalanced in retrospect. But where they all stand right now, it looks like an even deal to me.
When you throw in the fact that Zach was probably a little concerned with who was going to start on Jacobs' bye week, it looks to me like there was no shennanigans involved. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/12/2009 5:53:03 PM |
|
|
i call shenanigans on shenanigans
|
|
|
|
let me first start by saying that i love our new beatnik - who needs punctuation anyways? it's just the Man keeping us down....
lessee, let me try some of that stream of consciousness stuff - looks fun.
Zach, nice trade bud! my opinion is that you got the better part of the trade, but it is so even that it is only conjecture on the part of anyone. even Aarik admits it's about 1 fantasy point a week difference between the two sets of players being traded. the one additional commentary that i would put forth is a question of why you didn't try to bundle your players to nab a new Franchise Player. and then i saw Mendenhall. looks like you got your 2010 man already?
anyways, let's get back to what this is really about: editorializing.
being a proud member of the FFCLU (Fantasy Football Civil Liberties Union), in recent times i've become a football constitutionalist. unless there is a) collusion, or b) destruction of competitive balance in the league, there is no reason to question any trade. sure, some folks may not like it, but as a wise man once said, "eat a bag of dicks."
let me take this opportunity to throw fire on the gas: 2005 Factor / Thunder Trade
back in the day, i was in agreement that this trade was ridiculous and should be overturned. in 2009, my approach to trades has changed to the point where i would support that trade. i'm of the opinion that i was wrong in 2005 to support the vote for shenanigans.
while the Blast / Bruins trade is really close in value and the hubbub is a bit of a surprise, this old 2005 trade involved a guy on IR and a team on the playoff bubble. personally, i tend to agree that it lacks merit but is it really shenanigans? today, i say thee "Nay." where should we start to draw the line, gentlemen?
Next up: amending the Ragnarok Constitution in how Shenanigans Votes will be processed. more on that in a bit...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/12/2009 6:43:33 PM |
|
|
You're right.
|
|
|
|
Mendenhall is my new bitch. Look, everything that has been said is right on. Factor, you sound like you're still pissed cause I didn't hand you Jackson and McNabb for what... Jake Delhomme and two mediocre receivers a month ago? (okay, Winslow and Houshmenzadeh, but in the past month both have under 100 yds each, and one TD a piece. . I won't even mention Jake's #'s). Talk about a shitty trade... That WOULD be suspect. And you're STILL bitter about poker? Geez.
This is all I'm saying about this topic. Either the players will revert to their former rosters, or not. Anyone can have any of my players. Just ask... I've gone through dozens of scenarios, but nothing, in my head, seemed like a package that anyone would want because all teams are nice and cozy. I saw Billy put Ricky up. He's been very active in that offense this year. Billy's WR corp was fairly mediocre. It was at the time a deal that I was pretty sure he'd pull the trigger on. I DID improve my RB position. Billy DID improve his WR position. Will one of us get screwed? MAYBE. Jackson might break his back this weekend. Ricky might get stoned.
Why don't you worry about getting in the playoffs? At least you got that!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/12/2009 9:09:06 PM |
|
|
I haven't seen buffoonery like this
|
|
|
|
| since the infamous "Lofa Tatupa incident of '98"! Just kidding, I don't give a fuck. Nice trade! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/12/2009 9:17:50 PM |
|
|
ps
|
|
|
|
| I don't think there are any shenanigans, just stirring the pot. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/12/2009 11:26:27 PM |
|
|
"Jackson might break his back this weekend."
|
|
|
|
You mean like Justin Gage did last weekend?
Well maybe he didn't break his back in the "classic" sense, but he does have several broken transverse process bones (whatever the heck those are) in his lower back and will miss at least one game. Am I running a football team or a hospital ward here? |
|
|
|
|
|
