The Trade Thread

Syferus · 27-10-2011 2:12pm

I wouldn't dare trade CJ in a down market. He has the upside to be elite so even in the most desperate of circumstances he shouldn't be on the trading block when possibly the worst team in the league - with a very porous run defense - is up next in the Colts. His value can hardly decrease any further so the smart thing to do is wait.

ashdale5 · 27-10-2011 2:43pm

Syferus wrote: »

I wouldn't dare trade CJ in a down market. He has the upside to be elite so even in the most desperate of circumstances he shouldn't be on the trading block when possibly the worst team in the league - with a very porous run defense - is up next in the Colts. His value can hardly decrease any further so the smart thing to do is wait.

I would be trading for him.

Syferus · 27-10-2011 3:21pm

ashdale5 wrote: »

I would be trading for him.

I know, but I'm talking about someone trying to trade him away. You're far more likely to get value for him next week if he breaks off a 20 point game than you would now and with CJ that is, despite everything, a very live possibility.

tallaghtoutlaws · 27-10-2011 3:22pm

ashdale5 wrote: »

I would be trading for him.

Colston and Megatron will consistently put up decent numbers and then some every week. CJ is so cold right now that even if he does put up solid numbers against the Colts the gamble on him doing the same thing again is slim. I would rather consistency in Colston and Megatron over the wait and see game with CJ.

tallaghtoutlaws · 27-10-2011 7:05pm

Got offered this trade in the Prem and its baffling me as to how I benefit from it?

Considering this is the team I have. Megatron is worth Brown and Daniels on his own and then some. Stafford is struggling with injury and I don't think I want to take a punt on a guy who always has injury concern considering he only has 20 more points than Freeman.

Mr. Guappa · 27-10-2011 7:24pm

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

Got offered this trade in the Prem and its baffling me as to how I benefit from it?

Considering this is the team I have. Megatron is worth Brown and Daniels on his own and then some. Stafford is struggling with injury and I don't think I want to take a punt on a guy who always has injury concern considering he only has 20 more points than Freeman.

I proposed the trade. I need WR help badly which was my reason for going after Megatron. The way I saw it from your point-of-view was that Stafford was an upgrade over Freeman, and would slot in ahead of Beck this week. Daniels is a decent upgrade from Kendricks and the loss of Megatron would be compensated by adding Brown to a fairly deep rotation of solid WRs that you have.

Fair enough if you didn't see any benefit from it.

tallaghtoutlaws · 27-10-2011 7:32pm

Mr. Guappa wrote: »

I proposed the trade. I need WR help badly which was my reason for going after Megatron. The way I saw it from your point-of-view was that Stafford was an upgrade over Freeman, and would slot in ahead of Beck this week. Daniels is a decent upgrade from Kendricks and the loss of Megatron would be compensated by adding Brown to a fairly deep rotation of solid WRs that you have.

Fair enough if you didn't see any benefit from it.

Well to be fair Megatron is easily worth 2 of those players on his own. I agree with Kendricks but there is 4 or 5 decent enough TE on the FA who will do the job also and Brown is not going to add anything to my team. Losing Megatron now would be the end of my season as Right now he is my only Big earner with Freeman coming behind him. Stafford is as good as Freeman right now and Beck only covers my bye week ye know.

ashdale5 · 28-10-2011 10:44am

At the risk of turning this into my own personal fantasy football agony aunt column can I ask you guys for one more piece of advice for another team of mine in another league?
Flex league have to start 2 RB, 2 WR and flex RB/WR/TE
I have
RB - MJD, Wells, Addai, Carter (IND), Scott (CIN)
WR - Bowe, White, DHB, Plaxico, Decker

White, DHB and Plaxico are on byes which leaves me very light at WR but there are some decent players available on the wire -
Sidney Rice, Manningham, Mike Thomas (JAX), Demaryius Thomas, Simpson (CIN), Jason Hill (JAX)

I'm thinking of dropping Decker but torn between picking up Rice, Manningham or Demaryius.

D3PO · 28-10-2011 11:18am

ashdale5 wrote: »

At the risk of turning this into my own personal fantasy football agony aunt column can I ask you guys for one more piece of advice for another team of mine in another league?
Flex league have to start 2 RB, 2 WR and flex RB/WR/TE
I have
RB - MJD, Wells, Addai, Carter (IND), Scott (CIN)
WR - Bowe, White, DHB, Plaxico, Decker

White, DHB and Plaxico are on byes which leaves me very light at WR but there are some decent players available on the wire -
Sidney Rice, Manningham, Mike Thomas (JAX), Demaryius Thomas, Simpson (CIN), Jason Hill (JAX)

I'm thinking of dropping Decker but torn between picking up Rice, Manningham or Demaryius.

Thomas or Tebow have done nothing in the passing game to suggest that pickning up Thomas would be a good idea.

Jax have the worst passing offense in the league and Hill and Mike Thomas are bad options as a result especially this week against a good Houston defense.

For me its Manningham or Rice. Id go towards Manningham personally, but thats just me.

Hulk Hands · 28-10-2011 1:46pm

I'd pick up both Manningham and Rice, but if it's just one then Manningham. And judging by the rest of your players he's probably good enough to start most weeks

ashdale5 · 28-10-2011 4:32pm

Decker out. Manningham in.

I'll be back Monday if things don't work out

mrkr · 28-10-2011 5:17pm

Offered a trade in a keeper league

Miles Austin and Aaron Hernandez for Andre Johnson

My team:

QB - Cutler - Beck
RB - Bradshaw - Demarco Murray - Hillis - Hardesty - Benson - Deangelo Williams
WR - Andre Johnson - Boldin - Bryant - Branch - Lance Moore
TE - Olsen
K - Hanson
D - NYG

Standard scoring, non-ppr, starts 1QB,2RB,3WR.

What say ye? I could probably press for Antonio Gates instead of Hernandez. Do either of those possible trades look good to you?

I'm a bit nervy about having Austin and Bryant as starters, both Dallas, etc.

Syferus · 28-10-2011 8:24pm

D3PO wrote: »

Thomas or Tebow have done nothing in the passing game to suggest that pickning up Thomas would be a good idea.

Oh yes they have. Thomas had 10 targets for 3 receptions and a TD on his first game back for the year. Accuracy was obviously an issue but that's going to improve the more they play together. Tebow's targeting Thomas and using him as his deep threat so he's easily the most valuable Bronco receiver going forward.

Of those three I'd chose Thomas and I don't think it's even all that close if you're looking for a bolter. If you want to play it safe Rice might be a better option but Victor Cruz makes me very wary of going anywhere near Manningham when you have those other two as options.

tallaghtoutlaws · 29-10-2011 2:47am

Syferus wrote: »

Oh yes they have. Thomas had 10 targets for 3 receptions and a TD on his first game back for the year. Accuracy was obviously an issue but that's going to improve the more they play together. Tebow's targeting Thomas and using him as his deep threat so he's easily the most valuable Bronco receiver going forward.

Agreed Thomas and Tebow will get in sync at some point even if Tim cant throw for fook

Tis why I grabbed Thomas in most of the leagues im in.

Of those three I'd chose Thomas and I don't think it's even all that close if you're looking for a bolter. If you want to play it safe Rice might be a better option but Victor Cruz makes me very wary of going anywhere near Manningham when you have those other two as options.

Cruz for me I would start over Manningham also. He has given Manning some mad catches and Manning seems to be warming up to him as his number 1. I said it last year as did a few others that Cruz would be huge and the kid is living up to it right now.

GoldFour4 · 03-11-2011 12:05pm

Question here about rules. Thers a trade pending in division 2. Mike sims walker is involved in the trade. He was placed on injured reserve yesterday, should the trade be cancelled ? It was accepted before Sims Walker was placed on IR.

Dodge · 03-11-2011 12:09pm

malachyscott wrote: »

Question here about rules. Thers a trade pending in division 2. Mike sims walker is involved in the trade. He was placed on injured reserve yesterday, should the trade be cancelled ? It was accepted before Sims Walker was placed on IR.

If it was accepted before he was palced on IR, then I'd let it slide

Of course I woldn't feel too strongly about it

tallaghtoutlaws · 03-11-2011 12:33pm

malachyscott wrote: »

Question here about rules. Thers a trade pending in division 2. Mike sims walker is involved in the trade. He was placed on injured reserve yesterday, should the trade be cancelled ? It was accepted before Sims Walker was placed on IR.

Honestly he left the game on Sunday injured and was practically already injured when he came back to the Jags. Whoever traded for him if after Sunday should have done their homework before making the trade. Guy is injury prone who leaves a game with an injury should have been enough to say hell no.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7063847/bradley-fletcher-mike-sims-walker-st-louis-rams-injured-practice

This is where the Knee injury happened and the reason why the Rams most likely dumped him. Well that and he made little impact. But even in his career with the Jags he was plagued with injuries. Oh and his missed a whole week of practice last week with a sore tooth

Spongey1975 · 03-11-2011 8:38pm

malachyscott wrote: »

Question here about rules. Thers a trade pending in division 2. Mike sims walker is involved in the trade. He was placed on injured reserve yesterday, should the trade be cancelled ? It was accepted before Sims Walker was placed on IR.

Let the buyer beware, thats my view on trades. If someone wants to accept a trade without doing his homework on the players he's getting then its his bad luck if it goes pearshaped

matthew8 · 03-11-2011 9:09pm

Using all this logic we shouldn't cancel any trades, I'd cancel it.

tallaghtoutlaws · 03-11-2011 9:29pm

matthew8 wrote: »

Using all this logic we shouldn't cancel any trades, I'd cancel it.

What? This makes no sense. There is a difference between cancelling lob sided trades to get one up on someone or personal gain and cancelling trades for someone who went into the trade for at the time equal players then trying to weasel out because they didnt do their homework on the player.

But either way I think things like this should go to a vote of each of that leagues members because cases like this are going to be rare.

matthew8 · 03-11-2011 10:17pm

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

What? This makes no sense. There is a difference between cancelling lob sided trades to get one up on someone or personal gain and cancelling trades for someone who went into the trade for at the time equal players then trying to weasel out because they didnt do their homework on the player.

But either way I think things like this should go to a vote of each of that leagues members because cases like this are going to be rare.

Well the reasoning is that they should pay the price for not doing the homework on the player, but surely then we should allow lopsided trades by idiots who don't know that, say, Derrick Mason isn't worth as much as, say, Calvin Johnson.

tallaghtoutlaws · 03-11-2011 10:20pm

matthew8 wrote: »

Well the reasoning is that they should pay the price for not doing the homework on the player, but surely then we should allow lopsided trades by idiots who don't know that, say, Derrick Mason isn't worth as much as, say, Calvin Johnson.

Well you see with lob sided trades for the most part the two parties know what they are doing and then play dumb after. You shouldn't be playing or even attempting to trade if you haven't a clue what you are doing. That is why screening for dodgy trades are more important than trades that are clearly just face palms.

Spongey1975 · 03-11-2011 10:53pm

matthew8 wrote: »

Well the reasoning is that they should pay the price for not doing the homework on the player, but surely then we should allow lopsided trades by idiots who don't know that, say, Derrick Mason isn't worth as much as, say, Calvin Johnson.

lopsided trades can be either intentional or unintentional. The intentional ones usually involve one team in contention and the other team out of it and the lower team will send a strong player to the team in contention to strengthen their challenge whilst sending a minor player the other way. I'm sure nobody wants to an opponent get an advantage like that. These are the trades that need to be cancelled.

Dodge · 04-11-2011 11:46am

Spongey1975 wrote: »

lopsided trades can be either intentional or unintentional. The intentional ones usually involve one team in contention and the other team out of it and the lower team will send a strong player to the team in contention to strengthen their challenge whilst sending a minor player the other way. I'm sure nobody wants to an opponent get an advantage like that. These are the trades that need to be cancelled.

And ONLY these trades IMO, and it should be very clear. (Trading Aaron Rodgers for Roy Helu...)

Otherwise I'm happy enough for any trade to go through

ashdale5 · 04-11-2011 2:09pm

ashdale5 wrote: »

Alright lads, thanks for all the advice last week. I'm back with a new trade connundrum for a different league I'm in. see what you think of this -

My Roster
QB Brady
RB Green-Ellis, McGahee, Ingram, Battle
WR Megatron, Colston, Smith (CAR), Jones (GB), Brown (PIT)
TE Hernandez

I approached CJ2K's owner to see if he had any interest in trading him and he's come back and said he's do it for one of Megatron or Colston. obvioulsy I won't give up Megatron but I am tempted to deal Colston.

Thoughts?

Hi lads. I'm back with my weekly fantasy drama

I've finally pulled off a trade in the above league (must start 3 WR) which landed me SJax for Colston which I thought was a good deal for me.
I had picked up Jacobs as well when I heard Bradshaw was hurt but it looks like he'll play now.

Anyway it looks like I'm not too bad at RB after the trade but Smith and Megatron are on byes so looking to deal for a WR.

I've offered another owner Ingram for DeSean Jackson which he didn't go for but he has offered Holmes for either Ingram or Battle. This was before Ingram got injured so I've asked him to confirm he's still willing to do the Ingram deal. If he' still up for it what do the forum guru's reckon? I think I should go for it.

Once again thanks for all the help lads.

Dodge · 04-11-2011 2:52pm

I'd give up Battle for Holmes with your RBs

No question

ashdale5 · 04-11-2011 2:58pm

Dodge wrote: »

I'd give up Battle for Holmes with your RBs

No question

Would you do Ingram for Holmes?

Dodge · 04-11-2011 3:12pm

ashdale5 wrote: »

Would you do Ingram for Holmes?

Yep, Don't rate Ingram at all (and I'm a saints fan)

I'd rank them

1) Holmes (primary receiver in a half decent team. Not great this year but I expect him to improve)
2) Battle (primary rusher but he looks poor enough when I see him)
3) Ingram (Now down to 3rd RB in NO? Sproles No 1 and Pierre Thomas is coming back into the line more each week)

The question really is whether Battle will be your no 2 RB more than you'll play Holmes at WR. it close enough

tallaghtoutlaws · 04-11-2011 3:28pm

I wouldn't give up Battle. The last 3 games he averaged 19 carries and had 119 76 and 70 yards on the ground and 1 TD. They play the Fish this weekend and the only thing the fish are good at is taking the lead and stopping themselves. Battle is due more carries also. The Chiefs will continue to show more faith in the lad. And he averages 4.7 per carry this season.

Dump Ingram. He hasn't done enough and Battle will easily get more points than him.

Peyton Manning · 04-11-2011 3:30pm

Do people even bother looking at the other persons team before offering a trade?

Someone wanted Drew Brees and Antonio Gates off me and offered Romo (downgrade on Brees), Olsen (downgrade on Gates) and Daniel Thomas (despite me already having Foster, Mendenhall + Battle).

Seriously, why would I accept that?

The Trade Thread

Comments