- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Person in my league gets Dez Bryant for Darren Sproles...
Posted on 9/29/11 at 10:43 am to MrWiseGuy
Posted on 9/29/11 at 10:43 am to MrWiseGuy
Yeah only douchebags veto. If someone wants to make a trade it is their business. You cant veto some ones trade just because you dont think it is a smart mover or not. Thats chickenshit man.
You are just mad you didnt try to get Dez since you could have got him for fairly cheap
You are just mad you didnt try to get Dez since you could have got him for fairly cheap
1
Posted on 9/29/11 at 10:44 am to cornstarch
quote:
cornstarch
How do you know the one getting Sproles is not going to turn around and trade one of his current starting RBs for a higher level WR? He could trade one of his current starters for lets say...Vincent Jackson and start Sproles and Vincent Jackson.
Would that not be helping his team?
You are assuming that Sproles will ride his bench. That probably is not going to be the case here.
Posted on 9/29/11 at 10:46 am to cornstarch
this situation is completely laughable.
you sir should not be a commissioner.
Dez Bryant for Sproles is a completely legitimate trade.
It does not matter if someone is going to start them or not. That is not your concern.
Your concern as a commissioner is if there is collusion and if the trade is ridiculously one sided. For example, Tom Brady for Chad Henne. That would make me question things.
you sir should not be a commissioner.
Dez Bryant for Sproles is a completely legitimate trade.
It does not matter if someone is going to start them or not. That is not your concern.
Your concern as a commissioner is if there is collusion and if the trade is ridiculously one sided. For example, Tom Brady for Chad Henne. That would make me question things.
Posted on 9/29/11 at 10:47 am to ragacamps
whats sad is Sproles carries more value right now IMO.
This post was edited on 9/29/11 at 10:49 am
Posted on 9/29/11 at 12:39 pm to donRANDOMnumbers
Yes, more value right NOW. The whole fricking "more points" argument is ignorant as frick. Like I said earlier, Chad Henne has more points than Philip Rivers...does that automatically make him a better option? Shut up with that shite.
I'm not considering a veto because I'm "jealous", it's because one team is getting screwed and another is getting even more stacked = making it unfair for the rest of us. The dude with Dez isn't a retard, he's been in the league for like 4 years...but like I said...I think his son who follows football a lot more closely pulled out that very same bullshite argument about how Sproles has more points and he convinced him. His Dad, who has other things to worry about, probably said "Hmm...I guess you're right. Okay".
There's a reason why it takes more than ONE VETO to over rule a trade. If me and three others vote against it, OBVIOUSLY something is up. I had a trade go through with no vetoes earlier this year. You know why, because it was fair for both sides.
If this trade gets the right amount of vetoes, then the league viewed it as unfair. Simple as that. This whole "veto-for-collusion" purposes only argument is fricking dumb.
Yes, it is the league's right to decide who gets screwed or not...yet another argument that is completely worthless. "Oh wah wah, if they make a deal then stay out of their business". Well, it is my business because I will have to play the team who swindled a great WR on his already good team because his daddy was enamored with Sproles's early points.
If ONE veto ruined a trade, I could see you guys' awful arguments. But it takes more than one person. So obviously, if this trade does get vetoed I'm not the only one who thinks it's unfair, and last time I checked, there are 8 other people who would have to face this team getting Dez. So yes, it is the league's business to keep it even and fair for all.
Have a great day.
I'm not considering a veto because I'm "jealous", it's because one team is getting screwed and another is getting even more stacked = making it unfair for the rest of us. The dude with Dez isn't a retard, he's been in the league for like 4 years...but like I said...I think his son who follows football a lot more closely pulled out that very same bullshite argument about how Sproles has more points and he convinced him. His Dad, who has other things to worry about, probably said "Hmm...I guess you're right. Okay".
There's a reason why it takes more than ONE VETO to over rule a trade. If me and three others vote against it, OBVIOUSLY something is up. I had a trade go through with no vetoes earlier this year. You know why, because it was fair for both sides.
If this trade gets the right amount of vetoes, then the league viewed it as unfair. Simple as that. This whole "veto-for-collusion" purposes only argument is fricking dumb.
Yes, it is the league's right to decide who gets screwed or not...yet another argument that is completely worthless. "Oh wah wah, if they make a deal then stay out of their business". Well, it is my business because I will have to play the team who swindled a great WR on his already good team because his daddy was enamored with Sproles's early points.
If ONE veto ruined a trade, I could see you guys' awful arguments. But it takes more than one person. So obviously, if this trade does get vetoed I'm not the only one who thinks it's unfair, and last time I checked, there are 8 other people who would have to face this team getting Dez. So yes, it is the league's business to keep it even and fair for all.
Have a great day.
Posted on 9/29/11 at 12:47 pm to Lester Earl
The way the Saints are using Sproles, and I see no reason for them to suddenly stop using him like that, I really don't see how this trade is unfair. In fact, in PPR, the person getting Sproles is probably coming out ahead.
Posted on 9/29/11 at 12:50 pm to ZZTIGERS
quote:
The way the Saints are using Sproles, and I see no reason for them to suddenly stop using him like that, I really don't see how this trade is unfair. In fact, in PPR, the person getting Sproles is probably coming out ahead.
There is no RB/WR flex spot. He has Blount and McCoy as his RBs. Now he is left with Maclin (good), Mike Thomas (ew), and Malcom Floyd (exactly) as his starting receivers.
That. Is. My. Only. Point.
The dude is making his receivers complete shite and getting a RB when he already has two good ones to rely on.
Posted on 9/29/11 at 12:51 pm to cornstarch
quote:
If me and three others vote against it, OBVIOUSLY something is up.
When there is one of you vs 25 others in this thread, something is up as well
You don't think it's strange no one agrees with you?
Posted on 9/29/11 at 12:53 pm to cornstarch
quote:
There is no RB/WR flex spot. He has Blount and McCoy as his RBs.
He could easily have a point to flip Blount/Thomas for another WR. Or even McCoy for an elite WR
Posted on 9/29/11 at 12:56 pm to SwampDonks
quote:If this league is in fact PPR, and depending on the matchup, I could easily see him starting Sproles over Blount. Blount's kryptonite is pass catching.....
He could easily have a point to flip Blount/Thomas for another WR. Or even McCoy for an elite WR
Posted on 9/29/11 at 1:04 pm to ZZTIGERS
Exactly Sporles is getting nearly 2xs as many snaps as any other Saints RB. He is on pace for 119 catches.
Cornstarch, you are saying the trade should be vetoed because you think Dez Bryant may be a better player down the road? You know, that may hold some water if he was a proven commodity and not injury prone, but he is the exact opposite. Your Henne comparison is fricking dumb because Rivers has been a top 5 QB every year. Neither Sproles Or Bryant have a rap sheet long enough for you to veto a trade because of what "might happen". I
I feel sorry for anyone playing in your league if you are truly the commish. 50 posts in this thread and 1 person agrees with you? You can't see the light?
Cornstarch, you are saying the trade should be vetoed because you think Dez Bryant may be a better player down the road? You know, that may hold some water if he was a proven commodity and not injury prone, but he is the exact opposite. Your Henne comparison is fricking dumb because Rivers has been a top 5 QB every year. Neither Sproles Or Bryant have a rap sheet long enough for you to veto a trade because of what "might happen". I
I feel sorry for anyone playing in your league if you are truly the commish. 50 posts in this thread and 1 person agrees with you? You can't see the light?
Posted on 9/29/11 at 1:28 pm to SwampDonks
quote:
You don't think it's strange no one agrees with you?
Some guy nobody has ever heard of around here agrees w/ him!!!!
This post was edited on 9/29/11 at 1:29 pm
Posted on 9/29/11 at 1:56 pm to Honkus
quote:
Some guy nobody has ever heard of around here agrees w/ him!!!!
What's it matter if you'e heard of the guy or not. Oh don't tell me you base the weight of someone's opinion off of their post count...oh geez.
Anyways, yeah I'm aware I'm definitely in the minority. I just truly don't see why the veto option is there if its solely for collusion. You guys are being too narrow minded and losing sight of the fact that the veto is there to keep it fair for all...even when it comes to controversial trades that aren't for colluding.
But I digress. We're just repeating the same things over and over now.
Posted on 9/29/11 at 2:50 pm to cornstarch
quote:
You guys are being too narrow minded and losing sight of the fact that the veto is there to keep it fair for all..
I feel sorry for the people in your league. That is fine if you want to veto "unfair" trades. But this trade isnt unfair. You are a joke.
Posted on 9/29/11 at 3:21 pm to cornstarch
i like how your wrong about everything. 
I OFFICIALLY DECLARE THIS
I OFFICIALLY DECLARE THIS
Posted on 10/2/11 at 1:47 pm to cornstarch
Hey guys, just a friendly update.
The guy ends up benching Sproles this week
as the other guy starts Dez, who has two touchdowns.
But no...no veto should have ever happened.
The guy ends up benching Sproles this week
as the other guy starts Dez, who has two touchdowns. But no...no veto should have ever happened.
Posted on 10/2/11 at 1:51 pm to cornstarch
Sproles only has 5 fewer points than Dez in my PPR, and he was stopped on the 1 twice.
Why are you being a douche?
Why are you being a douche?
Posted on 10/2/11 at 1:54 pm to OBUDan
You guys are really ignorant. Or just dumb. Idiotic. Retarded. Lacking in comprehension skills. Something.
The fricking issue is Team A has McCoy and Blount with so-so receivers. He trades his best WR for an accessory at RB. Therefore: HELPING ONE TEAM IMMENSELY while not helping his at all, especially with Sproles on the bench.
Do you get it now? It isn't Sproles for Dez that is the problem, it's the fricking context of the trade within our league.
Do you get it now? Team B gets rid of a bench player for a bonafide #2/#1 receiver who scored 2 TDs this week to a team that didn't even need Sproles.
Do you get it now?
I can repeat it again if ya'll need me to.
The fricking issue is Team A has McCoy and Blount with so-so receivers. He trades his best WR for an accessory at RB. Therefore: HELPING ONE TEAM IMMENSELY while not helping his at all, especially with Sproles on the bench.
Do you get it now? It isn't Sproles for Dez that is the problem, it's the fricking context of the trade within our league.
Do you get it now? Team B gets rid of a bench player for a bonafide #2/#1 receiver who scored 2 TDs this week to a team that didn't even need Sproles.
Do you get it now?
I can repeat it again if ya'll need me to.
This post was edited on 10/2/11 at 1:55 pm
Posted on 10/2/11 at 1:58 pm to cornstarch
quote:
You guys are really ignorant. Or just dumb. Idiotic. Retarded. Lacking in comprehension skills. Something.
Not really. You are are acting like a 10-year-old girl.
quote:
He trades his best WR for an accessory at RB. Therefore: HELPING ONE TEAM IMMENSELY while not helping his at all, especially with Sproles on the bench.
So? IF he mismanages his team, that's his problem.
quote:
It isn't Sproles for Dez that is the problem
That's the only issue.
quote:
it's the fricking context of the trade within our league.
Doesn't matter unless there is collusion.
quote:
Do you get it now? Team B gets rid of a bench player for a bonafide #2/#1 receiver who scored 2 TDs this week to a team that didn't even need Sproles.
That's how smart people trade, brah.
"Hey look, I drafted Fitz, AJ and Megatron and can only start 2 WRs. Guess I'll trade one for a good RB because I DON'T EVEN NEED ONE OF THEM."
That's called being a smart manager. And you are interfering, like a big ole douche.
Posted on 10/2/11 at 2:01 pm to cornstarch
You're such an idiot
I hope this makes you realize that
I hope this makes you realize that
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News