TB/BAL

[Deleted]

TB Trades:
Jermichael Finley, TE, GB, $5,000,000 (2016)
Jarrett Boykin, WR, GB, $230,000 (2015)

BAL Trades:
Barry Church, S, DAL, $1,500,000 (2015)
Moise Fokou, LB, TEN, $910,000 (2016)
Jermaine Gresham, TE, FA, $405,000 (2014)

[Deleted]

How the hell is this trade being debated on whether to veto or not??? Another question... When did cardinals become a tab and why does he veto EVERY trade? Cardinals are worried about Fokou's value... But I'm pretty sure he's not anywhere near the focal point of this trade. Barry Church was the #1 DB last year and is on a great contract. Gresham is a serviceable TE for the year and Fokou is only 900k so even if he loses his starting job he's cheap. On the otherside you have Finley who probably wouldn't get 5mil on the FA market right now... And Boykin. Boykin is obviously the focal of this trade but he's the #3 wr at best in GB... That's a decent role but he's not even guaranteed that. TB is probably happy to unload Finley... And he gets Gresham, the #1 DB, and Fokou who isn't a good lb but could put up very solid numbers if he keeps his starting job... Tab should NOT be vetoing trades just because they don't agree with them... I know Bryan is a complete fantasy football expert... But tab cannot predict the future. I believe trades are only supposed to be vetoed if they seriously hinder a franchises ability to compete in the future. It's ridiculous that this trade would be discussed as a possible veto.

[Deleted]

To put things in perspective...


Boykin scored 156.6 pts last year
Finley 81 pts - obviously injured alot of the year but its a very serious injury that could very well affect him in the future, also you can't ignore the 5 Mil salary and the fact that tampa comes out way ahead in salary in this trade.

Compared to:

Fokou 157 pts
Church 284 pts - 42 pts more than the #2 DB Weddle
Gresham 114 pts

And Boykin was the #3 WR for most of the year last year... What if GB grabs a WR in the draft? They've never been afraid to do something like that... they go top player on their board and with such a deep WR pool its very possible they grab one early. I like Boykin and I think he's the #3 this year but I'm just pointing out that its very possible. Boykin is NOT a special talent.

[Deleted]

Completely agree with the Raiders on the underlying goal of the TAB in deciding the decisions on trades..."I believe trades are only supposed to be vetoed if they seriously hinder a franchises ability to compete in the future."

This is getting way out of control. This trade is a gimme. There is NO reason to veto this trade.

[Deleted]

I think I like Baltimore's side better but I do agree with you guys this trade is not veto worthy.

[Chiefs GM (Anthony)]

Going to piggie back as well and say this I respect the time and effort TAB. Members put into their decisions. But things are getting vetoed way way to much. The beauty Of professional sports is teams have different values on players. Some teams see a rookie coming out as a first round pick and some see that player as a second. Or come free agency in a few weeks, some teams will be willing to pay more then the next team, because of a fit or because that team places a greater value on that player and I'm afraid that our own values  of players don't matter and that could take the fun away. No one has a crystal ball that can predict the future, we just can use what we know and what we think may happen next year and years to come and then make the best decision for our teams. I still stand by the trade I made with the packers deal and Do not think that was a vetoable trade and same goes with my latest one. But once again, I do respect the work TAB puts in and am lucky to be a part of this amazing week, it's just been a real difficult week and a week that may change the direction of the chiefs team

[Deleted]

Both him and church graded out negatively and I was just worried for their value so calm down I never said I would veto

[Deleted]

Obviously you were debating vetoing... Otherwise you would have approved rather than posting that you were going to think on it...

[Deleted]

You may not have said that you would not veto, but something has you thinking that you possibly could.

So you have you own grading system that shows they graded out negatively? Or are you making your decisions on someone else's grading system? On the MFL grading system he was the #1 DB and averaged 17.75 pts per week to not only end up as the #1 DB overall, but the #1 DB overall in weekly average (2.50 pts more per week than the #2 DB overall). Church is young and signed through 2016. You may not be able to expect over 135 tackles and the top DB finish in fantasy points every year, but in a 32-team league my grading system states that he should be in the talk for a top 32 DB, which makes him a DB1. Even if you do not believe this, I would be happy starting Church every week, since our league starts 4-5 DB's weekly. With 32 teams in the league, this comes to a minimum of 128 DB's being started every week.

The moral of the story: One person's grading out negatively is not a reason to overturn a trade. Church obviously grades out positively for TB and the numbers prove it.

I respect the TAB and it is not an easy job to do, but...the underlying theme in evaluating trades should be:

Trades are only supposed to be vetoed if they SERIOUSLY hinder a franchise's ability to compete in the future.

This is OUR league and not one single person should be above the others in this league. The reason people joined this league was to have FUN. Taking chances and building your DYNASTY is what makes it fun. The only ways to build your Dynasty are through Draft Picks (give you longevity on keeping players with 5 year contracts and RFA status), free agency (top level players can get rather expensive with the whole league bidding on them) and trades (besides the draft, I believe, this may be the single most reason (even more than playing the fantasy schedule each week), why people choose Dynasty leagues over other formats.

Just my $.02

[Deleted]

I'd imagine he's referring to the pro football focus grading system

[Deleted]

The PFF grading system is my thought also. I actually want a DB that grades out bad. NFL QB's tend to find that guy and he gets more opportunities.

[Deleted]

Ya, I really like Church... every game he's ever played he's been a tackling machine. He was a tackling machine in the 2 or 3 games he played 2 seasons ago before he tore his Achilles. I also think the Cowboys like him alot. He's definitely there best safety right now... although that isn't saying much.

[Bengals GM (Darryl)]

Good "valuable" information and insight offered into reasons for approval/veto of trades guys. Personally I love a well-reasoned discussion/argument.

In this instance, would just like to add an element I believe is worth mentioning to the given reason (trades being vetoed only if detrimental to a teams future), and that specifically being, that sometimes the accumulation of a series of trades must be at times, taken into consideration. These are trades that tend to; in the very least, give an appearance of long-term harm to the franchise in question, but for the most part, expressly show the decline of the franchises ability to build a dynasty.

[Bengals GM (Darryl)]

I Would also like to respond to Raiders and Packers post more specifically...

My belief for the most part, which includes the thought that of all TAB members, I am the most likely to cast a vote of veto. In all fairness, I admit my knowledge in the beginning was pretty much at a loss. I've learned a LOT since joining the league, and even tried to frame a guideline for TAB as a way to determine the fairness of a trade.

As of right now, though the league has came a long way, their still remains work to do. Particularly, imo, when it comes to establishing a precedent in which to determine "fairness", which brings me to my latest veto.

We cannot, again being strictly my opinion, continue to discriminate against certain teams (Packers/Chiefs trade in this instance), when there is a clear and concise benefit to both teams in the trade. Since however, TAB made the decision to make that trade one that is strictly "value-based" (on individual perception of player value), rather than one that would, 1) fulfill the specific needs and aims of the teams involved, and 2) benefit the future of each team involved, which SHOULD take precedence over opinion of value, I merely stood by their previous decision.

As the Chiefs have mentioned - such inconsistencies could lead teams to change their strategy.

[Deleted]

Wow, lots of discussion in the past week. My two cents is TAB has several things they have to take into account including players value, teams needs, Owners trading history, and team assets. Not that a small problem in any one of these areas should be a problem, but when you run into problems in multiple areas that is when a veto needs to be considered. TAB has to protect a franchise from destroying itself as any owner in this league only has as much stock in their franchise as they care to. They can pick up and move on if they absolutely destroy a team and then the league as a whole will suffer as it becomes to difficult to field a whole league. This was all typed just to give a perspective on veto's I hope people remember when their trades get shot down. It isn't anything personal or a shot at the way the two owners value players, but just trying to make sure this league is fun for everyone for as many years as possible.