WAS - BUF

[Deleted]

Jun 20, 2014 1:34:54 GMT @49ersgm said:

Been here very short time ..loads of experience I see nothing wrong with the trade it is not collusion nor is it very one sided ,to each his own and to say if the same trade was done by another owner you would approve is slighting that owner and not allowing him to compete it was not a one sided deal nor was it posted after being agreed upon and then DECLINED by an unnamed owner.

I agree with this statement.

[Deleted]

Ya I'm done trying to explain this to new owners... The vote was 0-3 for BOMs who have been here for years and know very well how to run a team. Not going to argue about it anymore.

[Deleted]

Jun 20, 2014 1:52:34 GMT @goebel02 said:

Ya I'm done trying to explain this to new owners... The vote was 0-3 for BOMs who have been here for years and know very well how to run a team. Not going to argue about it anymore.

Look, I'm not trying to argue, or even try to prove a point. We are working on reworking the trade, and hopefully it will pass.

[Deleted]

I knew that would put an end to it

[Deleted]

Jun 20, 2014 1:57:51 GMT @49ersgm said:

I knew that would put an end to it

Lol.

[Deleted]

I am just going to give my opinion. You guys are valuing Welker as if it were 2016. The guy had 10 touchdowns this past year in just 13 games. He still is up there with the best of them at the receiver position, and is a dream come true for Manning. So what if his contract is up. Some team will pick him up, and there he might be even more involved. Just because the Bills franchise has a bad history doesn't mean this Bills owner is going to replicate it. The Bills picks up some nice pieces and dumps a bad contract. Lawrence, 2.24, and Welker could be a lot better than one boom or bust player. Look back to Mark Ingram, Daniel Thomas, Christian Ponder, Brian Quick, Brandon Weeden, etc. If first trades continue to be vetoed, new owners will become frustrated and bail. Let him have some freedom.

[Deleted]

I'm just saying that 5 trades have been vetoed since I joined and 4 have involved new owners (which was used as the primary reason for a veto in many cases). I'm fine if a trade is vetoed if it significantly damages a franchises future (if someone were to give up something like the 1.5 for Welker or something like that). But if the only reason a trade is being vetoed is because a person is new to the league or because they don't plan on rebuilding then I think it's ridiculous. Vetoing a trade because an owner is new is a pointless reason. It's not like the owners never played fantasy before. They obviously can understand player and contract value. If they have the trade ban lifted or wait the week to trade they have just as much of a right as anyone in this league to make any trade they want. So what if an owner doesn't want to build for the future and wants to build for now instead? Unless a trade significantly destroys a team it shouldn't be vetoed.

[Deleted]

To think that's like fleecing a new owner and trading Pitta for a 1st and 2nd!

[Deleted]

Basically i should just forget about trying to build this team for now and just worry about the future. I mean i see why you cant keep anyone here.there is no reason for this trade to not happen. Klike i said i have had three teams wanna trade now so i'm just going to tell them no cause i have to build for the future i cant build for both. Which if you look at thee trade that is what i was doing.I added a wr1 this year and two more picks and a future defensive linemen how is that not building for the future. I have NO RUNNING BACKS so Welker will kinda make up for that and score extra points there.I was going to try and deal Welker but now i might just keep him cause it doesnt matter either way.And both first rd draft picks i have should be top ten picks.basically i gave a 2015 1st for 2 2014 2nds there is notjhing wrong with that that is rebuilding right there is plenty of talent here in the second round