|
|
Post by Bengals GM (Darryl) on Oct 27, 2015 23:17:13 GMT
Interesting...two vetoes. Dalton wasn't worth anything in the beginning of the season according to some (perception)...which has seemed to change.
With that guys, I respectively disagree with those assessments.
Leaves me to wonder, that if Charles doesn't make it back from injury, and West becomes the starter, will this perception change as well in regards to the value of this trade? And what is the value of a QB who is supposedly "fantasy relevant".
From the bottom tier to the top tier (or visa-versa) it hasn't taken much to upgrade significantly (this year), other than the giving of a player with some perceived value. Everyone knows, or should know (at least those who have spent time here) that I have long been against individual perceptions as to values, without leaving room for actual field performance, team conditions and situations, and future outlook (potential).
I've also expressed my dis-interest in the favoring of trades that are perceived "not enough" for a player vs. those that are severely over-paid without any stress-ups. The teams must be considered, as well as tenures w/experience.
As an example, how will the Chargers benefit in this trade? Is there a downside? Same questions for the Bengals.
Bottom-line is there is no guarantees in football - and this trade, imo, isn't detrimental to the teams or the league.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bills GM (Greg) on Oct 28, 2015 0:02:57 GMT
I respectfully disagree. I tempered my original comments when vetoing this trade by stating that it was trade between two senior owners who are were not out destroy their teams.
I believe that the trade is detrimental to the teams and the league. The trade leaves the Bengals without a starting QB, which significantly changes the balance of power within AFC North & AFC East based on the teams the Bengals will play the remainder of the season. Also in his acceptance, the Chargers have already started to market Dalton in order to further their rebuilding program. This creates the potential for a contending team with a QB problem, to obtain a Top 5 QB at a bargain basement price.
But probably my largest objection to the trade is that it establishes an artificially low value for a top QB going forward. Dalton is currently having on of his best years in recent memory, his on the field performance is testament to his real value...not a perceived value in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bengals GM (Darryl) on Oct 28, 2015 1:23:40 GMT
I respectfully disagree. I tempered my original comments when vetoing this trade by stating that it was trade between two senior owners who are were not out destroy their teams. I believe that the trade is detrimental to the teams and the league. The trade leaves the Bengals without a starting QB, which significantly changes the balance of power within AFC North & AFC East based on the teams the Bengals will play the remainder of the season. Fair enough. Not challenging the rights to individual rulings, just a disagreement as far as being a trade that is detrimental. The fact of not having a starting QB isn't enough to change the balance. If that were the case, it would make no sense for teams to make trades in order to better their future...i.e. Timmons for Charles. I've already sacrificed points now for a future benefit of filling the RB position. So accordingly, the balance has in essence already "changed" in that aspect. Notwithstanding, Dalton's avg. point total was approximately 31 ppg through 4 games (ranked 3rd overall), while Charles' was 27 ppg through the same (ranked 6th overall). C. West just happened to put up 27 points in his outing, which is consistent. In this perspective, a relatively slight drop off in production this year vs. having a QB. Also in his acceptance, the Chargers have already started to market Dalton in order to further their rebuilding program. This creates the potential for a contending team with a QB problem, to obtain a Top 5 QB at a bargain basement price. There will often be a potential benefit to each side...However, there will always be the "IF" factor involved as well. Will someone be interested in Dalton?...perhaps, but they haven't been thus far. But probably my largest objection to the trade is that it establishes an artificially low value for a top QB going forward. Dalton is currently having on of his best years in recent memory, his on the field performance is testament to his real value...not a perceived value in my opinion. Again, it leaves to question the "value" of a top QB, and a "fair exchange" of that value. If I were to get (2) 1st round picks, a 2nd, WR and a Safety, there would be little to no questioning as to an over-pay of exchanged value. The perceived value I'm speaking of is not in the QB, but in added pieces "perceived" by the individual to have value. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2015 16:09:49 GMT
What has exactly has Charcandrick West done to warrant a trade for Dalton, West to date has 191 and 1 TD in 7 games. That not even a mediocre return. It seems that some people are just obsessed with finding a RB. I could understand if West had previous form or was a 1st round draft pick, he's no more than a Zurlon tipton type just the next man up to do the job. There is too much, ifs and buts over West. Well what happens if West does not become the RB you are building up to be, what happens if the Chiefs spend money on a RB in FA, or if Charles returns from injury, or they draft one in the top 2 rounds in 2016, where will that leave West in 2016 ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Bengals GM (Darryl) on Oct 30, 2015 16:36:43 GMT
Mike...thanks for chiming in with your thoughts. It's very encouraging.
I think you have hit on some of the major points when considering whether or not a trade is beneficial to the teams involved (i.e., in-line with the teams directions and goals), or whether such a trade is detrimental to either of the teams OR to the league as a whole.
In this specific case, I think the league can be confident that both owners will not make a trade that will harm their team, and then leave the league, causing harm to the organisations and by extension the league as a whole. Both teams are also in bad shape and in serious rebuild mode.
I've mentioned the "value" issue above - which isn't normally contested for an overpay, but often criticised when an underpay is at stake - Neither am I against established values. However, I do believe that in every instant each trade is different and dependent upon many considerations.
As you say, there are too many "if's" and "but's". But this is exactly what competing is all about. Each GM taking a "chance" to field the best team they possibly can to hopefully put their team in a position to compete for the ultimate title. When a GM can create opportunities to better their organisation, competition can be increased throughout the league.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bengals GM (Darryl) on Oct 30, 2015 16:46:09 GMT
In addition, my being surprised at the vetoes, has absolutely nothing to do with the way each TAB member chooses to vote. This thread is just a place where each GM can express their thoughts on a trade. I've had trades vetoed and also place a vote of veto on trades, perhaps moreso than any other GM or TAB. Hopefully, never without giving my reasons and possible solutions should the GM's wish to pursue the trade.
I believe we have and are represented by a TAB that is as well-diversified as each member of this league, and each of our thoughts concerning league matters are very important - after all, and this is especially to the newer members - this is truly a team league, in which each member is an equal owner.
That said, I'd just like to make it known that I appreciate TAB, and each member who has chosen to be a part of this league.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2015 18:28:48 GMT
Mike...thanks for chiming in with your thoughts. It's very encouraging. I think you have hit on some of the major points when considering whether or not a trade is beneficial to the teams involved (i.e., in-line with the teams directions and goals), or whether such a trade is detrimental to either of the teams OR to the league as a whole. In this specific case, I think the league can be confident that both owners will not make a trade that will harm their team, and then leave the league, causing harm to the organisations and by extension the league as a whole. Both teams are also in bad shape and in serious rebuild mode. I've mentioned the "value" issue above - which isn't normally contested for an overpay, but often criticised when an underpay is at stake - Neither am I against established values. However, I do believe that in every instant each trade is different and dependent upon many considerations. As you say, there are too many "if's" and "but's". But this is exactly what competing is all about. Each GM taking a "chance" to field the best team they possibly can to hopefully put their team in a position to compete for the ultimate title. When a GM can create opportunities to better their organisation, competition can be increased throughout the league. If was involved with the trade and looking at drafting a top QB for a West, I might have added a few caveats, dependent upon performance for e.g. if he stays as nothing more than a filler then 1st & 3rd round pick comes my way but if he continued to perform for then the picks would become later picks, If West's performance increases week on week and he becomes the next Foster or Forsett then no picks would need be added. |
|
