One team wishes to give Will Fuller and Isaiah Crowell to receive Julio Jones in return. I know that by name value this seems very imbalanced, but if you look at the teams, their needs, and what the players have done so far it seems ok to me. Obviously Will Fuller has only played 2 games, but in my PPR league he averages about 30 points per game so far, while the Crow has had double digit rushing attempts in all but one game with a ppg average of over 13 points. Julio Jones has only averaged about 12 points. it is also worth mentioning that the team receiving Crowell has Ezekiel Elliot and two other RB’s on bye this week and is in need of a startable RB2, and 2-3 on the season and can’t afford another loss. I see this as a buy low opportunity on Jones and a sell high on Fuller, while meeting RB needs on a tough bye week. What are your thoughts?
Hey man, if you can get it get it. But if this trade gets vetoed by the league, then it was by all means necessary. I think this is trade rape.
I see where you are coming from, but the team wanting to trade Julio is frustrated with him to the point where they will not start him this week. I noticed Julio on the bench and the lack of RB’s which is why I tried to see what i could muster up to give him. I do respect your opinion on this and thank you for your input. I can see where other teams in the league are coming from. Would anybody else like to weigh in on this?
If the Julio owner is willing to do it, I say go for it. It looks like your league actually makes Crowell usable and if the Julio owner is desperate, go for it.
I would agree, this would be seen as severely unfair trade and while not unethical (if both parties do it because they want to), in my league it will get vetoed and rightfully so. IF you can get it and no one vetoes good for you.
What if Latavius Murray was given instead of Crowell? Is that any better?
What is your record? I personally am of the mindset that veto should only EVER be used in the case of obvious collusion (kicker for AB or something similarly obvious) or a team where two owners know each other and one is out of it and the other is 5-0 and make a deal that looks shady af…but IMO veto power shouldn’t be used to run someone else in the league’s team…if the owner of the team with Julio has those needs and is ok with it then let it roll…people need to get over names too…I had a league where I traded for Gronk and don’t even remember what all I gave I know Romo was in there at the time, but they wanted to veto it just because it was Gronk and they thought it made my team “too strong”. Turned out Romo was lights out the rest of the year and the person who traded Gronk got the better of the deal…You can’t tell me there is no chance that Fuller and Crowell outscore Julio ROS. Is it likely? perhaps not but definitely within the realm of possibility. and as such I don’t see anything about this that makes it vetoable…just sour grapes and people trying to run other people’s teams…
TL:DR: vetos shouldn’t exist and this trade is fine.
That is definitely the school of thought that I am in. They see Julio Jones and freak out, but the way I see it, I am taking the risk that he never improves this season at all, and keeps getting 12 points per game. They don’t acknowledge any other facts of the trade, like if we had made it two weeks ago, his team would be 4-1 instead of 2-3. The guy I am trying to trade is a co-worker, but we do not work together, I barely know him.He just thinks Julio has been an utter disappointment and is done with him. I have other good WR’s so i don’t mind taking the risk. This is the second trade this week that my league has veto, and yes, you guessed it, I am 5-0. But i don’t think you should veto a trade just because it makes the best teams (so far) better.
agree completely…I have seen leagues fold under just that…