Talk about trades

If you want to talk about a trade do it in here.

The only people that can write in a pending trade are the TC and the people involved ONLY to say they agree

My fault VHawk, I didn't know about that before hand. Won't happen again.

Zsirvone28 wrote:

My fault VHawk, I didn't know about that before hand. Won't happen again.

Its all good.

I never said anything about it before hand.

I made this when I saw people starting to post in there, and I just thought about it.

Not your fault ..... this time ..... lol

As to the picks being added to the trade, they may be the difference between me getting Smith or not( I might not get him without the picks) . It was the price to make a quick trade.

It is always worth paying a little extra for Will Smith



Oh..... its not that will smith

Honestly people, COME ON!

The difference in overall between a 3rd and a 5th is likely to be around 2-3 points.

OBVIOUSLY, if these guys feel that they want the player that the opposite GM is offering, 2-3 points for essentially a backup SHOULD NOT MAKE A DIFFERENCE.


In my opinion, a trade council should regulate trades to ensure that one GM is not obviously ripping off the other GM.

If the difference is between 2 picks that are 2 rounds apart, well, we're crossing into Nazi-regulating territory.

GMs make trades for players that they like or fit their system, and sometimes they are willing to get slightly less 'value' if they are dealing away a player they don't like so much for a player they like a lot more.

I don't think that the decision to stop that trade should be in the hands of the TC - The TC should simply be in place to make sure the trades aren't too lopsided.

Too often I see a TC lose sight of what they are established for - ensuring that GMs aren't obnoxiously ripping each other off; instead, they decide to establish 'rules' in what they view (In THEIR minds, not the GMs trading) what is 'fair', rather than think "Hey, maybe these guys came to this trade because THEY think it is fair in their minds, and honestly this isn't overly bad enough to disprove"?

Thanks Ruskie! I got your back broskie becasue I believe in what you said.. 100%!

thats ruskie? one of the people who killed sox's aka abduls league.

monster wrote:

thats ruskie? one of the people who killed sox's aka abduls league.

LMFAO! I believe it is.

SJax: God of War wrote:

Honestly people, COME ON!

The difference in overall between a 3rd and a 5th is likely to be around 2-3 points.

OBVIOUSLY, if these guys feel that they want the player that the opposite GM is offering, 2-3 points for essentially a backup SHOULD NOT MAKE A DIFFERENCE.


In my opinion, a trade council should regulate trades to ensure that one GM is not obviously ripping off the other GM.

If the difference is between 2 picks that are 2 rounds apart, well, we're crossing into Nazi-regulating territory.

GMs make trades for players that they like or fit their system, and sometimes they are willing to get slightly less 'value' if they are dealing away a player they don't like so much for a player they like a lot more.

I don't think that the decision to stop that trade should be in the hands of the TC - The TC should simply be in place to make sure the trades aren't too lopsided.

Too often I see a TC lose sight of what they are established for - ensuring that GMs aren't obnoxiously ripping each other off; instead, they decide to establish 'rules' in what they view (In THEIR minds, not the GMs trading) what is 'fair', rather than think "Hey, maybe these guys came to this trade because THEY think it is fair in their minds, and honestly this isn't overly bad enough to disprove"?

I have to bring this up again. If a trade is off by a little bit then what's the big deal. The trade crew is to prevent ludicrous deals from happening where a team gets and UNDOUBTEDLY HUGE ADVANTAGE.. I'm not saying this because of my trade, but because of the opinions on a good deal of trades so far. How is any team going to gain even just an edge if absolutely perfect deals are the only ones that pass?

Typically what I've seen happen is this: TC's are more picky at the beginning of trading, probably in order to help establish what a fair trade constitutes. Once it seems as though the GM's have the idea what the TC is looking for, then they back-off a bit and become more lenient.

I don't disagree that nit-picking can seem very nit-picky, but all of the guys on the TC are there cuz they've been on other TC's and have shown some trustworthiness before in that role.

Zsirvone28 wrote:

SJax: God of War wrote:

Honestly people, COME ON!

The difference in overall between a 3rd and a 5th is likely to be around 2-3 points.

OBVIOUSLY, if these guys feel that they want the player that the opposite GM is offering, 2-3 points for essentially a backup SHOULD NOT MAKE A DIFFERENCE.


In my opinion, a trade council should regulate trades to ensure that one GM is not obviously ripping off the other GM.

If the difference is between 2 picks that are 2 rounds apart, well, we're crossing into Nazi-regulating territory.

GMs make trades for players that they like or fit their system, and sometimes they are willing to get slightly less 'value' if they are dealing away a player they don't like so much for a player they like a lot more.

I don't think that the decision to stop that trade should be in the hands of the TC - The TC should simply be in place to make sure the trades aren't too lopsided.

Too often I see a TC lose sight of what they are established for - ensuring that GMs aren't obnoxiously ripping each other off; instead, they decide to establish 'rules' in what they view (In THEIR minds, not the GMs trading) what is 'fair', rather than think "Hey, maybe these guys came to this trade because THEY think it is fair in their minds, and honestly this isn't overly bad enough to disprove"?

I have to bring this up again. If a trade is off by a little bit then what's the big deal. The trade crew is to prevent ludicrous deals from happening where a team gets and UNDOUBTEDLY HUGE ADVANTAGE.. I'm not saying this because of my trade, but because of the opinions on a good deal of trades so far. How is any team going to gain even just an edge if absolutely perfect deals are the only ones that pass?

I agree, TC has been to strict. I try not to be that bad.

Also, people have started using the point system where a 1st = about 7 ovr/age, and so on, those are good outlines IMO of what it should be, but people need to take into account 1 year contracts, as well as position value. If people are strictly using those systems, QB and C have the same value when QB >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> C

I don't mean to be a douche bag but I found something more that needs to be addressed with our TC. I don't mean to single you out bouncerguy, but if you check out these two posts by him in these two links:

https://fdmsl08.forummotion.com/pending-trades-f6/bear-lions-t472.htm

Quote :

Quote :

Lions get
C Nick Hardwick 90/25/1
CB Stanley Wilson 77-24-1

Bears get
C Mike Flanagan 82-33-2
CB Domonique Foxworth 83-24-1
2nd round pick
5th round pick

I say no, Bears need to get more diff in centers 8 pts overall and 8 years in age, 16 pts favor of lions...diff in cb same age 6 overall diff 6 pt favor of bears...10 pt diff left 2nd=5 5th =1 4 more pts needed......Lions need to add a 3rd to complete this deal

https://fdmsl08.forummotion.com/pending-trades-f6/49ers-chargers-trade-2-0-t471.htm

Quote :

Quote :

Chargers Get:
QB: tarvaris jackson 79- 24- 3yr
1st Round (49ers)
3rd Round (49ers)

49ers Get:
QB: donovan mcnabb 91- 30- 5yr

looks good

You can see that his in inconsistent in his judging trades matter.


In the first post he says that the second (equaling 5) plus a fifth (equaling 1) along with another third (equaling 4) would balance out the trade. So if you take those some parameters to the second trade. Tarvaris Jackson is 6 years younger, but 12 points less so that would equal 6 poinst in favor of the 49ers. Now if you add in the picks, the third equaling (4 points in his previous post). As well as adding the first (more than 5, probably 6 points). The Chargers are actually getting ripped off in the deal by that ENTIRE third round pick in bouncerguys standards.

If you understand what I mean through all that scribble then I commend you, but I'm just saying the TC needs to be more consistent.

Despite the earlier heckling I was doing to the TC, you guys seem to be very very quick and on top of everything now. I just want to commend you for all the work you guys have done. Nice job.

Rams Get
Paul Spicer 86-31-2

Giants Get
Rams 2nd round pick
Greg Spires 84-33-3

I'd really appreciate knowing why I was the only one to vote no on this trade? We've got two 30+ year old DE's separated by only 2 overall points, but a 2nd round pick is needed to fill that gap!? a 2nd round pick is like a 79-81 overall player depending on how early it is, and he would be a rookie, so like 23-24 years old. IMO both those DE's are close to a 2nd round value by themselves, and that is pushing it, so I fail to understand how a 31 to 33 year old with a 2 overall difference warrants a 2nd round pick to make up the difference, I think it is way too far off to pass. Personally I'd like to see the pick changed to a 5th rounder. I know it's already passed and nothing I can do about that, I just wanna know why?

Wendell (AllMadden) wrote:

Rams Get
Paul Spicer 86-31-2

Giants Get
Rams 2nd round pick
Greg Spires 84-33-3

I'd really appreciate knowing why I was the only one to vote no on this trade? We've got two 30+ year old DE's separated by only 2 overall points, but a 2nd round pick is needed to fill that gap!? a 2nd round pick is like a 79-81 overall player depending on how early it is, and he would be a rookie, so like 23-24 years old. IMO both those DE's are close to a 2nd round value by themselves, and that is pushing it, so I fail to understand how a 31 to 33 year old with a 2 overall difference warrants a 2nd round pick to make up the difference, I think it is way too far off to pass. Personally I'd like to see the pick changed to a 5th rounder. I know it's already passed and nothing I can do about that, I just wanna know why?

I think Spicer is worth about a 2nd himself. At 31 he has like 3 years left. Spires at 33 has like 1-2 years left, and I only see him worth like a 4th-5th so I thought it was close enough to be passed

Lance (Vhawk413) wrote:

Wendell (AllMadden) wrote:

Rams Get
Paul Spicer 86-31-2

Giants Get
Rams 2nd round pick
Greg Spires 84-33-3

I'd really appreciate knowing why I was the only one to vote no on this trade? We've got two 30+ year old DE's separated by only 2 overall points, but a 2nd round pick is needed to fill that gap!? a 2nd round pick is like a 79-81 overall player depending on how early it is, and he would be a rookie, so like 23-24 years old. IMO both those DE's are close to a 2nd round value by themselves, and that is pushing it, so I fail to understand how a 31 to 33 year old with a 2 overall difference warrants a 2nd round pick to make up the difference, I think it is way too far off to pass. Personally I'd like to see the pick changed to a 5th rounder. I know it's already passed and nothing I can do about that, I just wanna know why?

I think Spicer is worth about a 2nd himself. At 31 he has like 3 years left. Spires at 33 has like 1-2 years left, and I only see him worth like a 4th-5th so I thought it was close enough to be passed

So the value of Spires was so little that it was close enough? Is that a correct understanding? I can somewhat see that...