Are you guys serious right about now. Sometimes I think you just don't get it. Bobby, you are so off base about more then a number of things. You can have an opinion about a trade but to go so far as saying Jon got Favre for nothing that is absurd. Favre will play about 7 more YFFL games in his career, unless the Dragons win the wild card because they aren't going to win the division. Why just let a player retire and get nothing for him, when you can get a solid and I mean solid player for him, with a draft pick thrown in. Jackson will be around a lot longer then Favre and benefit the boys so much more. Some of you guys think you are like fantasy football guru's because you write articles and come up with rankings. It doesn't make you any smarter or any better then any of the other owners. I am tired of people saying that I am washed up and don't care anymore, because that is complete crap. The Boys are 6-0 for a reason, they have had consistent play from most of there line-up. Last time I checked they have scored more points then all the teams in this league except for two. Maybe they haven't played the toughest schedule, but you can only win games you are scheduled to play. Which did include the Beans, which must not be much of a team if the Boys haven't beaten anyone good. A little controversy will only make this team stronger and better. Good luck to the Brothers, they are going to need it.
Yeah, I don't understand all this talk of that trade being so lop-sided.
Though he's hurt right now, Darrell Jackson is one of the more solid and consistent WR's (and is only in his 6th season) and a 2nd rounder isn't exactly a throwaway pick if you look at some of the players taken in that round in the past. True, Favre is one of the best scoring QB's this year, but as Chris said, he might be playing his last year for all we know.
I think both teams got what they needed from the trade - the Dragons needed a short term solution at QB after Pennington went down while the Boys get to play Eli Manning while getting some return on a player in the last stages of his career. Believe me, I'd rather have not traded Jackson, but 4-1 starts don't come along very often and I had to go for that playoff spot.
Almost every owner in the league besides the two involved think you got a little shorthanded that's all. I do think Darrell Jackson will benefit you in the long run but you were 5-0 and you traded away the league's highest scorer (at the time) for a player who is out at least 6 weeks (maybe the season) and a draft pick to your only division competition. And Favre has been pulling this retirement crap for years now. He's not going to out like this, he'll play again next year. I just think they're should have been a clause to protect you in the event the Dragons won the division or Jackson didn't play again this year like turning the draft pick into a first rounder instead of a second rounder.
Also, I'm not questioning Jon's authority, I have the greatest respect for him but why wasn't the Deputy Commissioner asked to review the trade? It is stated in the Rules the Deputy Commissioner reviews any transaction involving the Commissioner. I just need some clarification that is all.
Anyone else's thoughts? Am I way off base?
I actually thought the players involved in the deal were fine. It was not lopsided in that sense at all. What surprised me about the deal is that you sent Favre to your division rival in the middle of the playoff race. That is what I didn't get about it. I am always happy to see trading in the YFFL, but it's the Boys-Dragons aspect of it that got me.
The YFFL is great this year!
There's no established protocol on reviewing trades - I believe the only time a trade has been reversed is towards the end of the season involving possibly Bob, Anthony and maybe Isaac Bruce (I'd have to dig through e-mails for the details) and that was only after I received several complaints from other owners claiming the trade wasn't fair.
If other owners feel like a review of the trade is necessary, it's entirely possible and should be mediated by Steve, the deputy commissioner, since I'm directly involved. If I remember correctly, the trade that was voided was taken off the table before it even went to some sort of vote, so there isn't a precedent set for how this process would be handled and should probably be discussed at the Winter Meeting. In the meantime, whoever is presiding over a trade (be it the commissioner or deputy) would determine how to handle the situation.
From a personal standpoint, I think this process should only be used if there was evidence that malicious intent was involved in the trade (such as a bad team dumping good players to get worse for a better draft pick) and I don't think this was the case. Only time will tell whether this is an uneven trade or not and if it is, bad trades happen all the time (there's certainly many I'd like to take back). I think everyone likes a league where trades are made and its usually a healthy sign for the competitive nature of that league. I'd hate to see other owners' speculations discourage trades in the future, but if you guys feel this trade needs to be examined, you certainly have the right to do so.
Haha Bri, obviously, your teams are both in first. Congrats by the way on a nice turnaround so far. I, however can remember better seasons, with a 1-11 combined record - reminiscent of past Buddies seasons...but I'm very happy to see some fire out of Chris.