Username:   Password:  
Team:
Results:

In Defense of the Tatum Bell Trade

Kevin Sansone

By: Kevin Sansone, Senior Stat Boy

Posted: Nov 09, 2004

1. Where do I begin in my defense of this trade? How about with my Tatum Bell email. If you look at who received the email you will see that the name "Anthony Aceto" is not even on the recipient list. But if he isn't there, then how did Aceto fall into my trap? Aceto is the one who originally proposed the trade before Week 8. I was reluctant because Bruce was on a bye week and therefore he would have been useless to me. So I asked Aceto to wait another week. During this time, I wrote my email to everyone else in the league to see if there was any interest. There wasn't, so Aceto and I made the deal.

2. I don't really see how I "hyped him up" in the mass email. I believe my exact words were "I am shopping Tatum Bell if anyone is interested." How is this hyping someone up? How is this worse than saying Charlie Garner is an exceptional fantasy player when he clearly sucks.

3. You can't say that Aceto got his "bell" rung. I'd like to mention my email that asked if anyone wanted Tai Streets. Aceto was the first person to respond by slamming me and my emails. I'll admit that my desire to trade him was mostly based on frustration, but Aceto brought me back to reality. He knows what he is doing with trades. Sure, he may show up to the draft drunk but he has a sense of good and bad players. Which leads me to....

4. How can you say at this moment that Tatum Bell is going to be on the practice squad next year? It was Bobby who pointed out the long list of Denver running backs who have reached 1,000 yards in a previous article a few months ago. If I had said four weeks ago that a guy named Reuben Droughns would lead the team in rushing this year I would have been laughed at. Who knows what can happen next year. Griffin is done and Droughns could get injured leaving Bell as the starter (i'm not even going to listen to the Garrison Hearst as backup argument).

5. There is no way you can talk about voiding this trade without voiding every previous trade involving "future considerations". How is this any worse than trading a player for nothing? Trading future considerations is like saying "Here, have this guy, and i'll take someone later when I see how well he does for you." It just doesn't make sense.

On a different note...I'd like to throw Antonio Gates into the running for YFFL MVP this year.