Browns Cardinals Trade (Declined)

Cardinals Send

1st round pick
2nd round pick
LOLB Porter 81 ovr b pot 5,750,000 $5,750,000
ROLB Haggans 78 ovr c pot 2,500,000

for

LT Joe Thomas 95 ovr a pot 7,272,000 $9,696,000 $12,120,000 $14,544,000

i accept

Frankly if I was on the committee any longer I would decline this based on how much is being given up for Joe Thomas.

I agree, what is this trade, very interested to see how this is voted

We are sending the picture that this is MLB and you give up tons for old players. Big time trades rarely happen and something like this in the NFL is Carson Palmer kinda rare.

Denied. Thomas is good, but not that good. Dewser and Gordon seeing as how you're not on the trade committee, I suggest you keep your opinions to yourselves. Owners putting in their two cents in other owners affairs is neither allowed nor required. Thank you.

What would you suggest we do to adjust this trade?

So owners cannot provide feedback into trades? Why not remove access to the completed trade forum if we cannot say our general feelings to the committee. Seems a bit oligarchical if you ask me.

I just want to point out Hittched that my statement is not an attack but an observation that all owners should be allowed to voice concern of trades at free will; the committee may feel a trade is even but persons outside of the small group may have astute observations of the trade which may impact someones vote.

When owners get into other owners affairs it can lead to arguments and attacks. Maybe you don't remember the war of words that occurred in our Madden 11 franchise that lead to one owner getting booted.
If the trade does not concern you please be respectful and stay out of it. The committee is here to make the decisions. We do not need any help and I do not need the arguments that will inevitably ensue. There is absolutely no reason for you to comment on this trade, especially when you're doing so right after your trade for the same player was denied. Do you see what I'm getting at?

Denied for now. I think you are close but I feel that Porter and Haggans are just old throw ins and offer nothing to this trade. If you can replace the both of them with one solid player (preferably on the young side) of at least B potential then I will approve, especially because cards picks are still only mid rounders. I just think Thomas is the best left tackle in the game and is worth a lot in my opinion. A 3 for 1 deal seems fair to me considering where the picks are going to be.

I would actually approve this. But as other have stated, it would be better to just remove porter and haggans and give up a younger player with decent POT. I don't think overall would matter here. Porter and Haggans are just roster fodder/emergency replacement.

I am a bit confused, some say that too much is being given for Thomas and others say not enough. I feel like giving a young player with potential would add to what it is being given, not otherwise.

I'm saying take out porter and Haggens and add a good younger player with at least B potential. Porter and Haggens are old and retire soon (next year or year after) and add no value to the trade in my opinion. This is just my opinion. Thomas is worth a 3 for 1 trade.

I don't see what Haggans adds to this trade either. I would agree that Porter is old but def adds more value than Thomas. That being said, a first and second, as well as Porter seems more than fair. I don't think you can overvalue one player like this. I think we need to start looking at trades with a little more leniency. It's not about would you personally take the trade.

Here are the factors I look at:

Do the two owners agree? Yes

Is the trade lopsided? No

Is this a trade that should be reversed if one owner leaves the league? In my opinion yes because it's a star player for picks. The Browns would get back Thomas and Cards would get the drafted players etc.

That being said, are both owners reliable? Yes

I approve this trade, just like I approved the last one for more less the identical reasoning.

So there are 2 Denys (Hittched and Jerry) and 2 Approve (Me and Cobb) Need Bob to weigh in

I side on denying this trade . The 2 players offered are due to decline starting next season. I am ok with picks. Denied.

Sorry guys, gotta rework the deal. 3-2 majority deny.

My comment was just a comment. I was just curious to see how the committee would vote based on the pure fact that I think it is very randomized sometimes. This wasn't meant to be a dig at the league or the committee, however, it seems that the committee as a whole has no clear cut way of voting. Sometimes it's a clear cut approved and other times, for similar trades in nature, it's half and half or an all out no. We always are looking to make this league better, and while Gordon P may have taken to the board as spite, as he likes to do, I am talking general concern. I feel a lot of the time it is whether the trade committee members would take the trade themselves rather then do the owners involve think it would benefit themselves or whether or not it is fair or unfair. While I understand we are human beings and have differing opinions, I think, for the benefit of the league, that the trade committee may need to start invoking universal and generalized rules to ensure that trades are voted on similarly instead, what it seems to me, very randomized. In know way am I saying I could do better, or at this time that I have any ideas how to do this, but it's food for thought. Thanks for listening guys.

this is the best deal I can get just cause it's a 1st and 2nd nvm the role players. I like this deal cause i can get two potential starters out of this deal as the cards pick is mid round. I feel like I am being forced to keep thomas. I have a replacement who will be just as good in LT monroe who is 2 years younger and way cheaper.

I agree with Adis here. Similar comparison, if any of you guys play fantasy football or that type of thing. Say you have two QBs, one is a big name and the other not as much but you feel can give you the same type of production. Obviously you might be willing to devalue your star a little knowing you have a replacement. Same thing here. I think all the factors should be considered. Obviously this trade is denied, I just think we need to be on the same page as what the deciding factor is.

Not to target Bob Selah, but I feel like you deny 75% of trades. I understand that you justify all of them and have rationale but it just seems like unless it's a blockbuster, the committee could be a bit more lenient or open to discussion.

dewser wrote:

My comment was just a comment. I was just curious to see how the committee would vote based on the pure fact that I think it is very randomized sometimes. This wasn't meant to be a dig at the league or the committee, however, it seems that the committee as a whole has no clear cut way of voting. Sometimes it's a clear cut approved and other times, for similar trades in nature, it's half and half or an all out no. We always are looking to make this league better, and while Gordon P may have taken to the board as spite, as he likes to do, I am talking general concern. I feel a lot of the time it is whether the trade committee members would take the trade themselves rather then do the owners involve think it would benefit themselves or whether or not it is fair or unfair. While I understand we are human beings and have differing opinions, I think, for the benefit of the league, that the trade committee may need to start invoking universal and generalized rules to ensure that trades are voted on similarly instead, what it seems to me, very randomized. In know way am I saying I could do better, or at this time that I have any ideas how to do this, but it's food for thought. Thanks for listening guys.

Maybe you can offer up some universal and generalized rules for the committee to abide by. I have no idea how to come up with such rules to govern trades. Trades are always a hot topic in video game leagues as well as real life. Everyone has an opinion on them. The difference between real life and our league is that the trade committee's main role is to protect the league and it's teams. Not owners, teams. I asked you guys to stay out of it, because I know that it can lead to confrontations and resentment amongst owners.

If you do have some suggestions on how we can make our decisions more clear cut, please post them in the Suggestions and Recommendations forum. Every one of us in this league lives in a diplomatic society. This system is diplomatic. The only society where all decisions are clear cut is in communist. Each has it's merits. I'd prefer to stick with our diplomatic one though.

Hittched wrote:

If you do have some suggestions on how we can make our decisions more clear cut, please post them in the Suggestions and Recommendations forum. Every one of us in this league lives in a diplomatic society. This system is diplomatic. The only society where all decisions are clear cut is in communist. Each has it's merits. I'd prefer to stick with our diplomatic one though.

Are you sure you don't want to start an argument about the benefits of communism vs. democracy?

cobbs87 wrote:

I agree with Adis here. Similar comparison, if any of you guys play fantasy football or that type of thing. Say you have two QBs, one is a big name and the other not as much but you feel can give you the same type of production. Obviously you might be willing to devalue your star a little knowing you have a replacement. Same thing here. I think all the factors should be considered. Obviously this trade is denied, I just think we need to be on the same page as what the deciding factor is.

Not to target Bob Selah, but I feel like you deny 75% of trades. I understand that you justify all of them and have rationale but it just seems like unless it's a blockbuster, the committee could be a bit more lenient or open to discussion.

Cobbs, you are also missing the point of having a trade committee. It exists to protect the teams. Owners have no ties to this league. They can pick up shop, say screw it, I'm out and we may not even hear a peep out of them ever again. Let's say three owners totally screw up a team and leave. Would you think that it would be hard to find replacements? Case in point. The Chris Johnson trade. The new owner wants CJ back. Well how does that affect the Philly owner. If the teams aren't protected, it's only a matter of time before there is no league for us to play in. Try to understand.

I think the fact that the POT of the players is not relative makes the trading harder. In real life, some teams might value some young players higher than others depending on scheme. Here however we have a clear cut POT rating that takes that out of the equation.

Also, I have the nagging feeling that older players are undervalued. In real life they are usually used to plug in holes due to their experience. It seems almost impossible to get a trade through that involves an older player because its not a good long term investment when in reality not all trades are long term, some trades are meant to patch up holes for a year or two. It is almost like saying a player is 30 years old and people take them as D potential.

All I want to say is that I feel regular owners should be permitted to enter the discussion. It's not a cheap shot but a healthy observation of what is to be. Be adults should be the key note of that.

Hittched look at my team, there is way more talent now then when i took over plus with the picks there will be more young talent here on this team. I know I am not gonna leave these Browns I have built them

Hittched wrote:

cobbs87 wrote:

I agree with Adis here. Similar comparison, if any of you guys play fantasy football or that type of thing. Say you have two QBs, one is a big name and the other not as much but you feel can give you the same type of production. Obviously you might be willing to devalue your star a little knowing you have a replacement. Same thing here. I think all the factors should be considered. Obviously this trade is denied, I just think we need to be on the same page as what the deciding factor is.

Not to target Bob Selah, but I feel like you deny 75% of trades. I understand that you justify all of them and have rationale but it just seems like unless it's a blockbuster, the committee could be a bit more lenient or open to discussion.

Cobbs, you are also missing the point of having a trade committee. It exists to protect the teams. Owners have no ties to this league. They can pick up shop, say screw it, I'm out and we may not even hear a peep out of them ever again. Let's say three owners totally screw up a team and leave. Would you think that it would be hard to find replacements? Case in point. The Chris Johnson trade. The new owner wants CJ back. Well how does that affect the Philly owner. If the teams aren't protected, it's only a matter of time before there is no league for us to play in. Try to understand.

I actually completely agree with you. I just think we need consistency. Matt Ryan was traded without the blink of an eye. But obviously we've established that any revisions to the system can be discussed in the suggestions thread.

gordonp832 wrote:

All I want to say is that I feel regular owners should be permitted to enter the discussion. It's not a cheap shot but a healthy observation of what is to be. Be adults should be the key note of that.

You're an enigma Gordon. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you were on the committee and aren't you the same guy who made a topic saying you didn't feel the need to post your decision on every trade. What's with the sudden change of heart that you feel so strongly all of a sudden to weigh in on trades that don't even concern you?

Hittched wrote:

gordonp832 wrote:

All I want to say is that I feel regular owners should be permitted to enter the discussion. It's not a cheap shot but a healthy observation of what is to be. Be adults should be the key note of that.

You're an enigma Gordon. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you were on the committee and aren't you the same guy who made a topic saying you didn't feel the need to post your decision on every trade. What's with the sudden change of heart that you feel so strongly all of a sudden to weigh in on trades that don't even concern you?

Owned

cobbs87 wrote:

Hittched wrote:

gordonp832 wrote:

All I want to say is that I feel regular owners should be permitted to enter the discussion. It's not a cheap shot but a healthy observation of what is to be. Be adults should be the key note of that.

You're an enigma Gordon. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you were on the committee and aren't you the same guy who made a topic saying you didn't feel the need to post your decision on every trade. What's with the sudden change of heart that you feel so strongly all of a sudden to weigh in on trades that don't even concern you?

Owned

Quoted for Truth

Wow, gordon was really owned, that was quite the moral vic for Hittched, i like it.

I'm going to lock this thread now. No point in continuing this back and forth banter.