NFL 2005 Season Week 12 Picks

Ron Dayne is my hero.  Wow, what a game for him.  Probably the best game of his career.

I actually suggested leftwich upon recieving the news that Bulger was done.  Rod Smith is definitely worth it, and I haven't had Boldin in my starting lineup for like 4 weeks.  Even so, I'm kinda hurting at running back, so McGahee (i don't care about the spelling) was what makes the deal good for me.  I'm also not in the business of screwing my competitors.  I accepted the trade because Bulger hasn't been healthy for a while.  I can't say I knew that he was done for the season when I accepted it.  But anyway, I'm just a nice guy I guess.

PS: I hate Christmas lights

Am I understanding you sarah, that you think that Scott is getting ripped off?  If I were to vote against the trade it would be because I actually think that Matt's giving up too much.  But the fact is they both want the trade and no one is trying anything malevolent.  As for the first trade, it's my understanding that this is a "good faith" league.  We're not playing three card monty here.  I think Scott and Matt are both on the same page in that regard.

i think Sarah's thoughts were just that regardless of whether or not Scott knew Matt had plenty of time to pull the trade back, so it was tough noogies for him. I basically felt the same way but voted against it really for no good reason.  I actually respect Sarah's decision, and not only because I'm legally obligated to. After pulling her Gado farce of a deal it's only far she allow someone else to be burned by a trade they let dangle too long.

No offense but I wasn't really looking for your interpretation of her thoughts.  Anyway, there's no arguing the technicality of it all, since obviously there are deadlines and such.  The whole rejecting a trade thing, I would argue is for such situations where the letter of the law isn't violated but the spirit kind of is.  By the way your last sentence sounds a little too close to a "two wrongs make a right" kind of statement for me.  But just so there's no confusion, this isn't a "fighting words" kind of statement.  Just some thoughts.

Here's my interpretation of the whole thing.  Matt had plenty of time to pull the trade off of the table.  Bulger got hurt on Sunday, Scott accepted the trade on Wednesday.  MRIs were done on Monday.  There was plenty of time to pull the trade off the table.  Instead, we were all expected to veto the trade because someone wasn't paying attention?  I say too bad so sad.  That's the game.  It's all about the competition.  If you offer a trade to someone, you better know what you're offering and what you're receiving.  I just don't see why if you make a mistake you should end up getting a better deal, while someone who was paying attention, ends up getting hurt in the bargain.  I'm looking at it purely in a competitive view.  Not in some moral view, but it is nice to see some people comment before the week is over.

First off, part of this was complicated because, for some reason, I had it in my head that the trade deadline was today (10/25), not next Fri.  If I realized that I had another week, I would have contacted Scott and tried to work something out, but because I thought the deadline was today and Thursday being Thanksgiving, I was worried that If I didn't get the thing vetoed quick, even if Scott and I came to an understanding, we wouldn't be able to make a second trade to balance things out, or something like that.

Secondly, I had a freaking big Biology test Monday afternoon and didn't pay much attention to football Sun/Mon.  I guess I should have made time to check my Fantasy League instead of studying.  Sarah, you say the info about Bulger was well known, but I didn't know, and even Scott says he didn't know the full extent when he accepted the trade, so obviously what you consider widespread knowledge might not fit everyone in the league.  If 2 1/2 days is too long to find out information, what is the right amount?  If Scott had accepted Tues night would you have had a problem?  How about Tues  morning or on Monday?  In real life sports, trades are voided all the time for Injuries that one or both teams didn't know about, an in real life I assume Scott and I would have worked something out or canceled the trade ourselves, but in this the only options I believed I had were to have the trade vetoed.

As for the veto, it is in the rules for a reason.  The Commissioner/League can and should prevent trades that they think are a result of collusion or are unfair due to certain circumstances (Injury being one of them).  My proposal of the trade and therefore consent of it was based on my thought that Bulger was healthy at the time I proposed it.  Nobody in their right mind could believe I would make the trade otherwise.  If you accept that, then it doesn't matter if I had 2 days or 2 minutes to find out about the injury and cancel the trade, because you can't assume that because I hadn't canceled it yet, that I knew about the injury and am still OK with the trade.   Therefore it is entirely acceptable and necessary for the League/Commish to act to rectify the situation, since (unlike real life) there is nothing that Scott or I could do independently to fix it.

In regard to my previous post, I was kind of just rambling there, so I hope I was able to make some sort of sense in it.

Also, I don't now and never did think that Scott was trying to swindle me or be unfair or anything like that when he accepted the trade, I hold no ill will toward him and I hope he doesn't hold any toward me for pushing for a veto.  The same goes to Sarah and Jeremy and anyone else who may see this issue differently than me.  If I came off in the last post as angry or just as an ass, then I am sorry.  I can see good points in both sides of this situation, and while I don't agree with it, I understand your position.

What I saw was the person who initiated the trade trying to back out of it after he realized he was screwing himself over.  If I had gotten some emails from Scott agreeing to this then maybe I would've gone along with it, but all I got was one side of it.  So, it really just looked like someone trying to get out of a bad trade.  I'm also not saying that Marc Bulger came to my house and told me was out for the season the second the game was over.  He hasn't been over to my house since April. 

The only thing I'm saying is if you have a trade out there, just beware, and if something happens, be smart about it and cancel before someone tries to "swindle" you and before you start begging people to right your wrongs for you.  Plus, it turns out Scott or maybe even Matt could've just vetoed it themselves.

Plus, it's November.  Trade deadline is December 2nd. 

I'm out, have a good weekend.  Reggie Bush for GBP.

Yeah, If I had actually realized that Dec. 2nd was a week away, I wouldn't have been in such a rush to get "my side" of the story out there and have it acted on and this could have been easier, my bad on that.  I also would have started out with a weaker offer to Scott and tried to work from there, but with Thanksgiving and my inability to read a calender, I didn't want to waste time.  Plus Trent Green is really pissing me off.

As for the veto process itself, Jon, Alex, Jeremy and I all voted against it early on (I believe).  You need 1/3 of the league and Scott's veto would have been 5 out of 13, so I think his vote just happened to be the final vote needed to break the 1/3 mark.  They should, however, allow one or both of the teams involved to cancel the trade during the 2 day review because of situations just like this.

I almost forgot since nobody cared enough to keep guessing.  The correct answer to last weeks question is:

Trent Green (least) (Fantasy suckage counts less then real life suckage)

Minnesota Vikings

Ron Gardenhire

Doug Mientkiewicz

Green Bay Packers (most)

I'm starting to take back my fire and brimstone comments about Sherman.  I don't think he's any more at fault than anyone else for this season's woes.  And I do think he has an uncanny ability to make his teams play hard every week.  Mariucci probably would be a very good coach, but we could probably say goodbye to Favre if it happens.

The Badgers are proably going to be playing in the Capital One bowl.  If Ohio St. gets one of the 2 at large BCS bids, Wisconsin is in.  For how bad their 3 losses were, this team still overachieved big time, in my opinion and the opinion of many anyways.

One last thing about the trade fiasco.  My whole point wasn't about swindling, it was about paying attention to your trades that you lay out on the table. 

Ok, interesting comments about the Favre/Sherman/Mariucci triangle.  I just like hearing what people have to say.  (seeing I suppose)

We just put up our X-mas tree, and I happen to like Christmas lights.  Bring it Scott.

X-mas tree, but Christmas lights?  Interesting.

I personally enjoy Christmas lights.  In fact, they are my regular lighting in my room.  I also have the base of an old reading lamp hanging from the ceiling in a corner, but since it has no shade or anything I don't really like to use that.