Raiders Giants trade proposal - VETOED

Raiders agree to deal as well. Full details of deal are Giants deal Pryor & 1st round pick in exchange for Sherman & backup Mike Glennon.

gonna look at the attributes tonight. I view Sherman beating Pryor...and the 1st round pick beating Glennon.

question is....is sherman that special a player where the raiders need more in return?

Cool just keep us posted Chrebet.

after looking at the attributes.....I'm declining this one and asking that the Giants give up more.

No doubt Pryor is a great Madden Player.  His accuracies are pretty low but could be built.  Glennon solid, nothing great, 1st round pick is a very good slot in the mid rounds somewhere and I think it does beat out Glennon when they're put up head to head.   BUT Sherman is one of a handful of top players in our league (Watt, AP, RG3, Calvin, Von, Willis) and doesn't slightly beat Pryor, he beats him a good amount.

He is special.  6'3" with speed, with an 81 Catch rating and an Aggressive play ball trait.  He was drafted in our Top 10 in the fantasy draft.  Pryor went in round 3 or 4. (although probably should've went higher).  Sherman has a 98 MCV and a 94 ZCV. Ridiculous. 

Giants give up a little more.

Revision:

Raiders trade: CB R. Sherman 25yo 98 ovr
QB M. Glennon 24yo 78 ovr


Giants trade: QB T. Prior 25yo 88 ovr
1st Rnd draft pick #20 this year
2nd Rnd draft pick next year


The Giants agree to this deal.

Re-Revision:

Raiders trade: CB R. Sherman 25yo 98 ovr
QB M. Glennon 24yo 78 ovr


Giants trade: QB T. Prior 25yo 88 ovr
1st Rnd draft pick #20 this year
2nd Rnd draft pick this year


The Giants agree to this deal.

Raiders agree to this deal as well.

I Approve

I decline this trade.  I've thought about this a a lot and even after the revision, I still don't think enough is being given up for Sherman.  Sherman is an easy top 10 pick in the original fantasy draft and the best corner in the game.  He is an top tier elite player for sure.  In my opinion, a player like that is worth 2 firsts and a second or third in the upcoming draft.  This trade is very close.  I would normally want to see either 1-1-2 or 1-1-3 or an equivalent for Sherman alone.  In this trade the Giants give up a first and Pryor, who I consider worth a first.  The Giants also give up a second rounder, but get Glennon in exchange which in my opinion negates the 2nd rounder.  The trade would look good to me if the Giants gave up a current year 3rd or a next year 2nd in addition to the Re-revison trade.

Just so I understand as the new guy, who is everybody that makes up the Trade Approval committee? I'm trying to get this deal through & be done with it but u guys keep coming back & changing the arrangements of the deal. If me & the negotiating party are ok at this point, I'm not sure why it keeps getting rejected. Please text me with the info so I'm aware.

its gotta to through 2 people.  me and burntcabbage.

as far as the deal goes...man cabbage.

a 1st, 2nd and Pryor?  That is a shitload.  Glennon is ok, nothing special.  You can find a million Glennon's.

While I think I'd rather still have the Sherman side bc of how special he is......I just feel like I can't veto cuz its TOO CLOSE.  They are both big boys these guys....if the deal is close I say go for it.

But having the Raiders owner being someone new and unproven ALSO is a small consideration too when deciding.

Are the Giants not willing to add the 3rd or next year 2nd? I don't even want to change the deal and it's VERY close I agree, but Chrebet even said it himself.....he would rather have the raiders end because of how special Sherman is. Sherman was the very first pick in the fantasy draft for the previous owner. The Raiders will never be able to replace him....ever. Players like this....99 ovr 25 year olds are NEVER traded for and I'm sorry, but I consider him no different than Luck, rg3, etc. 2 firsts for Sherman is just not enough for me. I know several owners that would give 3 first rounders for him easily (me being one). I have been offered 3 firsts for Talib in default and he is no where near Sherman imo. Sherman was picked #1 overall in our original ps3 fantasy draft too. Such a valuable player. And yes not crazy about him being traded by a new guy, so I want to make sure the next raiders owner will have some good picks since his #1 pick will be gone forever.....

Just heard about the vetoing of a trade that the Raiders owner, myself and Chrbet agreed to and approved. Once the Raiders owner and I agreed to terms Chrbet required that I throw in a 2nd rnd pick in next years draft. I agreed. The Raiders owner requested that the 2nd B for this years draft. I agreed. Now...forgive me for being reluctant to throw any other offers out...would you (cabbage) do me the honor of suggesting what you perceive to B the missing piece to this puzzle? Is it a 3rd? Is it a 2nd? Is it in this years draft?...or maybe next years draft? A little clarity in a very confusing, communistic process would greatly B appreciated by myself and (I can only imagin) the Raiders owner. Just say the word and it's done because I don't want to B perceived as "taking advantage" anymore.

I think if anything was to be added the thought was a draft pick from next season, not this season. Fellaz this ain't rocket science, it's Madden for God's sake. I really don't think it's this serious to approve a trade. Pryor is definitely an acceptable QB at an 89 OVR rating, over 90 spd & 92 THP, decent accuracy, and XP to spend. That and a 1st & 2nd rd pick, and Flybad gets Glennon & I still keep a descent backup in Sam Bradford. Give specifics on what's needed to put this thing through & let's get this over with.

My last comment about this deal is that the Sherman trade will free up necessary cap space for me to make some other moves in free agency. I'd appreciate this moving forward ASAP.

raiders i can offer you a deal with tons of picks and salary relief, plus a solid mobile qb...pretty sure the deal i have in mind wont get vetoed.

Flybad wrote:Just heard about the vetoing of a trade that the Raiders owner, myself and Chrbet agreed to and approved.  Once the Raiders owner and I agreed to terms Chrbet required that I throw in a 2nd rnd pick in next years draft.  I agreed.  The Raiders owner requested that the 2nd B for this years draft.  I agreed.  Now...forgive me for being reluctant to throw any other offers out...would you (cabbage) do me the honor of suggesting what you perceive to B the missing piece to this puzzle?   Is it a 3rd?  Is it a 2nd?  Is it in this years draft?...or maybe next years draft?  A little clarity in a very confusing, communistic process would greatly B appreciated by myself and (I can only imagin) the Raiders owner.  Just say the word and it's done because I don't want to B perceived as "taking advantage" anymore.

Did you even read my above post where i declined the trade, explained in detail why i declined the trade, and then explained in detail what would be needed for me to approve the deal?  Doesn't seem so.....let me post that again for you.....

BurntCabbage wrote:I decline this trade.  I've thought about this a a lot and even after the revision, I still don't think enough is being given up for Sherman.  Sherman is an easy top 10 pick in the original fantasy draft and the best corner in the game.  He is an top tier elite player for sure.  In my opinion, a player like that is worth 2 firsts and a second or third in the upcoming draft.  This trade is very close.  I would normally want to see either 1-1-2 or 1-1-3 or an equivalent for Sherman alone.  In this trade the Giants give up a first and Pryor, who I consider worth a first.  The Giants also give up a second rounder, but get Glennon in exchange which in my opinion negates the 2nd rounder.  The trade would look good to me if the Giants gave up a current year 3rd or a next year 2nd in addition to the Re-revison trade.

Ok now let me simplify this a little more

Sherman=1,1,2  (Sherman is all accounted for with, Pryor=1, 1st, and 2nd)

Glennon = 2nd or 3rd (Glennon is not accounted for.  Please give up another 2nd or 3rd for Glennon).

As far as what year the 2nd or 3rd is.  I don't care.  I don't make the deal, i just approve or decline them.  Figure it out between the two of you.  I already stated that i liked a 2nd next year or a 3rd this year, but I wouldn't necessarily decline another type of offer.  It's up to you guys.  I have given all the info i can possibly give to help you guys reach a decision.

And let me explain how this is working so there is no misunderstanding later.....

I am not "forcing" anyone to give up anymore picks or telling you a trade has to be done a specific way. I simply am declining to approve. Chrebet already approved. Now I did let you guys know why I didn't approve and gave an "example" of what I think makes it look better to me. Nothing happened other than i declined to approve the trade. It is completely up to you how you guys want to proceed from here. You have 2 options really..... 1. stop negotiating 2. revise the trade (and then there are several options if you choose to revise.....add a pick, drop Glennon from deal, add another player, etc...
I just want you both to understand that i am not in control of this trade....you are.

Thank you for simplifying the trade breakdown. Now I understand what you were saying in the previous post. I will give the Raiders owner the option of what would B best for him and his organization.

This is getting ridiculus. It's a Fantasy league building teams how we want. We used to have a trade committee and I think we need more in place. When a trade is this close and it's fair it shouldn't be an issue. These are not 8 year old owners not knowing what they are doing. I respect cabbage view but at same time I'd hate to see discouragement with trading in this fantasy league. It can be argued both ways as again Pryor built up the way he is is every bit of a weapon in this game. Put some of the vets in place like we talked about doing. Otis, Lord, shaston, Athlete, and myself could and should be helping on the trade topics. This takes out any biased issues or personal agendas. Not saying there are any but damn we are supposed to be declining trades far out of whack not trades this close.

I don't know who came up with the rule "we are only supposed to decline trades that are far out of whack".  I can tell you that I sure do not abide by it.  I'm all for having more on the trade council.  This trade was not far out of wack.....it was very close for me.  Just a 3rd round pick off......but I still feel i have the right to decline any trade i do not feel good about.  I have heard that statement so much.....about trades being too close to veto.  There are many reasons i may veto a trade.  Who is too say what is too far out of wack anyway.....I have approved trades Chrebet has declined and vice versa.  And rest assured Zeemen, there is no personal agenda here.  Even tho I am in Flybads division, anyone who knows me...knows i would never sacrifice my integrity to get a leg up on Madden.  I want to be competitive, but its just not that important to me.

This is not very ridiculous in my opinion.  Sherman is a BIG player.  I do not find it unreasonable to he is harder to trade for and that it's a little controversial.  Big trades are.....

Guys...just as Zeemen argues that Kore on the trade council would prevent problems ....I will argue it will create more problems.

Last year we had 4 on the trade council and there were major problems.

A huge problem in his thread is the accusation that cabbage is so ng this out of some sort of benefit to his team. Thats insulting.

Could it be instead that Hes only wanting the trade to be perfect in his mind?

Listen...where have we had problems previous to this?

have two on the trade council....and NEEDED both to approve is a great process. It works very swiftly as we both get on quick. If there is 4 or 5 on it...forget about it..mtrades will be on the hoard forever and even more personal agendas would be accused.

My stance right now is I only veto if the trade is outrageous. If its close then I won't bc I feel that power should limited. and with the 4 trade max perfection is not needed.

cabbage seems to he taking a different approach at the moment....which is ok. Take it as is and work with it. Maybe his view will change with intelligent proof filled points...not accusations and blaming the system.

u all know cabbage better than that. he would never veto based on personal agenda.

Guys...just as Zeemen argues that more on the trade council would prevent problems ....I will argue it will create more problems.

Last year we had 4 on the trade council and there were major problems.

A huge problem in his thread is the accusation that cabbage is doing this out of some sort of benefit to his team. Thats insulting.

Could it be instead that Hes only wanting the trade to be perfect in his mind?

Listen...where have we had problems previous to this?

have two on the trade council....and NEEDING both to approve is a great process. It works very swiftly as we both get on quick. If there is 4 or 5 on it...forget about it..trades will be on the board forever and even more personal agendas would be accused.

My stance right now is I only veto if the trade is outrageous. If its close then I won't bc I feel that power should limited. and with the 4 trade max perfection is not needed.

cabbage seems to he taking a different approach at the moment....which is ok. Take it as is and work with it. Maybe his view will change with intelligent proof filled points...not accusations and blaming the system.

u all know cabbage better than that. he would never veto based on personal agenda.

every single trade different opinions. Yeah I would still take the Sherman side on this one....but I feel its close enough to go thru. Veto is not based on which side you'd rather take....its based on "is it close enough."

proving the point is way more beneficial than blaming the system or throwing out accusations...or saying its not rocket science.

to cabbages aid too is the majority of the league....as when this trade went down...around 5 guys in the chatroom screened "crappy trade.". a couple guys said they'd give up 4 1st rounders for Sherman (which is over the top yes).

It's all good. I was just under the impression that the deal was approved. So I did not sighn some players in perpetration of this trade. Than I found out it was vetoed and I have my parents here and no way to sighn players I would have sighned if this deal did not happen. I felt like I was put in a difficult position.