Lacy for McCoy

[TKOSpikes]

Whew. At least there's that.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Even if McCoy gets injured today(during practice) and is out for the rest of season I would still not change my mind. I don't care about what actually happens after the deal!!!

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Whew. At least there's that.

But I have been saying that the whole time. And questions like that are why I am so insecure and think you don't entirely understand my argument.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

revival bump... Not ready to declare my favorite thread of the past 2 days dead... I am still here to debate something I would never do!!!

Don't make me debate myself...

 

[TKOSpikes]

The whole time you said if Lacy had a great 1st game, then you'd be okay with the deal. So I asked if McCoy sucks balls this week, and Sproles and Lacy ball out, would you make the deal AFTERWARD, as in, we're having this conversation next week. I figured you're basing things on the first two games, why not the third?

 

[MilkSpiller22]

The whole time you said if Lacy had a great 1st game, then you'd be okay with the deal. So I asked if McCoy sucks balls this week, and Sproles and Lacy ball out, would you make the deal AFTERWARD, as in, we're having this conversation next week. I figured you're basing things on the first two games, why not the third?

Maybe i didnt read your previous question... If the trade wasnt made until after week 3, and if week 3 Lacy has a better game than McCoy, then i can at least give a logical reason for the trade to be(especially if McCoy sucks and Montee Balls and sproles and lacy Montee out)... so, under my logic, i would not veto the deal... Although if the game was only slightly better, i would still be suspicious...

my problem is not just the preseason value, it is that they traded for lacy as he has his LOWEST value... After 2 games of doing nothing many owners are questioning Lacy, but here Lacy was treated as Higher value than he previously gave someone with more value than Lacy...

 

[Sam Sportboy]

 

[Sam Sportboy]

TBH, look at Wills last post on the rankings thread and you can see how many different FF players value these guys...............add in the emergence of Sproles in that offense and I honestly don't see a problem with this trade........................would I do it? Probably not but if week 3 looks like week 2 did for Sproles and Shady I might start to reconsider.................Lacey's value will come if the Pack ever start to get big leads......................

 

[TKOSpikes]

Packers played the Seahawks and Jets!!! Geesh. Give the man a break!

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Packers played the Seahawks and Jets!!! Geesh. Give the man a break!

TKO, i think you are getting 2 things confused... I am not moving lacy down on my rankings!!! I still have him 4th and McCoy 2nd... The point is not to degrade Lacy, the question is where was the point that THIS owner believed Lacy to be better than McCoy...

I just dont see the point where this is possible during the season... and just because they may be close in ranking does not mean this trade is not vetoable...

the fact that they play the same position makes them in direct comparison, so if there is no point where the views SHOULD have changed, then i can only make the assumption that there was another reason he made the deal besides the football reasons...

 

[MilkSpiller22]

TBH, look at Wills last post on the rankings thread and you can see how many different FF players value these guys...............add in the emergence of Sproles in that offense and I honestly don't see a problem with this trade........................would I do it? Probably not but if week 3 looks like week 2 did for Sproles and Shady I might start to reconsider.................Lacey's value will come if the Pack ever start to get big leads......................

why would you reconsider... McCoy was still the lead RB in game 2, and had 5X the carries Sproles did... In fact you can pretty much call sproles a WR and the backup RB...

 

[Chef99]

Hey Stomp...see what you started?

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Hey Stomp...see what you started?

Just if stomp realized i would hijack this thread with his topic... Funny thing is he gave us no information at all and i have planted the seeds to make this thread go 9 pages and counting...

 

[MilkSpiller22]

is that jack nicholson??

 

[tlance]

Here is something else Milk:

You don't that the McCoy owner preferred him over Lacy before the season started. Maybe he really did prefer Lacy. An extremely savvy owner, however, might have noticed that Lacy's first 2 games were absolutely brutal matchups.

Maybe he planned to make this deal before the draft even started, thinking that the Lacy owner would gladly make this swap after week 2, once those matchups were done.

Again, way too close to veto. Stop assuming that you know what everyone else is thinking.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Here is something else Milk:

You don't that the McCoy owner preferred him over Lacy before the season started. Maybe he really did prefer Lacy. An extremely savvy owner, however, might have noticed that Lacy's first 2 games were absolutely brutal matchups.

Maybe he planned to make this deal before the draft even started, thinking that the Lacy owner would gladly make this swap after week 2, once those matchups were done.

Again, way too close to veto. Stop assuming that you know what everyone else is thinking.

why should i stop assuming anything??? isnt that the whole point of the exercise?? Should you veto a trade?? well why would i ever veto if i cant make my own assumptions based on my deductions??

I think that is the point you are missing, you dont like me making my assumptions, but you are making assumptions too and they are much less likely...

Again, i can understand not vetoing due to hatred of the veto system... But the question for this thread is whether this trade should be vetoed...

I can make outrageous assumptions to make any trade look good, and thats kind of what you are doing...

All my assumptions are based on my logical deductions...

 

[Chef99]

Well Milk, it was a good run, but it looks like this thread has run its course. Congrats on making it a great read for a day or so.

 

[Chef99]

And I got you to page 7.

 

[TKOSpikes]

Oh milk. You are the one confused man. You fail to admit that the ONLY reason for your veto is YOUR opinion.

You have admitted that one good game for Lacy and one bad game for McCoy would be enough to do this deal...ONE GAME. Yet, you are vetoing without it. One game. And you don't even realize how ridiculous that sounds.

Trades have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with past performance. Sure maybe it gives us incentive to go get someone, or maybe it attracts us to a player, but you only accrue points AFTER the deal.

I don't know how to explain this any better. To use the first line out of your text book, "maybe I'm not explaining it correctly".

 

[Chef99]

Oh milk. You are the one confused man. You fail to admit that the ONLY reason for your veto is YOUR opinion.

You have admitted that one good game for Lacy and one bad game for McCoy would be enough to do this deal...ONE GAME. Yet, you are vetoing without it. One game. And you don't even realize how ridiculous that sounds.

Trades have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with past performance. Sure maybe it gives us incentive to go get someone, or maybe it attracts us to a player, but you only accrue points AFTER the deal.

I don't know how to explain this any better. To use the first line out of your text book, "maybe I'm not explaining it correctly".

Ha! And TKO brings it back to life.