Pulcue

I currently have Fitz,Evans,Burress,Bruce as my WRs....start 3 I am considering offering Burress and Bruce for Jennings and Royal (both have week 8 byes) I can pick up a 1 week filler for the bye. The other team only has 1 active WR this week because of byes. I see this as an upgrade of Jennings over Burress.....Royal would be on the bench. Wise trade or no?

Most threads on this topic I have read in the past conclude No Trade Backs. Typically, someone is just borrowing a player. The ONLY condition this should be considered....... Team A needs a QB for this week Team B needs a RB for this week. In this scenario, the trade helps BOTH teams.....equals a good/fair trade. Someone cannot just swap a QB for a bench player, and then trade back. That should NEVER be allowed.

After the playoffs....QUIT THIS LEAGUE!!! "Well, of course he switches the time all around " Obviously not a fair playing field. Can't believe your league let it go this long.

I agree with Kingstowne...Our league spreads the winnings around. $50 entry - 12 team - 3 divisions of 4 $1 waivers $50 + transaction $$ Super Bowl Win $15 Playoff win/bye $25 Division winner $75 Total season points $10 to weekly high 6 different teams have won a weekly high (out of 10 weeks)...keeping people interested

Both teams may have clinched a bye, but both will still be competing with each other for home field in the AFC championship game. Moss' value is significantly higher than Harrison. Moss is healthy, Moss has performed every week.

You can only start one QB, so I would take one of those trades rather than give up Wayne.

Not sure of your scoring, but in my league Moss = 149pts (18.6 avg) Harrison = 28pts (5.6 avg) {not healthy} The other players are slightly better at best. In one post you say you are worried about Harrison..then try to justify the offer by saying there may not be much drop off from Moss to Harrison. Unless your league allows DUMPING to win the toilet bowl....can't imagine he would even consider this.

Can you get a running back for Anderson instead of Wayne? That would seem to help you more.

Frank, Read the original post. One team needed a QB for the week...the other needed a WR. They BOTH benefited.

Based on that description...no trades should be allowed. If you are a R.Brown owner and he is out for the year...you may need to trade for a RB. To get that running back, you need to trade good QB or WR to someone else that is in need. The trade is "mutually beneficial".

I know that I am in the minority here, but I don't see this one as collusion. I agree that "lending" a player usually is a bad thing and is collusion. But usually the argument to determine if a trade is collusion you ask...."Did it help BOTH teams?". In this case, it does. The concern of collusion is that two owners are making ONE team stronger. Break this trade down... Team A needs a WR...Team B needs a QB....They make the trade 1 week...or 3 weeks later Team A needs a QB ... Team B needs a WR....again helps both teams In my (not so popular) opinion, just because they are trading the players back does not make it collusion because it benefits BOTH teams.

Getting the player back is not the real issue...... Is it collusion?? What does the player GIVING UP THE QB this week gain? example 1: Colussion No gain for Team B This week: Team A gets QB to fill bye week Team B gets Selvin Young (won't be started) Next Week: Team A gets Selvin Young back Team B gets QB back example 2: Not Colussion Team B gains S.Young This week: Team A gets QB to fill bye week Team B gets Selvin Young (owns Henry) Next Week: Team A gets backup WR Team B gets QB back (keeps S.Young) In case 2...Team A gets a bye week fill-in QB Team B gets Young Benefits both teams.

If I am not mistaken, I don't believe that they have the option to sign him to a long term contract until after the year is done. "The club may NOT sign the tagged player to a long-term contract after July 14. That is, the team has until July 14 to sign the tagged player to a long-term contract; afterwards the player may sign only a one-year contract with his prior team, and the contract may not be extended until after the last regular season game"

Start Brady. Vinnie will not be seen. He is brought in now, so that he has multiple weeks to learn the offense, so IF they need him down the stretch run or playoffs, he is prepared.

Start 2. I am battling for my division, with a tough matchup. I have been using Brown/Dillon for most of the year. Is it worth sitting one or both based on the other backs I now have? R.Brown vs MIN (Tough Matchup and groin is concerning) C.Dillon @ GB (Has been my starter) L.Betts @ TB (New QB) W.Lundy vs BUF (Not much of a track record...Gado?) A.Thomas @ HOU (Is the matchup worth taking a risk on him) Please include your link and thanks for your input.