Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
SF-CIN
May 12, 2016 8:38:26 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2016 8:38:26 GMT -5
SF Gets:
Victor Cruz (NYG-WR) $1/1y
CIN Gets:
2016 BUF 1st
Sorry for the delay. I accept
|
|
|
|
SF-CIN
May 12, 2016 10:07:23 GMT -5
Post by Cincinnati Bengals (Chris) on May 12, 2016 10:07:23 GMT -5
I accept.
|
|
|
|
Post by Philadelphia Eagles (Andrew) on May 12, 2016 10:09:50 GMT -5
Veto.
Nothing about this deal makes sense for SF. His roster is barren and he's trading for a WR coming off a severe knee injury that has hardly played in two years and has a decent chance to get cut. Also Cruz turns 30 this year and is on a 1 year deal. Not even close for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Buffalo Bills (Salvatore) on May 12, 2016 10:13:37 GMT -5
Veto.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pittsburgh Steelers (Garrett) on May 12, 2016 10:14:19 GMT -5
Veto
This trade is one of the most lopsided deals I have seen in a while. Cruz is fighting for a roster spot and is probably worth a late 3rd at most at this point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2016 10:16:11 GMT -5
Usually don't veto trades because I am all for running your team the way you want....but
Veto
|
|
|
|
SF-CIN
May 12, 2016 10:20:42 GMT -5
Post by Cincinnati Bengals (Chris) on May 12, 2016 10:20:42 GMT -5
Thanks guys. I too believe this is way too lopsided, but SF came to me with the deal and wanted it, so I figured, I can't say no if it's what he wants. This is why we have you guys.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2016 10:32:43 GMT -5
not sure if its still needed or not but im a veto as well for all the above reasons
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2016 21:47:53 GMT -5
Approve, who doesn't like a little trade rape?
|
|
