Franchise Discussion: Trades

by **the_EDJ** on Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:23 pm

Welcome to the most heated franchise discussion we'll probably have.

With trades we have two sides, the realists versus the video gamers. We have a difficult situation where many owners cannot own their favorite teams and want to mold a team to their liking.

The problem this creates is that to trade a player it takes two teams. One owner may be active, but if the other trade partner bolts the league, those moves really hamper how much a new owner would want to take over a butchered roster. The realists will point that big trades just don't happen in the NFL. In fact, team changes come via the draft, and free agency. The video gamers will point out that since they need to modify the roster to be competitive, they should be able to, and point out that moving high contract players they can't afford gets them value and helps them build like they're an NBA team.

My thought process. With a very restrictive salary cap, trades will greatly damage a roster if an owner moves multiple players. To protect the team and make it attractive to potential new owners, and also protect owners bad at math from taking on too many cap penalties and further restricting them from participating in free agency and such. The evidence: Houston Texans. A solid core of Schaub, Foster, and Johnson and poor defense struck it big spending in free agency and drafting for defense. The result, playoffs. Big name stars just don't get traded in the NFL. We are going to be very split on this, and I think each team will have to accept that challenge if they're playing with a "lesser" team which exists less in Madden than in NCAA. The payoff can be seen by cheed's example who made a Seahawks team very formidable in Madden 12.

My proposal: Restrict trades. Any player rated 88 overall or higher cannot be traded. No flipping players during the same season. And free agency will be boosted immensley keeping every team involved. With less cap penalties due to less trades, the "lesser" teams will have more money to spend giving them the chance to build quicker. "Better" teams will be cap strapped since they'll already be paying their players.
This eases pressure on a trade committee since so many people took decisions personally. Madden already restricts trades to three players/picks and we'll only have two team trades. No more 3 team mega deals, and no major names being cast off.

(Insert audience rage)
(Take a breath)
(Formulate your thoughts coherently)

What do you think? I'm STRONGLY pushing for the restricted trades. Keep in mind, this is a league based decision, not a decision meant to restrict a player. Keep that perspective in your decision and sound off.

by Guest on Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:56 pm

I liked the untradeable list, and I'd be for the restricted trades.

If you don't like a teams style then pick another team that fits your style.

by mission8 on Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:59 pm

Im in for no big player trades. I would think 88 ovr and an age limit like 32 and under are untradeable.

by illmatic216 on Thu Jul 05, 2012 12:00 pm

You're all a bunch of Ken's lol.

You already know my opinion and even though it doesn't matter and you're gonna restrict them anyways, here it is.

Don't restrict trades. Half the league got their raisins twisted in their man thongs last year when I made a move to get my boy Matty Ice and I kinda get where "realists" are coming from, but at the same time I think the realists need to take a seat back and realize it is a video game. Why do we all play Madden? To have fun, and deep down we all wish we could be coaches or GMs and this is the closest we will ever get. I think it's real easy for someone owning the Bears or Steelers as their favorite team to want to restrict trades since 1) they like playing with guys they are fans of and 2) most of the time it's already a really talented team.

I understand the idea that teams will get ruined by trades, but we had a pretty good amount of trades last year, and how many instances did we have a guy who wanted to join and looked at a roster and declined because a team was decimated?? None to my knowledge. It's two different perspectives, and I've long said I will play with any team and any roster and have fun and be competitive. But last year I took the Chiefs who aren't exactly a juggernaut and I made a ton of moves, some big and some small, to get a team that suits the style I wanted to play and guys I'd have fun playing with.

I wanna build a team I wanna play with. It isn't as easy as "if you don't like the team's style, be another team." That isn't always an option, and guys are gonna play a version of their preferred style no matter which team they have anyways. I don't know if the opposite side of my view has a bigger concern with just keeping the game realistic or worrying about guys destroying teams and leaving. Ed Dickson isn't the next coming of Kellen Winslow Sr like he was with YT either, so I say let's realize that the realism can only go so far in a video game.

For new guys, or guys that you fear won't stick around...and I think those guys are usually pretty easy to spot, I'd make sure they understood the cap consequences of any potential trade, and if you feel like it would ruin the roster for a new owner down the line, just deny it. But when it comes to guys who have showed they are active, I don't see the problem. As for free agency, if you're restricting trades more harshly, then I don't see how that will drastically make free agency more booming. Now someone is stuck with these big contracts that they can't trade and either have to hang onto the guy and eat his entire contract, or release him and get nothing in return and let someone else sign him. I said this before somewhere, but yes I agree that in real life there aren't trades but in real life they aren't playing with a 3 year window to improve your team. You have an endless future to think about and build a team over a decade and we don't have that luxury here.

by illmatic216 on Thu Jul 05, 2012 12:14 pm

I can't edit but I wanted to add this too. Last year we had the untradable list and I understand that for something like that to work, you need to have some sort of guidelines.

But I remember having a deal for Kevin Williams in place (I think), and it couldn't be done because he won on the list. But then a guy like Suh isn't on the list. Who would you rather trade for? Suh obviously. Would an owner be more likely to decline coaching the Vikes because Williams isn't there or decline the Lions job because someone traded Suh? See what I'm saying?

I'm too lazy to go through the archive and look but how many 88+ guys were traded anyways? I doubt THAT many. I guess what I really don't get is why a "realist" would even care about what someone else does to their team provided they aren't worried about the owner leaving the league. Like when I got Matty Ice and me and Ken got into it. What is it to anyone else? I don't get it.

by **Steel Pitt** on Thu Jul 05, 2012 1:10 pm

I can definitely see both sides of this argument and I understand both sides. As much as we want the league to be realistic and resemble the NFL we do have to realize that it is a video game and part of the "video game" franchise experience is not just playing but also being the virtual GM/Owner. With that said, trades and free agents signings are a big part of that and a big part of what makes it fun (being able to mold a team into your liking).

On the other hand, we are trying to be a sim league and somewhat resemble the real thing and blockbuster deals just don't happen that often. I guess you can put me in that realist category and it is a bit of an eye sore to see teams look nothing like they do in real life (roster wise) and to see big name, young stars on different teams all over the place. Maybe I'm still shell shocked by Omar barage of 10 man deals from the Press Start days, lol. And maybe I'm not the best person to speak on this as I fall into that category of using my favorite team that also happens to have a very good default roster.

I personally liked the Untradeable List from last year and then after that its on the Trade Committee to deem what is acceptable/fair. Maybe we keep the untradeable list and expand the Trade Committee to 5 people and include at least 2 "realist" and at least 2 "gamers". I'll roll with whatever the league decides but I lean more on the side of restricting then free for all.

by **MeanMrMustard** on Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:26 pm

Y'all know my position on this, but I vote to restrict trades. Although, I will say, Ill makes a good point:

I think it's real easy for someone owning the Bears or Steelers as their favorite team to want to restrict trades since 1) they like playing with guys they are fans of and 2) most of the time it's already a really talented team.

I'm sure I'd be more inclined to trade folks if I didn't use my favorite team.

by **DemonX5136** on Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:39 pm

I definitely don't use my favorite team(Vikings). Not big on trading & I voted for the restriction. Even though I too, agree that ill has a point as well.

by mission8 on Tue Jul 10, 2012 10:25 pm

I had Hb C.Ross 93 and Hb M.Ingram 92. Both under 23 yrs old. Under the proposed restriction I would not have been able to trade them. I think this topic is kind of a slippery slope.

by **DemonX5136** on Tue Jul 10, 2012 10:49 pm

mission8 wrote:I had Hb C.Ross 93 and Hb M.Ingram 92. Both under 23 yrs old. Under the proposed restriction I would not have been able to trade them. I think this topic is kind of a slippery slope.

think there would have to be exceptions made for cases like this one. However I also think, with the XP based progression system. That these things ought to be eliminated. We shouldn't really be seeing the Ingram/Ross 90+ guys on the same team unless it was intentionally done. You know?

by Peyton's Adamantium Neck on Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:59 pm

illmatic216 wrote:You're all a bunch of Ken's lol.

You already know my opinion and even though it doesn't matter and you're gonna restrict them anyways, here it is.

Don't restrict trades. Half the league got their raisins twisted in their man thongs last year when I made a move to get my boy Matty Ice and I kinda get where "realists" are coming from, but at the same time I think the realists need to take a seat back and realize it is a video game. Why do we all play Madden? To have fun, and deep down we all wish we could be coaches or GMs and this is the closest we will ever get. I think it's real easy for someone owning the Bears or Steelers as their favorite team to want to restrict trades since 1) they like playing with guys they are fans of and 2) most of the time it's already a really talented team.

I understand the idea that teams will get ruined by trades, but we had a pretty good amount of trades last year, and how many instances did we have a guy who wanted to join and looked at a roster and declined because a team was decimated?? None to my knowledge. It's two different perspectives, and I've long said I will play with any team and any roster and have fun and be competitive. But last year I took the Chiefs who aren't exactly a juggernaut and I made a ton of moves, some big and some small, to get a team that suits the style I wanted to play and guys I'd have fun playing with.

I wanna build a team I wanna play with. It isn't as easy as "if you don't like the team's style, be another team." That isn't always an option, and guys are gonna play a version of their preferred style no matter which team they have anyways. I don't know if the opposite side of my view has a bigger concern with just keeping the game realistic or worrying about guys destroying teams and leaving. Ed Dickson isn't the next coming of Kellen Winslow Sr like he was with YT either, so I say let's realize that the realism can only go so far in a video game.

For new guys, or guys that you fear won't stick around...and I think those guys are usually pretty easy to spot, I'd make sure they understood the cap consequences of any potential trade, and if you feel like it would ruin the roster for a new owner down the line, just deny it. But when it comes to guys who have showed they are active, I don't see the problem. As for free agency, if you're restricting trades more harshly, then I don't see how that will drastically make free agency more booming. Now someone is stuck with these big contracts that they can't trade and either have to hang onto the guy and eat his entire contract, or release him and get nothing in return and let someone else sign him. I said this before somewhere, but yes I agree that in real life there aren't trades but in real life they aren't playing with a 3 year window to improve your team. You have an endless future to think about and build a team over a decade and we don't have that luxury here.

I can't edit but I wanted to add this too. Last year we had the untradable list and I understand that for something like that to work, you need to have some sort of guidelines.

But I remember having a deal for Kevin Williams in place (I think), and it couldn't be done because he won on the list. But then a guy like Suh isn't on the list. Who would you rather trade for? Suh obviously. Would an owner be more likely to decline coaching the Vikes because Williams isn't there or decline the Lions job because someone traded Suh? See what I'm saying?

I'm too lazy to go through the archive and look but how many 88+ guys were traded anyways? I doubt THAT many. I guess what I really don't get is why a "realist" would even care about what someone else does to their team provided they aren't worried about the owner leaving the league. Like when I got Matty Ice and me and Ken got into it. What is it to anyone else? I don't get it.

Excellent post and I agree wholeheartedly. If you have a strong enough group of owners then most of the complaints against open trading (weakening teams for potential suitors, screwing over teams because their owner is bad at math) are irrelevant. A good trade committee could then take care of the other guys who might be more flaky.

But I agree it's silly to compare the moves of an online franchise with a 3-4 year window to be competitive to the real NFL, where teams need to look much further beyond. And free agency.. I have been using XFN for my Madden 12 league and with real contracts and penalties, we still had to bring back the resign limit from Press Start days because the stacked teams simply had no reason to cut their good players, because you only get 3-4 years to work with.

Plus, what is really less enticing to a new owner? Taking over a bum team with a roster he is stuck with, or taking over a bum team with a roster he can mold into something that doesn't suck? To me it would be better to take over a crap team but at least know you can make some changes.

by jacquito69 on Sat Jul 14, 2012 12:14 am

I'm not currently signed up to be in madden 13, but I think there has to be a middle ground here. The main reason being what ill and ando saying, when most likely more ppl have to pick between the "leftover" teams and usually those aren't the loaded teams and on top some of those lower ranked teams have players with pretty bad contracts then an owner needs some freedom to make smart moves to give himself a chance and make a team he can love and have fun playing with. Another thing is if there's an untradeable list or restriction , then it's a very iffy thing to include an exception option like demon mentioned. I'd suggest to stay far away from something like that. If somebody has a OVR 92 HB Ingram on the team and doesn't make a move to trade him and decides to draft a C.Ross at the HB spot , then they should have to live with the consequences if there's a rule in place to prevent a high caliber player like ingram from being traded- draft the freaking (insert whatever your weakest position is right here!lol)!
salary cap ( and I honestly don't know what they changed in game regarding this) - forces some people to wanna trade a player that doesn't give them what they want or need
idk it's tough , but don't kill the trades all together or limit it so much that the guys stuck with the sucky teams have to wait forever to build only through draft and free agency!!

by Posky on Sun Jul 15, 2012 7:04 pm

I like trades!

by truth_n_babylon on Mon Jul 16, 2012 9:30 am

I'm on the no restriction side with an option to have the trade vetoed by the league.

by cheed85 on Thu Jul 19, 2012 8:04 pm

I'm back!!!!! Lol, I see both sides but lean more with trades. I've seen some owners so far say no trades but has a good team already or has quit after only a couple seasons. Who wants to only be able to get competitive thru the draft? Trades spice things up & force owners to stay active to see whats going on thru out the LG. Things can get pretty stale of theres no movement & new owners keep quitting bc they can't improve their roster with gamebreakers. Also, I saw a good point about recruiting new owners to basically the scrap teams. No one wants to take over a crappy low rated team who can't trade to make their team better. It's a video game, I understand Sim style but that should only be playstyle not GM/owner since its really hard to get a solid 3-4 yrs in with our current adv schedule. I do believe that with the new cap system m13 has if an owner wants to trade for a superstar, be prepared to take on that superstar contract. All in all for ppl who don't want the LG to get fantasy, it already is bc its a video game & were not millions who own a NFL franchise. We are pretending, so lets make some pretend trades lol. Just my 2 cents as always.

by **King_Hippo72** on Sat Jul 21, 2012 7:32 pm

What if maybe we limit it to one star type player from a team can be moved? Not everyone will have their fav team, so we shouldnt restrict them from building the team they want, so that way Ill could get Matt Ryan, The saints could trade Ingram, and the league wouldn't be too messed up by it. In real life, stars do move, Cutler a few years ago, Brandon Marshall this offseason, so its not like it doesn't happen, I dont think we should outright ban trading of good players. Trading is a part of the fun of these leagues, so it shouldn't be limited to guys moving backups and clearing cap space.

by cheed85 on Sat Jul 21, 2012 7:36 pm

^ nicely put totally agree

by **the_EDJ** on Sun Jul 22, 2012 12:17 am

I'd like to point out that Hippo just made it through an entire post without implementing the word cock, fag, bitch, pussy, etc. That is all.

by **King_Hippo72** on Sun Jul 22, 2012 7:37 am

Shut your mouth, you cock loving fag.

by **shooter** on Mon Jul 23, 2012 11:50 am

Speaking as an owner who had a team (Dolphins) that resembled the discharge from rough anal sex, I have to say it becomes almost pointless to try to play without being able to make big trades. I would have loved to trade Brandon Marshal for a package of younger players or picks but couldn't because he was on the list.... Didn't he get traded in real life? Yes? Okay, just checking. I like the idea of making one player from each team untouchable, or limit teams to a certain number of trades per year as a guy can move a bunch of middling talent to upgrade if they have a deep team like the Pats or Packers. The teams should still resemble the original product two years down the line. People should just use some descretion or a trade committee could do this for them.

by cheed85 on Mon Jul 23, 2012 12:08 pm

^ he did get traded for ONLY two 3 rd round picks. So this example alone proves why we should trade players & not have an untouchable list. Allow owners to mange at thier discretion. Asante Samuel got traded from philly to ATL for a 7th rd pick! Big trades happen, he didn't fit the eagles plan so he got dealt for pennies. Keep in mind trade committee should refer to some trades from these examples if ppl wanna trade big names for cap relief or if they don't like that players style

by **SquirrelHunter** on Mon Jul 23, 2012 3:36 pm

how about we just vote on who should be included on a "no trade" list? there are obvious ones (brady, rodgers, etc.) that make sense and we should all be able to come to a consensus on.

by GoingCommandoAZ on Mon Jul 23, 2012 3:36 pm

Well if you wanna get technical too, our players don't get DUI during the year, they don't run over and kill someone in Miami and don't go out to a club in NY and shoot themselves in the leg either. There's a lot more that goes into a player getting traded than just how good they are, but I agree that maybe 1 or 2 players (maybe 1 on offense, 1 on defense) be tagged as a franchise player and the others are up for grabs.

by cheed85 on Mon Jul 23, 2012 4:26 pm

^ If u want to get technical I didn't use any of the above players as.my examples. I like your idea of franchise players, but I still don't see why I can't hypothetically speaking of I was NE & wanted to trade Brady for Arian foster if I wanted a ground attack vs passing. Both ended the yr ranked 99 in M12. I kno yall prob think I'm crazy but with organization of what players are being moved. It makes the LG crazy fun & exciting to see superstars in other jerseys. And also if u don't want to trade fine u have the right but don't restrict your divison neighbor bc u don't want to make adjustments/improvements to your roster. I no I have no case here but its worth a try lol

by GoingCommandoAZ on Mon Jul 23, 2012 4:31 pm

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/8174721/marshawn-lynch-seattle-seahawks-had-2-collisions-arrest-report-says ???

Hell, even Adrian Peterson was arrested this offseason. The Mayans were right! haha

by cheed85 on Mon Jul 23, 2012 4:35 pm

Hahaha no one in the NFL knows what car service is

by **King_Hippo72** on Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:18 pm

My Lions just cut their starting CB cuz hes a fucking idiot too, what a crazy offseason, never knew so many adults that need babysitters.

As far As the league trading players for low round draft picks, I dont think we can do that quite yet, Madden, up to this point, its not possible to pull a Tom Brady from the 6th round, or any of the other late round gems, so trading Samuel for a 7th shouldn't happen in these leagues just yet. Id say one major trade per team or 2 or 3 players per team cant be traded would be the fairest way to go about things, so we dont have mass trades ruining the league and we also have wiggle room to make deals.

by **the_EDJ** on Tue Jul 24, 2012 1:48 pm

Great posts. And great job listing the "star" players that have been traded to this point. All 3 of them.

A.) It's difficult to quantify the Brandon Marshall trade(s) when you're dealing with a bi-polar nutjob who is guaranteed to self-destruct at least once per year. Yes he's talented, but because personalities aren't factored into Madden, Marshall's psyche and DRC's 50 illegitimate children can't be weighted. We have ratings, and that's it. Ratings drive contract prices. If you can't afford a guy, the NFL isn't a league where you trade a guy in the last year of his deal to get value like the NBA/MLB. Expensive players go unsigned/released and the league has a feeding frenzy. You can try and resign him, or use that money to patch other holes on the team. Owners with "elite" teams won't have money, lesser teams can score big and build quickly because the bidding pool is smaller.

B.) Yes, Jay Cutler was traded. For a lot (Two 1st rounders, a 3rd rounder, and a "starting" QB (fucking Neckbeard) ). Jay Cutler is a mid-80s rated player who would not fall in the restriction list. The proposal doesn't sound so restrictive now does it?

C.) When using Asante Samuel as an example, the Eagles are an outlier relative to how the rest of the league operates. The Asante Samuel trade is no different that releasing the player due to salary cap issues. And a trade committee would never allow the trade to begin with here anyway. Other than that, there just haven't been any major trades within the last 5 years. I was doing some searches, and there's just no names that stand out as high profile people being traded. The Kolb/DRC trade were two players that would not have fell on the restriction list as well. Greg Olsen being shipped off by Mike Martz like a moron is still not on the restriction list. Randy Moss in the twilight of his career is no longer "elite" either.

My continued push to restrict major trades is also in fielding a trade committee. For crying out loud, we lost 2 or 3 guys last year because of the attacks on them for saying anything other than yes.

The salary cap penalties in moving a player should dampen trades a bit which is great, but the major players belong on their teams. This is not a pure fantasy league. There's plenty of other leagues that offer that where you can trade Adrian Peterson for Drew Brees. Us "Kens," as ill lovingly called us, are trying to emulate the NFL where free agency is unpredictable, and major trades just don't happen. Teams can build quickly through the draft and free agency (queue Texans 1 year example above). We're not pushing to ban trades in any way. Just the major core players that make up NFL teams are sticking with those teams. You know your play style, pick a team that fits it and make them better.

by **King_Hippo72** on Tue Jul 24, 2012 6:37 pm

On that last note you made, sometimes when selecting a team and there is only the shitty teams left, none of them fit your playstyle, you may well be fucked.

by **the_EDJ** on Tue Jul 24, 2012 8:49 pm

King_Hippo72 wrote:On that last note you made, sometimes when selecting a team and there is only the shitty teams left, none of them fit your playstyle, you may well be fucked.

By playstyle, I was more intending picking between a 3-4 versus 4-3 or a running team versus passing team. Picking the Patriots and trying to make them a smash-mouth team wouldn't be advised. Maybe try and improve that team and bide your time to jump to another team if a coach gets fired.

by Guest on Wed Jul 25, 2012 5:03 pm

If ya'll want trades so bad, just get a good trade committee together. If i was on the committee i wouldn't allow players like Rodger, Brees, Brady, Ed Reed. Those kind of players that a team would NEVER trade in real life.

by **King_Hippo72** on Sun Jul 29, 2012 2:11 pm

I woldtotally make the Pats a running team, Vereen, Ridley, and Woodhead, y'all!

by cheed85 on Sun Jul 29, 2012 2:30 pm

U can't keep saying would never trade in real life. This LG doesn't play enough seasons not to trade premier players. I could see if we get like 5+ seasons then not trading the superstars makes sense bc older players would retire or injuries etc. I'm still waiting for an owner with a terrible team to oppose trading superstars. I don't understand, if u dony want to trade your superstars then fine, don't restrict others bc u don't want to have fun. An ass team might want to trade for an older expensive vet who fits in nicely & wouldn't mind giving up draft picks. Where as the team giving up the older vet not only gets cap space but also sets of draft picks to have fun & draft rookies to build & turn a new leaf. Let's not be squares gentlemen its an exciting new yr with madden, so let's take the wedgies out of our ass so we can relax & have fun with this. Again, if u prefer not to trade then that's your call, but if others want to then should be able.

by illmatic216 on Tue Aug 14, 2012 9:43 pm

the_EDJ wrote:
King_Hippo72 wrote:On that last note you made, sometimes when selecting a team and there is only the shitty teams left, none of them fit your playstyle, you may well be fucked.

By playstyle, I was more intending picking between a 3-4 versus 4-3 or a running team versus passing team. Picking the Patriots and trying to make them a smash-mouth team wouldn't be advised. Maybe try and improve that team and bide your time to jump to another team if a coach gets fired.

Basically saying you'd rather have guys jump teams than making a trade that fits their style. I think the "realist" group of guys is forgetting that almost all of the "elite" guys are untradable because of their contracts anyways. The big time talent has big time bonuses so that prevents this free-for-all fantasy world you've all conjured images of from happening where the Rodgers and Brady's of the world are bouncing teams.

And nobody forced K3n or Hippo to leave the trade committee, but if you're on a trade committee then you shouldn't be shocked when someone disagrees with your opinion since it is directly affecting their team. For Ken to ironically tear apart his own Chargers team through bad management then be mad that I made some trades is just stupid.

Overall I see the trades being basically like they were last year, which I can live with, but I still think EDJ and some other guys would feel differently if they got pinned with the Browns or Rams instead of a stacked team. We all hate abortion til we knock up our teenage girlfriends!!

by **King_Hippo72** on Wed Aug 15, 2012 7:28 pm

Im actually taking the Rams in another league, they had a great madden draft, lol.

Honestly, I dont care about the trades, as long as its fair to both teams and doesnt cause some huge power shift, have at it.

Franchise Discussion: Trades

How do you feel about the trade proposal?

Franchise Discussion: Trades

Re: Franchise Discussion: Trades

Re: Franchise Discussion: Trades

Re: Franchise Discussion: Trades

Re: Franchise Discussion: Trades

Re: Franchise Discussion: Trades

Re: Franchise Discussion: Trades

Re: Franchise Discussion: Trades

Re: Franchise Discussion: Trades

Re: Franchise Discussion: Trades

Re: Franchise Discussion: Trades

Re: Franchise Discussion: Trades

Re: Franchise Discussion: Trades

Re: Franchise Discussion: Trades

Re: Franchise Discussion: Trades

Re: Franchise Discussion: Trades

Re: Franchise Discussion: Trades

Re: Franchise Discussion: Trades

Re: Franchise Discussion: Trades

Re: Franchise Discussion: Trades

Re: Franchise Discussion: Trades

Re: Franchise Discussion: Trades

Re: Franchise Discussion: Trades

Re: Franchise Discussion: Trades

Re: Franchise Discussion: Trades

Re: Franchise Discussion: Trades

Re: Franchise Discussion: Trades

Re: Franchise Discussion: Trades

Re: Franchise Discussion: Trades

Re: Franchise Discussion: Trades

Re: Franchise Discussion: Trades

Re: Franchise Discussion: Trades

Re: Franchise Discussion: Trades

Re: Franchise Discussion: Trades

Re: Franchise Discussion: Trades