[quote name='bvharris']I actually have a problem with it, and with CPU trades in general. Say for example that I decide I want TO and can field a better offer, am I then going to acquire him over venom? I think it's a bad precedent and could lead to a free-for-all on CPU rosters. Even if it were a good idea, the NFL trade deadline is Week 6, and at the very least we should stick to that. I know injuries suck, and I feel bad for venom, but I think if CPU trades were off than they should remain off. BigAT and ubernes didn't get to go out and trade for better QBs when Manning and Sanchez went down.
So, not trying to be a jerk here, but I'm a "nay"[/QUOTE]
Valid points all-around. Maybe Azu can step in here and add his wisdom.
We do run the risk of it becoming a slippery slope. I think the restriction of one CPU trade per team per season sort of prevents that, but with 16 (I think that's where were at now) owners, 16 trades, counter-trades, etc could become more trouble than it's worth in the long run.
It also sort of defeats the point of random injuries. Yes, it sucks but it's also realistic. There is the FA pool to work with too, which I what I did when Sanchez went down (mostly for depth with Clemens there) and when Washington went out for the year (badly needed a kick returner).
I'm going to take back my 'yay' and abstain for the time being. I'd like to hear more opinions on the subject. I personally find it fun to have to deal with what the game throws at you with injuries whether it's for a quarter or a season. Adjusting your roster, having your backups tested, and so on, it's very much a part of the NFL.