ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 2 of 2
< 12
Fantasy/CasinoPlanet>Veto Worthy?
DJ's left nut 04:06 PM 11-16-2022
12 team league, PPR, 3 WRs, 2 flex positions -- Keep 2 players 2 rounds ahead of where they were acquired.

Team A (first place) Gets:

Mark Andrews (1st round keeper price)
Drake London (3rd round keeper price)
Wan'dale Robinson (9th round keeper price)

Team B (third place) Gets:

Dalton Schultz (7th round keeper)
Kadarius Toney (9th round keeper)
George Pickens (10th round keeper)


I'm dumbfounded as to the outrage this trade has caused. So of course myself and the other party have made this trade 5 times in the last 4 days to continue forcing vetoes and will continue to do so until someone gets truly pissed off, thus fulfilling the prophecy.

Is this really a trade that should be vetoed? What the hell am I missing here? This just seems like sour grapes.
[Reply]
DJ's left nut 03:52 PM 11-17-2022
Originally Posted by Megatron96:
I thought part of the fun was getting to screw a guy when able? But honestly, and maybe I'm just not seeing something with that trade, it doesn't look like that big a deal.
Like I said, it's like a $700 pot. I think the buy in is $80 or something like that.

It's not NOTHING. So with some genuine money on the table, I guess a little more...uh...tenacity with the veto button is tolerable.

And since keeper leagues have an element of throughput, that makes it doubly so.

But that's why this one is odd to me - this is a win now deal. At some point somebody's going to trade a starting RB for a 1st round pick next year; happens every season. And whoever gets that starting RB will get probably a 9-10 point kicker over their slag RB2.

And nobody will say shit about it. And that has a FAR greater impact on the near term than this deal will.
[Reply]
The Franchise 04:01 PM 11-17-2022
I wouldn't veto it. Not with the keeper aspect added in.
[Reply]
DJ's left nut 04:54 PM 11-17-2022
Originally Posted by The Franchise:
I wouldn't veto it. Not with the keeper aspect added in.
Fantasy football is just so damn boom/bust. And guys get hurt so often.

I mean Hardman just went on the IR. You gotta figure Toney's looking at no worse than a 60% snap share for one of the most potent offenses in football. If he runs with that and proves himself to be a Sammy Watkins sort of player from the X, you're talking a top 30 WR for the rest of the season.

And all it would take is ONE game like he played against Dallas last year with a pending FA on the IR.

Or like I said, Andrews could aggravate his shoulder. I mean that's two extremely reasonable scenarios that turn this trade on its head in a heartbeat.

And that's completely independent of the keeper aspect of it.

Vetoes just suck and that's the bottom line, IMO. There are 'vetoworthy' trades that are slam dunks 2 weeks later. And 'fair' trades that look like shit before the ink dries. This isn't fantasy baseball where a good player is likely to be on the field week in, week out.

This is fantasy football where a top 8 asset like Cooper Kupp should probably just be on the WW now or at best yield you some flyer like Drake London.

FFB is just too damn volatile for 3rd parties to be out there passing judgment on value. How many of the top 10 guys by ADP have panned out thus far? Henry, Ekeler, Jefferson, Mixon....is that it? McCaffrey hasn't turned out top 10 value, let alone top 2. Cook is borderline, Harris has disappointed, Kupp is pretty much a bust now, Chase, Kamara, Swift are all underperforming.

When Breece Hall was healthy a Fournette for Etienne trade is risky as hell - but when a RB for the Jets gets hurt the waterfall effect yields Etienne now being one of the top 5 fantasy RBs in the game for the rest of the season and after having nearly a 90% snap share for the first 5 weeks of the season, there's a pretty good chance Fournette is a backup to Rachad White now. 5 weeks ago it's a clear win for the Fournette side. Now it's a deal that likely gets vetoed due to the Etienne side. Due to an injury for a team that neither guy plays for.

It's just silly.

If you don't think someone's cheating, stay the hell out of it.
[Reply]
tyecopeland 05:02 PM 11-17-2022
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Or Andrews aggravates his shoulder and I get rat fucked.

And while I agree that the trade favors the Andrews side, I don't think you're giving due weight to Schultz in a PPR. When Dak is his QB, he gets a lot of volume. He was a top 5 TE last year and I think there's every reason to believe he will be this year as well.

Moreover, this is a keeper league that will even allow you trade draft picks next season for help this season. It's a league that has always looked into long-term value exchanges. The keeper value of the respective players is heavily in favor of the Schultz side of the deal given that all 3 of those guys has the potential to turn serious surplus value over the pick that would be needed to keep them.

If you're not allowed to consider future value in a trade, why allow for draft pick deals? This league always has.

The projections I looked at yielded about a +6/wk for my squad overall. A viable target score in that league is about 165; my team presently averages about 180 to get me to 7-3.

So this would make a .500 team about 4% better.

I'm sorry, that's not a trade you veto absent evidence of collusion. The idea of an 'approval' process for player values is nuts to me. If you bid 50% more than the rest of the league things someone is worth in FAAB, should THAT be invalidated? If I include next years first round pick in the deal, does that make it pass muster for you? Afterall, my team still improves the exact same amount. What if I put the pick in instead of Toney? Uh oh - is it getting to close for your tastes now?

This is why veto processes suck. Who is anyone else in the league to decide what a 'fair' player evaluation is? And it damn sure shouldn't be the case that a couple of 11th or 12th place also rans with all their FAAB budget and 4 moves on the year should be able to go overturning deals from two owners who have FAR outperformed them this year.

So just stay out of it unless you think people are cheating. It doesn't make any sense.
He's underselling toney's potential impact this year as well. And probably Pickens as well. I'd take Pickens and toney as significant upgrades over London and robinson for the rest of this season.
[Reply]
wazu 06:08 PM 11-17-2022
Originally Posted by kccrow:
If you're playing for money and you don't have a veto system, what's there to stop a couple guys from splitting the pot and stacking one team?

Nothing.

It's stupid not to have a veto system unless it's all for funsies.
I've played in money leagues for a long time. The Commish should have the power to spot and stop obvious collusion. I've never seen it, though. Guess I just don't play with douchebags.

But I have seen trades that people didn't like that were in no way collusion. Owners probably would have voted them down out of self interest, which to me is complete bullshit. That in my opinion is a much more likely and frequent conflict of interest.
[Reply]
DJ's left nut 04:58 PM 11-18-2022
Originally Posted by wazu:
I've played in money leagues for a long time. The Commish should have the power to spot and stop obvious collusion. I've never seen it, though. Guess I just don't play with douchebags.

But I have seen trades that people didn't like that were in no way collusion. Owners probably would have voted them down out of self interest, which to me is complete bullshit. That in my opinion is a much more likely and frequent conflict of interest.
Exactly.

If you're playing in a big money league and don't trust your commissioner, you probably shouldn't be in that league. A good commissioner is in just as good a spot to notice and eliminate collusion than the 'will of the crowds' is.

As you noted, these vetoes generally have nothing to do with league integrity and everything to do with self-interest.
[Reply]
kccrow 05:32 PM 11-18-2022
Originally Posted by tyecopeland:
You asked who's beating that team. Not who could have beat that team three weeks ago, or who could beat that team if they were all healthy and playing at their highest level. And it's funny you think mccaffrey is going to get more touches when he had more touches in his 2nd game than he did in the game after the bye week. And on the heels of Shanahan stating that they are wanting to keep him and Mitchell close on touches.

As for the kupp trade, no it wasn't even. But if it wasn't collusion, get your feelings out it. Two people agreeing to a trade fairly is enough for the trade to not be vetoed.
Sorry, I was having a sandy vag moment.

Not like I'm hurting, just looking at the trades as the come man. I have as strong a roster in that league as anyone but I'm climbing out of a fluke ass 0-4 hole (now 5-5) and trying to make the playoffs. If I do, I can beat that roster.

I do think McC will get more touches as things go on. Shanny has always gravitated toward it. It would be smart to keep them close on touches just to keep McC healthy.

I made my trade for Jefferson so I didn't target Kupp, but it wasn't lopsided. I gave up Fournette and McLaurin for him and another RB, I think it was Tony Pollard. I need Njoku to get healthy.


I have:

QB L. Jackson
RB D. Henry, R. Stevenson, K. Walker III, T. Pollard, J. Robinson, K. Herbert
WR J. Jefferson, A. Cooper, K. Allen, J. Jeudy, D. Moore
TE D. Njoku, P. Freiermuth
K T. Bass
D Seattle, Arizona (for bye this week, will move them after this week)

Edit: Note I got pollard before he popped off big the past few weeks, lucky me. :-)
[Reply]
kccrow 05:44 PM 11-18-2022
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Or Andrews aggravates his shoulder and I get rat fucked.

And while I agree that the trade favors the Andrews side, I don't think you're giving due weight to Schultz in a PPR. When Dak is his QB, he gets a lot of volume. He was a top 5 TE last year and I think there's every reason to believe he will be this year as well.

Moreover, this is a keeper league that will even allow you trade draft picks next season for help this season. It's a league that has always looked into long-term value exchanges. The keeper value of the respective players is heavily in favor of the Schultz side of the deal given that all 3 of those guys has the potential to turn serious surplus value over the pick that would be needed to keep them.

If you're not allowed to consider future value in a trade, why allow for draft pick deals? This league always has.

The projections I looked at yielded about a +6/wk for my squad overall. A viable target score in that league is about 165; my team presently averages about 180 to get me to 7-3.

So this would make a .500 team about 4% better.

I'm sorry, that's not a trade you veto absent evidence of collusion. The idea of an 'approval' process for player values is nuts to me. If you bid 50% more than the rest of the league things someone is worth in FAAB, should THAT be invalidated? If I include next years first round pick in the deal, does that make it pass muster for you? Afterall, my team still improves the exact same amount. What if I put the pick in instead of Toney? Uh oh - is it getting to close for your tastes now?

This is why veto processes suck. Who is anyone else in the league to decide what a 'fair' player evaluation is? And it damn sure shouldn't be the case that a couple of 11th or 12th place also rans with all their FAAB budget and 4 moves on the year should be able to go overturning deals from two owners who have FAR outperformed them this year.

So just stay out of it unless you think people are cheating. It doesn't make any sense.
You make some good points but I can't help but remain fixated on the "keeper" aspect of it.

You get to keep 2 players, correct? Only 2?

If that's the case, I fail to see where guys like Toney, Schultz, and so on will factor into that equation. If you're weak at RB 1 or WR 1, maybe you keep those guys in lieu of later picks and go to the draft hoping to snag a gem. Otherwise, I find it unlikely that it's a trade beyond this year.

This year, that trade screams lopsided unless you hit on Andrews not being healthy. He has had the benefit of getting all the time he needed off though, so its probably less likely to be a thing.

Curious the thoughts on this.
[Reply]
Page 2 of 2
< 12
Up