Gentlemen,
I'm now a dad x2, which means you're getting even less effort than usual with the Monday Update. I'm also digging out of 600+ emails, so today pretty much sucks all around.
Andy - you expressed some desire in filling-in this week... I'm doing the game recaps below, but feel free to chime-in with whatever nonsense you'd like to share.
A Quick Trade Discussion
Ok, this won't be quick, but it hasn't been had on the blog yet, so it's happening here. My goal with this is not to pull off the scabs from the trade deadline (ok, it kind of is) but to provide a better forum for discussion beyond the texts.
My stance is this... all the trades that were agreed upon were defensible and (somewhat*) reasonable, and given the late trade deadline, understandable. One team wanting to dump valuable players in favor of keepers, one team willing to let go of a keeper to boost their chances at a championship. That all makes sense to me.
*I say somewhat reasonable because I get the logic behind both sides, but the deals themselves were pretty lopsided in favor of the teams still contending. Charles, Julius, and Jeffery for essentially Benjamin is pretty unbalanced (Dallus - here's your chance to refute as you did yesterday), but that was apparently the market for decent keepers.
To me, as an example, Coconuts might have been able to sell those 3 players individually and get back more than one reasonable keep, but maybe the market just wasn't there. I don't know. I didn't have any keepers people wanted and thus couldn't get in on the bidding.
To me, keepable players were WAY overvalued at the deadline. But many of you obviously disagree with that stance. And the teams on the bottom purchasing said keepers didn't care if they were giving up 1 stud or 3 studs because they're out of contention anyway. #YOLO
A few of you wanted me to execute Commissioner control and reverse some of the deals, but that's an incredibly slippery slope. I don't really know what justification I had to do so, if both sides agreed upon a deal. And if I negate the Dallus-Coconuts deal, do I then also have to reverse the Kenni-Whitebread deal? And then also the Titwarmer-Crabs deal? Where do we draw the line?
You can make an argument about "spirit of competitive fun" (and I expect you do so, Gow) but what the hell does that actually mean in the context of the rules? If a trade is to be negated, there has to be justification to do so and it simply can't be because "Team X is getting too many good players." That's good work for Team X and a bummer for the rest of us, in my opinion.
And to those of you defending the deals as "balanced", "equal", or whatever: STOP. That is certainly not my argument, and shouldn't be your's either. Your right to make the deal is what I'm defending, not the deal itself. You played within the rules, and leveraged a situation to your advantage. But don't try to sell us all bullshit and disguise it as pumpkin pie (oblig Thanksgiving ref). We're all smarter than that, and so are you.
So rant away and let's get all this out in the open here. I know there are people that disagree with me, so let's have an active discussion and yell at each other. And at the end of all the finger-pointing and snark (OH THERE WILL BE SNARK), let's talk about what to do next season. I think most agree that moving up the trade deadline (to after Week 7 or 8) will suffice, but I've heard some dissent about that as well... Coconuts in particular thinks it won't solve the issue, but I really don't see teams on the bottom nuking their rosters with 5-6 weeks left to turn it around.
Sorry... this was anything but quick, but it's my first chance I've had to gather my thoughts about all this and I wanted to have the discussion, especially since I won't be at MNF for about a decade or so.
The Games
Jerks (146.14) beats Dallus (120.00), stopping the losing streak at four. Dez (22.6) and Demaryius (29.7) came to play and help offset Dallus getting 20 freaking points from his kicker. Dallus' team is stacked, but lack of a top-end QB may prove to be his downfall in the postseason.
Titwarmer (117.74) handles Coconuts (93.18). Amongst all the trades, Eddie Lacy may prove to be the most valuable player, and Mike Evans may end up being the best keeper next season. A very underrated move for both teams. The offseason can't get here soon enough for Coconuts.
Crapswell (95.86) leads Fredricks (82.74), in a very important matchup for playoff spots. Bill had a tough bye week with LeVeon, Cam, and others sitting. Andy's bench (96.5) outscored his starters so far with CJ Anderson, OBJ and Teddy all riding the pine. Andy still has Forsett and Orton going tonight, while Bill is praying for a monster Brees game. Andy is a 93% favorite, according to Yahoo.
Whitebread (113.04) narrowly leads Crabs (112.10), in a battle for the bottom. Or at least near the bottom. Cracker still has Ivory going, while Crabs has Flacco and Daniels. Here's what matters with this matchup. If Cracker holds on, it all but locks in Coconuts for L'ASS'T PLACE. If Crabs wins (and he needs a big night from his players), he still holds an outside shot at the playoffs. Crabs is a 90% favorite.
Kenni (121.96) leads Gow (118.52), in crucial matchup for playoff byes. Kenni still has Ingram and Torrey Smith going, while Gow is riding Buffalo D. A win for Kenni would put both byes up for grabs for three teams. If Gow were to pull it out, he would lock himself in for a Wk 15 semi-final playoff match.
Tomorrow's Standings Today
If Yahoo's projections hold, here will be the standings tomorrow, with 1 week to go:
| Place | Team | Record |
| 1st | Dallus | 8-4 |
| 2nd | Gow | 8-4 |
| 3rd | Kenni | 8-4 |
| 4th | Crapswell | 7-5 |
| 5th | Jerks | 6-6 |
| 6th | Fredricks | 6-6 |
| 7th | Titwarmer | 6-6 |
| 8th | Crabs | 5-7 |
| 9th | Whitebread | 3-9 |
| 10th | Coconuts | 3-9 |
Here's the matchups for next week:
- Gow vs. Jerks
- Dallus vs. Crapswell
- Kenni vs. Whitebread
- Fredricks vs. Coconuts
- Titwarmer vs. Crabs
A few observations:
- Kenni will need Gow or Dallus to lose because he is not winning any tiebreakers.
- I said earlier Crabs had an outside shot, but that really is just mathematical - Crabs is not getting in the playoffs.
- Ned is very much alive, and I'm very much at risk.
- The range of outcomes for Andy/Bill are massive. Both have very slim shots at earning a bye, but also could miss the playoffs. The outcome of tonight's match (where Andy is a heavy favorite) is massive.
- There's a reasonable chance that an above-.500 team does not make the playoffs...would be the first time since we moved to 6 playoff teams.
Tonight
I won't be there, probably for the rest of the season. As Andy stated, "We're gonna put you on IR".
Whatever you guys do, I'll be texting at some point. I know you're all looking forward to it.
Have fun tonight, boys.
And Happy Thanksgiving.
If anyone actually cares to see the numbers behind my claim that the Jamaal/Kelvin trade wasn't as lopsided as many people think (and that's not to say it wasn't lopsided at all, just that it was more even than the reputation it has now grown into) let me know and I'll send it to you. But for sake of moving this discussion along...
ReplyDeleteMy vote is to begin phasing out keepers next year, officially ending it for the 2017 season. (so to be fair for moves that were made this year) The more I've thought about it, the more I think introducing keepers to the league just incentivised people that weren't having a good year this year to punt on the season in hopes of a better year next year. I think this is pretty much what Kenni Hanna had said from the beginning. While it's great teams that have underperformed this year get a little consolation in that next year they can improve, it diminishes the competitiveness and parity of the league overall for the current season. I think we all agree we have a pretty damn impressive league when it comes to parity because everyone in this league pays attention, really knows how to play, and plays to win until the end. I want that back, not a couple teams every year to essentially bow out with a few weeks left and play the waiver wire for potential keepers the rest of the way instead of fighting for wins/pride/dignity to the bitter end. Also agree with Juan that moving the trade deadline up to week 7 or 8 might not fix the problem -- as soon as a team goes 0-7, 1-6, or 1-7, etc. I feel like the same issue will arise as this year even with the earlier deadline.
Interesting take... I was a "NO" vote on keepers as well, but not for this reason. I just like it more when we hit the RESET button at the end of every year.
DeleteBut I also feel like we're being reactionary by just doing away with keepers before anyone has even been kept. I realize you're saying to play it out to 2017, but I just question making a decision before we even experience a season (or even just a draft) with kept players...
Regarding the trade, you can argue with numbers all you want, but that's a small part of the equation, IMO.
How else do you evaluate a trade, except by the numbers? At the end of each game, your number vs. your opponent's number is all that matters. And we were 10 weeks into a 16 week season/playoff at the time of the trade, so actual production season to date is the best number you have to go on to evaluate a trade. Obviously layering on top of that your expectations for the rest of the season.
DeleteOne thing I did not note about the fallout from #TRADEGATE, is the subsequent matchup implications. Since Coconuts and Whitebread both traded the core of their rosters, they are now much easier matchups for their opponents these last 3 weeks.
DeleteAs an example, Andy very likely loses last week if Coconuts still has his pre-trade roster. And that win might be the difference between making and not making the playoffs, which also will be the difference for another team that may not make it.
I don't know of a way to avoid this from happening, but it doesn't seem right/fair.
Also, I agree with the RESET button comment. That basically sums up my opinion.
DeleteThe value of a player at a moment in time is not just that players numbers YTD, in fact it often is very little. What are CJ Anderson's number YTD and how high is he drafted if we re-drafted today for the next 4 weeks?
DeleteAlshon Jeffrey is having a down year, compared to last year. Is this year the only on that counts or do you factor in prior performance? What are your expectations for him ROS?
You yourself were throwing a fit about AP being thrown into a deal... what are his numbers YTD?
You made the comparison the Julius and Olsen are actually pretty close in their numbers, but again... re-draft today and how many rounds apart are they draft? Five, six, seven, eight?
I can go on and on... the bottom line is that deal was a landslide in your favor. For you to argue that it wasn't is a fool's errand. You're like a 9/11 truther. Put up all the evidence that you want - any objective person can recognize this. And again... I'm not saying you shouldn't have done the deal or feel bad about it. Just stop with the argument that "it wasn't that bad".
I feel like all you newbies had "blow your wad on a keeper" syndrome. The 2 trades that were made were basically people valuing keepers more than they are worth and others taking advantage of that situation. People need to realize that you only get 2 yrs out of these guys. So regardless of how awesome they are and how cheap they are, they get opened back up to everyone shortly. I'm Ok if you want to tank the rest of this year for a shot to be better next year, but here's a little secret: there's no guarantee they will be studs next year. Benjamin/evans/hyde could be next year's Keenan Allen or Eddie Lacy (up until I got him).
ReplyDeleteWe've had a standing rule that we don't vote on or veto trades anymore and I don't think we should change it. There have been plenty of trades over the years that have been terrible for one team and glorious for the other, in my opinion, and we've let them go through. It's no different now except that you feel screwed because you didn't do the work of finding out what the trade market was. Don't get upset because you thought you could get a better deal or you wanted a player that got traded. Zero people other than crabs offered me a deal for Evans. Zero. I have a feeling it was like this for others as well (no offers, no idea who would be interested).
Also, part of having no veto was so that we could avoid the "veto to preserve my standings" AKA the Kenni Hanna (Where you veto a even trade just because it makes both teams better and could affect your placement in the standings or who you're playing that week). I don't see the difference here. Dallus and Gow getting upset reeked of the Kenni Veto.
I'm with ya Ned on the veto thing. It wasn't that I wanted to veto the trade (and I thought I made that clear) it was more of the reaction of holy crap, people will trade away THAT for keepers next year?!?!
DeleteI went to a large number of people in the league to inquire about trades. I specifically inquired about the market for McKinnon with Kao. He wanted P. Manning or Lynch. McKinnon is very talented but he has yet to score an NFL TD and his role was/is very much in question if AP is still in the fold (even if rumors make that look more doubtful now). We were so far off in value I never came back with an offer but he was well aware of the major pieces of my deal with Kenni before it happened because I wanted to competitive offers for my players. He never gave me a competitive offer. I take his response and outrage as nothing more than sour grapes. If you guys think I got ripped off that is fine; I would have loved a better deal but I took what I could get.
Delete
ReplyDeleteAlso, WTF did you think was going to happen when a team was out of it? I believe we talked about this at the draft - or at least I remember mentioning it in conversation. - About how I'll trade you this guy as a keeper for this stud when you're out of the playoffs.
As for the incentives to keep playing - That's why we have a weekly high score and highest loser bonuses. Those didn't go away just because we have keepers now. If people choose to punt those, that's their choice, as it's always been.
Lastly, the whole not setting your lineup BS. I say it's fine if you don't want to set your lineup, but the commish will do it for you and you won't be in the league next yr. It's not fair to the teams you've played and the overall standings. I'm still adamant that if anyone refuses to set their lineup, they've given up on their team, and therefore, given up on the league. They should get the boot. There's too much at stake for those of us invested (literal $ invested) for you to be able to have an effect on the league standings because you want to pout and make a public display of displeasure. There is a group vote for everything - rather than risking the integrity of the league, recruit people to your side to make a vote. Also, if you decide to boycott a week because you question the integrity of the league, then why would you choose to still be a part of it? Here's the door, don't let it hit you on your way out. If things were reversed, I can say with absolute certainty that I would quit the league if we allowed someone to purposely set a blank lineup and invite them back the following year. That's how I feel about the situation. It has no affect on how I feel about you guys as friends, but I just have expectations for any league I'm a part of.
With regards to "WTF did you think was going to happen?", I did expect moves like this to be made. That is, I expected keepers to be swapped for impact players. I did not expect the market to be: 1 decent keeper = 2-3 stud players. As you said, I thought there would still be the incentive to win the bonus money and play spoiler.
DeleteI also failed to consider the scheduling ramifications that I mentioned above, that 2 teams essentially are easy wins for the handful of opponents they face in the last few weeks. Not saying Coconuts or Whitebread can't still pull off an upset, but both have to field much less competitive lineups now. I should have considered this, but just didn't realize it.
Since there was no update last week, I'd just like to point out that Noo Shoo lost to a team that started Shaun Hill and Derek Carr.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility to make a trade without flat out tanking your season. My trade with Ned is a good example. I had plenty of offers, but still wanted to maintain a competitive team.
Great update! I appreciate the light-hearted approach to discussing GIFs. It’s always fun to see how they can add humor and personality to our messages. Looking forward to more updates and the return of those GIFs!
ReplyDelete