New Dynasty League and we've had our first trade where people are asking questions (1 Viewer)

[Ministry of Pain]

First of all, this is exactly why I don't enjoy Dynasty but was talked into it by MoPJr
Second, we are not going to veto it, doubtful I would say but still I wanted to see what this place thinks
-I kind of know some of you are not going to like this

Malik Nabers (Out for the year) and Breece Hall for JK Dobbins, Kenneth Gainwell, Michael Pittman and a 2026 2nd round pick
The guy sending Nabers wants to try and win this season, doesn't want to sit around until next year or 2027

-My take is only one of them was thinking long term
The guy who sent Nabers and Hall doesn't like that he is being questioned or asked to explain how this makes his team better.

The guy with Nabers and Hall could have split them into 2 trades and likely have landed at least a 1st round pick and a solid player coming back, maybe I'm wrong, this is my 1st Dynasty in 10-15 years, been a while
And then he could have likely traded Hall and gotten something better for him too

Like I said, we are not prepared to veto this trade. The Commish is the one receiving Nabers and Hall, he's a stand up guy, we talk on Sundays with my son while we are watching the games on the Ticket
I did a good job of loading up on young talent at the Auction we held last month, i'm just trying to be patient right now.

Any feedback you all have would be greatly appreciated and i want to stress, outside of the Commish almost none of us have any Dynasty experience, i think that is going to make for some slightly uneven trades

 

[JohnnyU]

That's fugly for the dynasty owner trading Nabers and Hall. That kind of trade causes leagues to fold.

That's all I'm going to say about that.
-Forrest Gump

 

[OldMilwaukee]

Breath in..........breath out.

Let it go..........

 

[-OZ-]

I kind of know some of you are not going to like this

What do you want us to say?
Fugly, you’re not going to veto (although it’s probably justifiable here).
Just venting?

 

[Birdie048]

Not how to start a dynasty season ... the team getting Nabers only gave away a few crackers
There should be a pair of 1st in that Dobins, Pittman side.. even if both are late, that is criminal.

I agree I don't like the VETO aspect, but that is nasty

 

[warpig33]

Breath in..........breath out.

Let it go..........

This. I only do dynasty, and I've seen some things like this. If someone is in win now mode, can't really blame them. To play devil's advocate...WHAT IF Nabors comes back a shell of himself? And Hall, while talented, is a RB in the NFL...there are numerous backs scoring similar to Hall. Just gotta keep doing your thing and trying to make your team better. Sometimes I blame myself in not sending offers to people to make trades like this. I just get tired of the back and forth since MOST owners over value THEIR players.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

I kind of know some of you are not going to like this

What do you want us to say?
Fugly, you’re not going to veto (although it’s probably justifiable here).
Just venting?

Good question, I think we are doing the right thing by not doing a Veto but even the Veto rules might need some tweaking in the off season
How many people have to vote "Veto" to stop a trade in most dynasty leagues? This came up with different answers from GMs

 

[InDitkaWeTrust]

I'm in the "only veto collusion" camp, but I get that it sets a tone for the league. Maybe this will be a learning experience for the Nabers seller?

 

[JohnnyU]

Sounds like someone is still playing with a redraft mentality, and a bad one at that.

 

[wlwiles]

I hate the term "league altering trade". Been playing dynasty for 8 years now across 3 leagues, and I have yet to see a trade so bad that made someone quit or made the league fold. This is a terrible trade but if the guy has justified his reasoning and it's not collusion then you gotta let the guy learn.

 

[sushinsky4tsar]

I hope you guys pre-paid at least one season in advance or are playing empire. If the moron tries to leave after this season, time to get nasty.

In the meantime, good-natured ridicule with a firm message that teams need to start communicating to the league's chat platform if they're gung ho on trading two studs for $.30 on the dollar.

In 2022, some guy traded J Chase after he had the audacity to get knocked out for FOUR games. Keenan Allen and A Jones trade accepted from the commish. It's more fun when the commish still fails to win a championship despite his plunder.

 

[TartanLion]

Correct not to veto. Smacks of someone still being new to dynasty and finding their feet in terms of player values and long term value re age. Be annoyed, grin and bear it and move on

 

[Gally]

I kind of know some of you are not going to like this

What do you want us to say?
Fugly, you’re not going to veto (although it’s probably justifiable here).
Just venting?

Good question, I think we are doing the right thing by not doing a Veto but even the Veto rules might need some tweaking in the off season
How many people have to vote "Veto" to stop a trade in most dynasty leagues? This came up with different answers from GMs

A veto should only happen for collusion and that should be a decision made by the Commish. Trade committess suck because more often than not the people on the committee vote on a trade based on how the trade will affect their chances and not on the merits of the trade. it causes more problems than it is worth. Have a quality Commish and he should do the job accordingly.

 

[Gally]

I hate the term "league altering trade". Been playing dynasty for 8 years now across 3 leagues, and I have yet to see a trade so bad that made someone quit or made the league fold. This is a terrible trade but if the guy has justified his reasoning and it's not collusion then you gotta let the guy learn.

I have found that typically the more leaguemates ***** about a trade the more it ends up being meh in how it actually plays out. In this instance, people are taking this on reputation of the Nabers and Breece part and not the actual performances. No guarantees that Nabers ever comes back to normal and Breece has never lived up to what he was supposed to be. That may change but then again it may not.

Let people run teams the way they want to run their teams......however, paying ahead one or two years is definitely warranted so people don't bail leaving the league in a lurch.

 

[Desert_Power]

Malik Nabers (Out for the year) and Breece Hall for JK Dobbins, Kenneth Gainwell, Michael Pittman and a 2026 2nd round pick
The guy sending Nabers wants to try and win this season, doesn't want to sit around until next year or 2027

I mean is that team even better this season? I'd Hall over that package.

Should be veto'd

 

[sushinsky4tsar]

In my re-draft league of 20 years that I commission, we have had a 1-day trade processing / review time (plus however many hours it was accepted prior to midnight PT). The trade can be cancelled by either party up until the midnight processing time. It can also be cancelled by four dissenting votes from the rest of the league. That number might not work for a lot of leagues and I recognize that the idea of a veto for many is a non-starter. However, this group is really chill, so there has only has only been one instance where a trade was rejected by league veto, and it was definitely warranted.

The much more valuable part of the 1-day review is allowing either team to cancel during that period. We've definitely had the losing party of several bad trades cancel after getting inundated with far superior counter-offers and good natured ribbing. Sometimes they re-work the deal with the original trade partner for something slightly less awful. Sometimes they get offended and double-down, which is also fine. I do recommend it as a decent option for forcing some level of dialogue on alternate trade offers, which has gotten things closer to fair market value about a half-dozen times in our league's history. The trade-off is not being able to get a deal done instantly for the upcoming week on Saturday night.

 

[zed2283]

It's a new dynasty league and this is how you learn dynasty.

 

[Pickle Rody]

Everyone (I know) values NFL players differently in dynasty. Differently than redraft. Differently than other dynasty owners.

Dynasty owners generally join a dynasty league for the long range thrills or pitfalls of building a team their way.

If both owners involved are happy with the trade it is a good trade.

It may not be to others liking - for whatever reason(s) - but really, too bad.

Concentrate on your own franchise. It is more exciting than worrying about someone else's team.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

It’s not a great trade. It’s probably a bad trade. But trades don’t have to be good. They just have to not be collusion.

That said, Nabers is a doorstop for a year+.

 

[InDitkaWeTrust]

In my re-draft league of 20 years that I commission, we have had a 1-day trade processing / review time (plus however many hours it was accepted prior to midnight PT). The trade can be cancelled by either party up until the midnight processing time. It can also be cancelled by four dissenting votes from the rest of the league. That number might not work for a lot of leagues and I recognize that the idea of a veto for many is a non-starter. However, this group is really chill, so there has only has only been one instance where a trade was rejected by league veto, and it was definitely warranted.

The much more valuable part of the 1-day review is allowing either team to cancel during that period. We've definitely had the losing party of several bad trades cancel after getting inundated with far superior counter-offers and good natured ribbing. Sometimes they re-work the deal with the original trade partner for something slightly less awful. Sometimes they get offended and double-down, which is also fine. I do recommend it as a decent option for forcing some level of dialogue on alternate trade offers, which has gotten things closer to fair market value about a half-dozen times in our league's history. The trade-off is not being able to get a deal done instantly for the upcoming week on Saturday night.

If this works for you, great. I literally hate the idea of a public 1 day review period for the exact reasons you've mentioned. It allows for an open bid mentality that just doesn't fit in my idea of clear and fair negotiations. What's to stop someone from accepting a BS trade for a valuable player only to give the rest of the league a basis for counter offers and if nothing suits them just cancelling the trade?

 

[Wigglytuff's Gruff]

Seems fine to me.

Some people aren't so good at doing trades. Let them crack on. And trade with them if you can.

 

[Max Power]

That kind of trade causes leagues to fold.

I used to think this angle was overblown, but it is something to keep an eye on in these leagues that are 12 strangers. I took over an abandoned devy team last year that had the #1 overall pick and a couple good young assets. It was a rebuild, but had plenty of potential. Problem was I didn't look at other team's rosters before agreeing to take the team. It was the start of year 5 for this league and two of the owners had been "winning" trades against the bad owners for years now. So much so that when an even trade happened with one of the owners there was an extended chat on how fair one his trades actually were.

This year both of those same owners made winning trades against teams headed towards the basement. I understand the strategy, but this league is crazy imbalanced and each trade makes it worse. Its going to make these bad trade teams harder to fill when owners know they are no where close to a championship window.

 

[JohnnyU]

That kind of trade causes leagues to fold.

I used to think this angle was overblown, but it is something to keep an eye on in these leagues that are 12 strangers. I took over an abandoned devy team last year that had the #1 overall pick and a couple good young assets. It was a rebuild, but had plenty of potential. Problem was I didn't look at other team's rosters before agreeing to take the team. It was the start of year 5 for this league and two of the owners had been "winning" trades against the bad owners for years now. So much so that when an even trade happened with one of the owners there was an extended chat on how fair one his trades actually were.

This year both of those same owners made winning trades against teams headed towards the basement. I understand the strategy, but this league is crazy imbalanced and each trade makes it worse. Its going to make these bad trade teams harder to fill when owners know they are no where close to a championship window.

No one winces more than the commissioner when they see this, knowing that replacing these owners can be challenging. Even to the point of offering the next season free, with payment of the year after that, in addition to offering picks at the end of the 1st round, or in some cases, an additional pick at the end of the 2nd. When this happens it lessons the payout for the current year for those winning money. Bad owners affect the whole league one way or another. I've noticed this happens a lot when people join dynasty leagues with the intent of playing like it's a redraft, without any regard to the future. They end up with a roster full of geezers and no draft picks of any value. Once all the resources have been depleted they bail and give you the standard reason they are cutting back on leagues. I hate owners who play dynasty leagues with a redraft mentality. I've been the commissioner of several leagues for 20+ years and I've seen this many times. However, usually the cause are those owners who don't put in the time it takes to manage a good dynasty team because they lose interest due to life experiences, or realize they are in over their head, or both. Either way they bail. They probably would never admit to the latter.

 

[barackdhouse]

First of all, this is exactly why I don't enjoy Dynasty

This is also why I have cut waaaay back on dynasty. Just not into these conversations.

-My take is only one of them was thinking long term

You're right but it isn't relevant. There is no rule that says you have to think long term. Just like there is no rule that says you can't think short term only. *Swaths* of really good dynasty players prefer the latter. Many prefer the former. Some of us love straddling the line but winning money is always going to be a tiebreaker for me. Back to that in a minute.

The guy who sent Nabers and Hall doesn't like that he is being questioned or asked to explain how this makes his team better.

He is painfully obviously playing to win now and that strategy speaks for itself. I would be upset too. There is no rule that says you can't play with a win-now focus. If he wins money this year, will people change their opinion about it? I don't think any explanation is necessary besides "I'm playing to win now. I know it makes me weaker long term. Now **** off and set your lineup and manage your own damn team"

Any feedback you all have would be greatly appreciated and i want to stress, outside of the Commish almost none of us have any Dynasty experience, i think that is going to make for some slightly uneven trades

Yeah the lack of experience is a thing and leads to these kinds of things. So here is my honest to god take though. Nowhere in the neighborhood of veto worthy. Not even worth a discussion. But... it is a horrible trade. And I mean that even from the short term angle. It just doesn't do the trick and the value is too unbalanced to swing it. When I talk winning money being a tiebreaker above, this isn't a tie. But certainly fair. I made a very very very similar trade yesterday and posted it in the trades thread. But IMHO on paper it was a tie.

TLDR the owner moving Nabers and Hall absolutely should have and could have got more but this is part of the learning curve and growing pains of any dynasty league. Honestly I would strongly recommend upholding this trade as a precedent on how it's done and it will hopefully encourage more trading. People feel like they missed out on the Nabers sweepstakes and maybe they'll be more active moving forward. IDK. Conversely if this trade were to be vetoed, and or serious debate held about it, that also would set a precedent and I'm telling you it isn't the one you want.

One other note yes it is slightly unfortunate the commish is involved on the heavy side of the trade. Not much can be done about that. Again precedent matters and dude's reputation matters which you say is strong so all should be ok. My ten cents.

 

[barackdhouse]

I hate the term "league altering trade". Been playing dynasty for 8 years now across 3 leagues, and I have yet to see a trade so bad that made someone quit or made the league fold. This is a terrible trade but if the guy has justified his reasoning and it's not collusion then you gotta let the guy learn.

I did once. To your point though, it really doesn't happen and if anything it drives activity.

But this guy quit a dynasty because as commish I refused to unilaterally veto a trade he didn't like. It was in 2018/2019 whichever year Wentz got hurt. It was Wentz for some scrub WR that was hot for a second but didn't do anything. He considered Wentz untouchable and top tier value etc etc abd was correct that the WR was nothing special. It was only a 1QB league and yes Wentz was hot at the time but he ended up blowing out his knee like five minutes later.

ETA as soon as we replaced the owner, like 5 others chimed into me privately and said to the effect : thank god we couldn't stand that guy.

 

[barackdhouse]

In my re-draft league of 20 years that I commission, we have had a 1-day trade processing / review time (plus however many hours it was accepted prior to midnight PT). The trade can be cancelled by either party up until the midnight processing time. It can also be cancelled by four dissenting votes from the rest of the league. That number might not work for a lot of leagues and I recognize that the idea of a veto for many is a non-starter. However, this group is really chill, so there has only has only been one instance where a trade was rejected by league veto, and it was definitely warranted.

The much more valuable part of the 1-day review is allowing either team to cancel during that period. We've definitely had the losing party of several bad trades cancel after getting inundated with far superior counter-offers and good natured ribbing. Sometimes they re-work the deal with the original trade partner for something slightly less awful. Sometimes they get offended and double-down, which is also fine. I do recommend it as a decent option for forcing some level of dialogue on alternate trade offers, which has gotten things closer to fair market value about a half-dozen times in our league's history. The trade-off is not being able to get a deal done instantly for the upcoming week on Saturday night.

If this works for you, great. I literally hate the idea of a public 1 day review period for the exact reasons you've mentioned. It allows for an open bid mentality that just doesn't fit in my idea of clear and fair negotiations. What's to stop someone from accepting a BS trade for a valuable player only to give the rest of the league a basis for counter offers and if nothing suits them just cancelling the trade?

I never even thought about that but I think you're onto something...

 

[Gally]

I hate owners who play dynasty leagues with a redraft mentality.

I think you need to add one more part to this..........."and then they leave". I manage my team like a redraft+ team. I look at 2 yr windows and manage much more like a redraft because so many other owners are always playing for "next year" and then next year never happens.

The issue with this situation isn't running your team like a redraft or making a perceived lopsided trade......it's doing those things and then leaving the team in disrepair. I don't know how to stop that and there are many, many people that don't care about the integrity of committing to a dynasty league and then they drop out. That is the problem.

I don't know how to fix that other than vetting owners and only letting people in that you know personally. Joining a league with strangers will always have this happen because people are selfish. FF was originally about friends getting together and being NFL GM's and bragging rights with a little cash on the line. It kinda sucks that there are so many leagues out there that have gone away from this.

 

[Gally]

Conversely if this trade were to be vetoed, and or serious debate held about it, that also would set a precedent and I'm telling you it isn't the one you want.

This is a bigger deal than people are thinking. If this happens then every trade that someone doesn't like will come up and this precedent will be used as a reason to veto it. It will be a big thorn in the leagues side for a long time.

 

[barackdhouse]

Pittman, Dobbins and Gainwell aren't *that* bad I mean that is three legit starters where there was only 1 before. I think dude is drinking the Gainwell koolaid just a little bit though.

Funny thing to me though is that those three are perfect examples of near freebies turned into gold here AND they really don't make their team any weaker. I don't know what the commish's lineup looks like but this doesn't make them less competitive. The only production value lost is Pittman but would the commish be autostarting Pittman? Seems like a 4th or 5th WR coming out of a startup.

Was Gainwell even drafted? I guess it depends what time of the offseason yall did your startup but Dobbins may have been very very late as well. Pittman went what like 11th round or so? His prospects were pretty low (and looks like a really great pick-up this year in redraft/BB). I mean this team could have built a monster coming out of the startup and just moved 3 really really small pieces for Nabers/Hall. Helluva get.

 

[Gally]

But this guy quit a dynasty because as commish I refused to unilaterally veto a trade he didn't like. It was in 2018/2019 whichever year Wentz got hurt. It was Wentz for some scrub WR that was hot for a second but didn't do anything. He considered Wentz untouchable and top tier value etc etc abd was correct that the WR was nothing special. It was only a 1QB league and yes Wentz was hot at the time but he ended up blowing out his knee like five minutes later.

See, an example of someone throwing a *****-fit and then it ended up being a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things. Nobody knows how players will turn out. It's all guesswork.

 

[TVT 0 N S T A]

Piling on...

Breece Hall shouldn't be included on the Nabers side. Without Breece, this is a bad trade. It does not make immediate or long-term sense. You could get so much more for just Nabers.

If you are shopping a stud - post it on the league chat and field offers. Saying you are win now but shipping your studs off for nothing doesnt correlate.

 

[barackdhouse]

I hate owners who play dynasty leagues with a redraft mentality.

I think you need to add one more part to this..........."and then they leave". I manage my team like a redraft+ team. I look at 2 yr windows and manage much more like a redraft because so many other owners are always playing for "next year" and then next year never happens.

The issue with this situation isn't running your team like a redraft or making a perceived lopsided trade......it's doing those things and then leaving the team in disrepair. I don't know how to stop that and there are many, many people that don't care about the integrity of committing to a dynasty league and then they drop out. That is the problem.

I don't know how to fix that other than vetting owners and only letting people in that you know personally. Joining a league with strangers will always have this happen because people are selfish. FF was originally about friends getting together and being NFL GM's and bragging rights with a little cash on the line. It kinda sucks that there are so many leagues out there that have gone away from this.

I think the idea of people walking away leaving their team in shambles is overblown, but I play dynasty *almost* exclusively on FFPC where no league has ever folded. But when there is no real punishment or fear of punishment for doing what you guys are talking about, like in personal leagues, especially with strangers - then I can see it.

But IMO the remedy is simple and effective and largely an industry standard that is in place everywhere already. Which is to say the owners pay a deposit for the future season but it's a deposit with serious teeth. The responsibility is put on the owner that is leaving to find a replacement owner that will buy in at full cost in order for them to get their deposit back. And if they can't find a replacement owner willing to do that, then the commish keeps the deposit in the pool and the leaving owner gets nothing back. Or as is often done, maybe a replacement owner can be found to buy in at 50% and the person leaving gets 50% back. It is both an incentive to new owners as well as a disincentive to leaving owners.

And it is important to recognize that it is the natural rhythm of a dynasty league for some teams to emerge as top heavy dominant and for others to be really crappy with some quasi competitive teams in the middle that will be a mix of trying to win now and trying to rebuild. And as time goes on these dynamics don't go away. The strong often stay strong and the weak often stay weak. And owners, experienced or not, will do drastic things to turn it around or that they think will turn it around. And sometimes it just doesn't work. And sometimes people want out. Not getting their deposit back should be a really strong motivator.

I think some folks are sensitive to bad owners making bad decisions and you should just consider it a part of the game. I think the issue is that sometimes things become sooo top heavy in a league that it's just stupid to continue. I'll admit I've seen this a couple times and I think there can be an argument for 12 owners deciding together that it's time to reshuffle the deck and do a startup all over.

 

[tjford]

Is the problem that a team is shipping away IR'd/underperforming assets for win-now assets? Or is the problem the value piece?

 

[sushinsky4tsar]

In my re-draft league of 20 years that I commission, we have had a 1-day trade processing / review time (plus however many hours it was accepted prior to midnight PT). The trade can be cancelled by either party up until the midnight processing time. It can also be cancelled by four dissenting votes from the rest of the league. That number might not work for a lot of leagues and I recognize that the idea of a veto for many is a non-starter. However, this group is really chill, so there has only has only been one instance where a trade was rejected by league veto, and it was definitely warranted.

The much more valuable part of the 1-day review is allowing either team to cancel during that period. We've definitely had the losing party of several bad trades cancel after getting inundated with far superior counter-offers and good natured ribbing. Sometimes they re-work the deal with the original trade partner for something slightly less awful. Sometimes they get offended and double-down, which is also fine. I do recommend it as a decent option for forcing some level of dialogue on alternate trade offers, which has gotten things closer to fair market value about a half-dozen times in our league's history. The trade-off is not being able to get a deal done instantly for the upcoming week on Saturday night.

If this works for you, great. I literally hate the idea of a public 1 day review period for the exact reasons you've mentioned. It allows for an open bid mentality that just doesn't fit in my idea of clear and fair negotiations. What's to stop someone from accepting a BS trade for a valuable player only to give the rest of the league a basis for counter offers and if nothing suits them just cancelling the trade?

Short answer, a life? This is a league with a $50 entry fee. Your concern is that someone intentionally accepts a trade to send out a stud for $0.50 on the dollar in order to generate mass counter offers from the rest of the league? If none of those are considered an overpay, then he simply cancels the trade outright?

Yeah, you could do that. All that happens is that you're going to waste your time going through these motions. And the owner of the other team isn't going to waste their time working with you on future trades if that's the tactic you're employing.

When a trade is accepted in this format, it's generally interpreted as an an intent to trade players X at the conclusion of the review period with an understanding that no trade is a done deal until it rolls over on that midnight processing time, without instruction from either party to cancel. It's basically a much more real and effective version of the infamous "trading block", which usually provides no insight as to how urgent the owner is looking to make a trade and what kind of price they're willing to accept. More communication with more owners about trading a stud can only lead to a return that's much closer to fair market value. Preferable to letting the shark pull one over on the minnow, trade instantly goes through, league is revolted by an awful trade of a stud player (or two) that they had no idea was even available.

The downside is having to wait the day+ and yeah, sometimes you're the shark that gets the rug pulled out from you on what would have been an amazing trade. In a perfect world, you have a league of 12 sharks and all trades are somewhat reasonable and can be instantly processed. That's generally not what you're working with in a typical low stakes home league. Not a catch-all for every bad trade, but well worth the "training wheels" for some of the trades that it saved us from.

 

[Wigglytuff's Gruff]

You do wonder, when someone suddenly sells a top tier player out of the blue, and they hadn't made it known publicly that they were available, if they've ever negotiated anything, ever, in their entire life.

 

[TVT 0 N S T A]

But this guy quit a dynasty because as commish I refused to unilaterally veto a trade he didn't like. It was in 2018/2019 whichever year Wentz got hurt. It was Wentz for some scrub WR that was hot for a second but didn't do anything. He considered Wentz untouchable and top tier value etc etc abd was correct that the WR was nothing special. It was only a 1QB league and yes Wentz was hot at the time but he ended up blowing out his knee like five minutes later.

See, an example of someone throwing a *****-fit and then it ended up being a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things. Nobody knows how players will turn out. It's all guesswork.

Sorry for the double post - but outcome doesnt really change a player's immediate value.

Nabers is worth two 1sts (minimum). Why would you sell him + Breece Hall for Dobbins, Pittman + dart throws like Gainwell and 2026 2nd. Could these turn into fantasy assets, sure. Could you increase your probability? Absolutely!

Market value is market value and I am not even sure that package is enough for Breece Hall, let alone Nabers.

Pittman, Gainwell, Dobbins aren't even top 100 dynasty assets, while Hall and Nabers are top 50. Probably one of the worst trades I have seen... bad.

 

[JohnnyU]

Pittman, Dobbins and Gainwell aren't *that* bad I mean that is three legit starters where there was only 1 before. I think dude is drinking the Gainwell koolaid just a little bit though.

Funny thing to me though is that those three are perfect examples of near freebies turned into gold here AND they really don't make their team any weaker. I don't know what the commish's lineup looks like but this doesn't make them less competitive. The only production value lost is Pittman but would the commish be autostarting Pittman? Seems like a 4th or 5th WR coming out of a startup.

Was Gainwell even drafted? I guess it depends what time of the offseason yall did your startup but Dobbins may have been very very late as well. Pittman went what like 11th round or so? His prospects were pretty low (and looks like a really great pick-up this year in redraft/BB). I mean this team could have built a monster coming out of the startup and just moved 3 really really small pieces for Nabers/Hall. Helluva get.

Gainwell isn't a legit starter when Warren is healthy. Dobbins is already seeing more heat from Harvey and who knows what that will look like later in the season. There's no way to paint a pretty picture with this trade. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then by God it's a duck.

 

[barackdhouse]

But this guy quit a dynasty because as commish I refused to unilaterally veto a trade he didn't like. It was in 2018/2019 whichever year Wentz got hurt. It was Wentz for some scrub WR that was hot for a second but didn't do anything. He considered Wentz untouchable and top tier value etc etc abd was correct that the WR was nothing special. It was only a 1QB league and yes Wentz was hot at the time but he ended up blowing out his knee like five minutes later.

See, an example of someone throwing a *****-fit and then it ended up being a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things. Nobody knows how players will turn out. It's all guesswork.

Sorry for the double post - but outcome doesnt really change a player's immediate value.

we're not saying that it does, we're simply talking about people throwing a fit over this stuff and threatening to leave a league or doing so because of it. it is definitely unbalanced on paper and nobody is arguing otherwise (that I'm aware of). but two adults made a fair deal.

it's much much closer to jealousy IMO than anything else. they wanted to spend so little to get nabers and hall.

 

[barackdhouse]

Pittman, Dobbins and Gainwell aren't *that* bad I mean that is three legit starters where there was only 1 before. I think dude is drinking the Gainwell koolaid just a little bit though.

Funny thing to me though is that those three are perfect examples of near freebies turned into gold here AND they really don't make their team any weaker. I don't know what the commish's lineup looks like but this doesn't make them less competitive. The only production value lost is Pittman but would the commish be autostarting Pittman? Seems like a 4th or 5th WR coming out of a startup.

Was Gainwell even drafted? I guess it depends what time of the offseason yall did your startup but Dobbins may have been very very late as well. Pittman went what like 11th round or so? His prospects were pretty low (and looks like a really great pick-up this year in redraft/BB). I mean this team could have built a monster coming out of the startup and just moved 3 really really small pieces for Nabers/Hall. Helluva get.

Gainwell isn't a legit starter when Warren is healthy. Dobbins is already seeing more heat from Harvey and who knows what that will look like later in the season. There's no way to paint a pretty picture with this trade. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then by God it's a duck.

oh I know I agree. I was absolutely trying to paint it as nice as I could. It is a trade that makes me want to puke in my mouth.

 

[sushinsky4tsar]

Is the problem that a team is shipping away IR'd/underperforming assets for win-now assets? Or is the problem the value piece?

The first is a normal part to dynasty. The issue is the general value, all assets considered for this year and future years. As someone pointed out, it's debatable that the return was acceptable for Hall alone. I'll say it wasn't, considering they also would have had to shed a bench spot for this season. Beyond that, they're basically sending out Nabers, who's probably okay or pretty close by week 1, for a generic 2nd round pick.

 

[barackdhouse]

Is the problem that a team is shipping away IR'd/underperforming assets for win-now assets? Or is the problem the value piece?

The first is a normal part to dynasty. The issue is the general value, all assets considered for this year and future years.

Respectfully I'm going to disagree with the 2nd sentence. There is no issue over the value. It is unanimously understood by everyone that the value is ****. That isn't up for debate. The actual issue is whether this can be vetoed or not. It is a question of policy not value. The value sucks.

 

[Gally]

I think some folks are sensitive to bad owners making bad decisions and you should just consider it a part of the game. I think the issue is that sometimes things become sooo top heavy in a league that it's just stupid to continue. I'll admit I've seen this a couple times and I think there can be an argument for 12 owners deciding together that it's time to reshuffle the deck and do a startup all over.

This is why I have been pushing our league to have a "random" reset that happens if some team wins it three times in a row. Similar to an Empire type league but without the Bigger Payout situation (I mean winning three times in a row should be enough of a payout).

I have actually been pushing for a complete random restart (roll dice every year and if a X comes up we restart). We would only roll dice if we haven't had a restart in at least 5 years and then roll each year until there is a restart. Totally random and nobody knows when it will happen. But most don't like that idea so it has never passed. So I changed it up a bit to after a three-peat. Somewhat random but also kind of known it could be happening. I am sure there will be some pitfalls with this idea (a poor team trading with the back to back champ to try and get him a third in row type thing) but figured it will be interesting.

League started in 2005 so everyone has learned a lot about the value of players and how to build a team. I just wanted to get a chance to start from scratch knowing what I know now and see how it goes. Well, this year the Three-Peat Reset was voted in. We will see if it ever happens again. It has happened one time 2009-2011 and we had three other times of back to back (2005-6. 2014-15, & 2018-19 - all by different teams)

 

[tjford]

Is the problem that a team is shipping away IR'd/underperforming assets for win-now assets? Or is the problem the value piece?

The first is a normal part to dynasty. The issue is the general value, all assets considered for this year and future years. As someone pointed out, it's debatable that the return was acceptable for Hall alone. I'll say it wasn't, considering they also would have had to shed a bench spot for this season. Beyond that, they're basically sending out Nabers, who's probably okay or pretty close by week 1, for a generic 2nd round pick.

I was just curious because the original post indicated that most of the owners are new dynasty owners and getting used to these kinds of trades (future value for present value) is something that owners will need to figure out.

The value portion is for sure outside of what I'd expect for a Nabers+Hall which means the issue is a slightly more complicated version of "this trade is imbalanced, should we veto?" Leagues rules should never legislate trave value.

 

[barackdhouse]

I think some folks are sensitive to bad owners making bad decisions and you should just consider it a part of the game. I think the issue is that sometimes things become sooo top heavy in a league that it's just stupid to continue. I'll admit I've seen this a couple times and I think there can be an argument for 12 owners deciding together that it's time to reshuffle the deck and do a startup all over.

This is why I have been pushing our league to have a "random" reset that happens if some team wins it three times in a row. Similar to an Empire type league but without the Bigger Payout situation (I mean winning three times in a row should be enough of a payout).

I have actually been pushing for a complete random restart (roll dice every year and if a X comes up we restart). We would only roll dice if we haven't had a restart in at least 5 years and then roll each year until there is a restart. Totally random and nobody knows when it will happen. But most don't like that idea so it has never passed. So I changed it up a bit to after a three-peat. Somewhat random but also kind of known it could be happening. I am sure there will be some pitfalls with this idea (a poor team trading with the back to back champ to try and get him a third in row type thing) but figured it will be interesting.

League started in 2005 so everyone has learned a lot about the value of players and how to build a team. I just wanted to get a chance to start from scratch knowing what I know now and see how it goes. Well, this year the Three-Peat Reset was voted in. We will see if it ever happens again. It has happened one time 2009-2011 and we had three other times of back to back (2005-6. 2014-15, & 2018-19 - all by different teams)

That's rad, i love the random reset idea.

 

[Gally]

Sorry for the double post - but outcome doesnt really change a player's immediate value.

My point was that when people complain about something being lopsided more often than not it doesn't pan out that way. I wasn't trying to say that value at the time of trade changes after the fact. The value is the value. It's the future impact I was referencing.

 

[JohnnyU]

I think some folks are sensitive to bad owners making bad decisions and you should just consider it a part of the game. I think the issue is that sometimes things become sooo top heavy in a league that it's just stupid to continue. I'll admit I've seen this a couple times and I think there can be an argument for 12 owners deciding together that it's time to reshuffle the deck and do a startup all over.

This is why I have been pushing our league to have a "random" reset that happens if some team wins it three times in a row. Similar to an Empire type league but without the Bigger Payout situation (I mean winning three times in a row should be enough of a payout).

I have actually been pushing for a complete random restart (roll dice every year and if a X comes up we restart). We would only roll dice if we haven't had a restart in at least 5 years and then roll each year until there is a restart. Totally random and nobody knows when it will happen. But most don't like that idea so it has never passed. So I changed it up a bit to after a three-peat. Somewhat random but also kind of known it could be happening. I am sure there will be some pitfalls with this idea (a poor team trading with the back to back champ to try and get him a third in row type thing) but figured it will be interesting.

League started in 2005 so everyone has learned a lot about the value of players and how to build a team. I just wanted to get a chance to start from scratch knowing what I know now and see how it goes. Well, this year the Three-Peat Reset was voted in. We will see if it ever happens again. It has happened one time 2009-2011 and we had three other times of back to back (2005-6. 2014-15, & 2018-19 - all by different teams)

That's rad, i love the random reset idea.

I hate the idea of a dynasty reset. I've been a commissioner a long long time and my advice is to become better dynasty players, rather than punish the good teams and give a do over for the flunking owners. I'd rather just replace the owners that bail because they suck at dynasty.

 

[Wigglytuff's Gruff]

You can always turn it round in Dynasty. 2-3 seasons accruing picks, working the edges, committing to the process fully.

Team in my league who has been the 1.01 for the last three consecutive seasons and only owned that pick once (Jeanty in the most recent draft) is currently 4-0 and looking like a real contender. Probably won about 6 games total in the last 3 years after completely mismanaging his team in the previous 4-5 seasons.

You just need a plan and some conviction. And some luck of course.

 

[barackdhouse]

I think this is important and it isn't about me, but I am constantly criticized for making trades or decisions that others think are crazy. In redraft as well. But most that have played with me or who have followed along at all know that I've done well over the years. I am a consistent winner. My receipts show it.

People like me, and there are many others as well, we do crazy ****. We make crazy trades we make crazy add/drops we make crazy bids we make crazy start sit calls... but we have method to our madness and we're balling out to win. Which we do in spades. BUT here is the message - soooooo many other owners are afraid we're the other type. The ones who leave teams in shambles from poor move after poor move. They do NOT see any method in our madness and will openly criticise and question and solicit the commish to veto... see where I'm going here?

Who gets to say whether owner X, Y or Z is a dip stick that is going to leave their team terribly or someone more like me (and again there are many like me)? Someone thinks they know the answer to that because I made some trade they didn't like?

The one that constantly comes up and I see the same thing levied at other people too, is when an owner moves a future 1st round pick. Oh holy cow does this bother some other owners. And IMHO it's usually really crappy jealous owners that can't generate any traction with their own teams because they're too risk averse. Ok I'm done ranting for the day. So glad I'm not a commish anymore.

 

[Gally]

I think some folks are sensitive to bad owners making bad decisions and you should just consider it a part of the game. I think the issue is that sometimes things become sooo top heavy in a league that it's just stupid to continue. I'll admit I've seen this a couple times and I think there can be an argument for 12 owners deciding together that it's time to reshuffle the deck and do a startup all over.

This is why I have been pushing our league to have a "random" reset that happens if some team wins it three times in a row. Similar to an Empire type league but without the Bigger Payout situation (I mean winning three times in a row should be enough of a payout).

I have actually been pushing for a complete random restart (roll dice every year and if a X comes up we restart). We would only roll dice if we haven't had a restart in at least 5 years and then roll each year until there is a restart. Totally random and nobody knows when it will happen. But most don't like that idea so it has never passed. So I changed it up a bit to after a three-peat. Somewhat random but also kind of known it could be happening. I am sure there will be some pitfalls with this idea (a poor team trading with the back to back champ to try and get him a third in row type thing) but figured it will be interesting.

League started in 2005 so everyone has learned a lot about the value of players and how to build a team. I just wanted to get a chance to start from scratch knowing what I know now and see how it goes. Well, this year the Three-Peat Reset was voted in. We will see if it ever happens again. It has happened one time 2009-2011 and we had three other times of back to back (2005-6. 2014-15, & 2018-19 - all by different teams)

That's rad, i love the random reset idea.

I hate the idea of a dynasty reset. I've been a commissioner a long long time and my advice is to become better dynasty players, rather than punish the good teams and give a do over for the flunking owners. I'd rather just replace the owners that bail because they suck at dynasty.

See, this is totally against the spirit of what I am trying to do. It's not a reset to "punish" good owners or "bail out" bad owners. It's to experience a restart having new knowledge we didn't have 20yrs ago when it started.

In addition, good owners will still get back to the top and bad owners will still fall to the bottom. A reset won't improve a bad owner and the way they work.

I just want to start from scratch and don't want to add another league or find new owners. just freshen up the existing league.

 

[Gally]

You just need a plan luck and some conviction more luck. And some luck of course.

FYP