Q: My commish just announced he\’s making our league a keeper league (three keepers and players taken in rounds 1 to 3 go back in the pool).
Sounds fine, but he wants it to be retroactive to last year\’s draft — my worst season ever. I blew the draft last year and that\’s the main reason I\’m against it.
Just about everyone else will be OK with it because they have three drafts — or three FAs — on last year\’s roster worth keeping.
I picked Edge in the 4th last year — a bad pick to be sure with Turner still on the board (our league scoring is tilted toward QBs). That was a stupid pick to be sure, but there\’s no way I would\’ve picked James in the 4th if I knew that was the first round of picks to be available as keepers.
I say drafting for a keeper league should be announced prior to drafting for the keeper league. Other coaches are saying it was a level playing field because everyone went into last year\’s draft without knowledge there would be keepers.
What do you think?
A: Well, we agree with you. The only way to ensure a level playing field when adopting keeper rules is to announce the change prior to the draft in question. The obvious reasoning behind this is that keeper league potential will affect the way you draft.
That said, what your commish is doing doesn’t violate any rules your league has previously established. It may favor the owners who had more productive drafts last season, but this situations usually come down to majority rules and unfortunately, it appears you are in the minority. The options are to adjust your draft strategy or leave the league.
This isn’t a problem though. It’s very common for owners to go “keeper crazy” in their first few years of a keeper league and you end up having a slight advantage over some other owners who are too attached to certain players to realize they are overvaluing their keeper status.
Solid article from KFFL listing the top fantasy football players in a contract year in 2009. This is a very comprehensive list and includes additional notes, current years pro for each player and is organized by position.
While the idea that a player in a contract year will perform above his potential is by no means guaranteed, it is definitely a factor that should be examined before your fantasy draft.
Q: The following trade was accepted in a modified Yahoo, Non-keeper, 14 team PPR league(.5 per reception). This is a post draft, pre-season trade. The roster positions in the league consist of: QB, WR, WR, WR, RB, RB, W/R, K, DEF, BEN (X7). This trade has been disputed. Could you please read the following arguments and make a neutral ruling on our behalf? Thank you very much.
Trade in question: Marques Colston, DeAngelo Williams, Fred Taylor FOR Hines Ward, Willie Parker, Chester Taylor, Eli Manning
Summary of all arguments AGAINST the trade:
“This trade should be vetoed because it only makes one team better. Lions starters are Warner, Steve Smith, Colston, Berrian, DeAngelo Williams, McFadden, Boss, Hester with Kerry Collins already on his bench as a back-up QB. Willie Parker is ranked 62nd and is in a RBBC. Chester Taylor is ranked 121 and is stuck behind the best running back in the league. Hines Ward is not only old but is expected to give up even more looks to Santonio Holmes this year. He’s ranked 61. Are the 61st, 62nd, and 121st ranked players even a fair trade for the 6th ranked player on the Yahoo! Board? I don’t think so. Not to mention that Colston, Drew’s now healthy WR1 stud receiver (ranked 32nd) and Fred Taylor (who cares-ranked 155) is also being given to GAGZ for a quarterback that’s not much of an upgrade at back-up. There is no way that this trade is fair in even the most lenient perspective. No offense to my fellow managers but it is for these lop-sided trades that vetoes need to be laid out for the sake of the integrity of the rest of our league.
If this trade happens the lions will be giving up two top 20 players. His starters will be Warner(QB), Smith(WR), Ward(WR), Berrian(WR), Parker (RB), McFadden(RB), Boss(TE), Hester(W/R) with Fred Taylor, Eli, and Kerry Collins on the bench. This is a much worse roster than Warner, Smith, Colston, Berrian, D-Will, McFadden, Boss, and Hester that he would already be fielding without a trade.
Right now GAGZ starters are: Brady(QB), Ward(WR), Roy Williams(WR), Welker(WR), Thomas Jones(RB), Parker(RB), Witten(TE), Julius Jones(W/R). Eli and Taylor are just sitting on his bench. If this trade goes through GAGZ’s starters will be Brady, Colston, R.Williams, Welker, T.Jones, DeAngelo Williams, Witten, and Julius Jones. Obviously a much stronger roster for a team in a 14 team league! He gives up Ward and Parker as starters and plugs in Colston and D-will. This will unbalance the league giving him 2 rbs that rushed over 1500 yards last year and he is not giving up a whole lot to get him
Summary of all arguments FOR the trade:
An argument in support of this trade was not submitted within the time constraints laid out in the league trade policy. The trade was accepted on Wednesday July 1st. All e-mails containing arguments, for and against, were due on Friday.
A: We recommend that you veto this trade. Here are our thoughts. Let’s analyze this trade by position.
RB – Team GAGZ acquires a major advantage at running back in receiving D. Williams (#8 rank overall on ESPN) and F.Taylor (#92) while giving up Parker (#51) and C.Taylor (#110). Essentially, two individual upgrades at RB – including the best player in trade in in Williams.
WR – Again, Team GAGZ acquires an advantage at wideout in receiving Colston (#33) for Ward (#68). While this advantage is not as sizeable as at the RB position, it is an advantage nonetheless.
That leaves QB, where The Lions are picking up Eli Manning. We understand the importance of adding depth at the QB spot. It’s a long season, Colins is a spotty backup, and Warner doesn’t move around well enough to ensure his safety each week. However, the added depth is simply not enough to offset the very significant upgrades that Team GAGZ is getting at both WR and RB.
