Entries from November 2007 ↓

Q:  This trade occurred in week 2: Mike Furrey for Phillip Rivers.

His need at WR is greater than my need at QB. The bigger picture here is this - this is a game of supply and demand suggesting that in analysing the fairness of a trade we need to consider looking at roster requirements and availability of quality players at each position and the value each player has to its owner. There are 32 starting QBs in the NFL, there are 16 teams here just starting 1 QB every week. There are 32 or so starting RBs in the NFL, there are 16 teams starting at least 2 (max 3) RBs every week.   There are 64 number 1 and number 2 WRs in the NFL, here we start anywhere between 3 and 5 WRs every week. Obviously, the rarer commodity here is RBs, then WRs, and then QBs.

A:  Hi Tom, thanks for the inquiry.  First off, while we agree that the veto rule is flawed we also believe that it is a necessary component of any fantasy league.  Furthermore, we agree that it is in place to prevent two teams from working together but also to prevent situations where the exchange of players is simply too unfair, even without evidence of collusion.  Your league needs to be protected from unintelligent owners to preserve the balance of power in the league.

So with that in mind, it is completely acceptable in our minds to veto a trade like this simply on the grounds that one team is gaining significantly more value.  The trade at hand, by a standard scoring system reveals the following:

Rivers - 1,639 yds, 10TDs, 8INTs = 56.7 points
Furrey - 29 recs, 360 yds, 1 TD = 24 points

That’s a very substantial difference.  Detroit has a very crowded receiving corp and with the recent success of their running game, Furrey will have an even harder time putting up points.  In a normal size league, this discrepancy would be too much and we’d recommend a veto.

But, as you correctly pointed out, supply/demand is a factor.  With 16 teams at 25 roster spots each that’s 400 players on a team which makes your free agent pool extremely barren.  In fact there are really only 150 receivers in the entire NFL that have put up any points this season.  And that’s a stretch, for example, Ashley Lelie is the 121st ranked WRs and he has only 5 catches for 72 yards and 0 TDs - which makes Furrey look like Terrell Owens in comparison (he’s in the top 60 WRs).

Again, we do believe that trades should vetoed simply because they are unfair and not just because two teams are working together.  But your league is about as deep as it gets, meaning that a very legitimate argument can be made that both teams benefit from this trade so we think the trade should be allowed.  If your other owners disagree they
should find a league with less teams and a more bountiful free agent pool where a Rivers for Furrey trade would never stand.

Q:  Hopefully you can give a good objective advice on how my league should implement a keeper limit change.  Our league managers have played together for about 8 years now.  This is my 2nd year as commish - and I’m the only girl in a 10-team league.  So, I want to make sure I announce the right and fair decision as to how the keeper limit change should go starting from next season.

Three years ago, we changed to a keeper league with proper league rules and everything.  We had it set up where you can keep a player not in the first 3 rounds for up to three years (player’s draft round gets “elevated” each year).

Now that we are in our 3rd year, many of the managers have complained that three years is too long.  So we had a vote and an overwhelming voted to change the keeper limit to two years.  This change will go into effect starting next season.  Now the problem is how to handle the change…

We had another vote and I gave them three options.  I asked if they wanted:
(a) The change to be ABSOLUTE?  You can keep your current 1st yr. keeper for one more year next year & cannot keep your current 2nd yr. keeper for another year next year.
(b) The change to allow GRANDFATHERING of current keepers?  Your current 1st and 2nd yr. keepers are NOT subject to the two year limit.  Therefore, you can keep your current 1st yr. keeper for two more years (total 3 yrs) & keep your current 2nd yr. keeper for one more year (total 3 yrs). New 1st yr. keepers at next year’s draft will have the two yr. limit though.
(c) The change to be a COMPROMISE between the two above? It will be a “limited grandfathering” combination where current 2nd year keepers are grandfathered so they can be kept for 1 more year next year (3 yrs. total) and current 1st year keepers are subject to the 2 yr. limit (can be kept for 1 more year only). All current 3rd yr keepers can’t be kept again anyways so this change doesn’t affect them. Any new keepers next year are also subject to the 2 yr. limit.

About 1/3 of the managers voted for each of the three choices.  I proposed option C because I thought that would be the fairest way to handle the limit change.  However, all that voted for option A think it’s a ridiculous proposal and won’t agree with me.  The ones that voted for option B won’t budge or agree with me as well.  I am against option A because it didn’t give enough time for the managers to change their draft/keeper strategy to factor in the two year limit during this past draft.

I’m a little afraid to just go with option B because the ones for absolute change will think that the decision is a personal one (assume that I have motive).  For example, I kept T. Brady (current 2nd yr. keeper in 8th round) and J. Addai (current 1st yr. keeper in 9th round).  If we go with option B, I will get to keep T. Brady for 1 more year and J. Addai for 2 more years.  Also, I should mention that I am currently undefeated in the league (8-0).  I know some of the guys will whine about that.  As for other teams, some managers will benefit the same way I would if we went with this option.

Anyway, how do you think we could fairly handle this limit change???  Thanks in advance for your help!

A:  Thanks for the inquiry.  This is an easy one.  You’ve stated that many of the managers have complained that three years is too long.  I’m willing to wager that those managers aren’t benefiting personally from the current rule.   Ask yourself who has the best keeper for next year under your current keeper rules and I’m sure they are not the ones pushing for the change.

We’re not trying to point out character flaws amoung your league managers.  We’re simply trying to bring to the forefront an underlying theme in fantasy football - when attempting to change a league rule - all league members will vote with their own personal best interests in mind. Everyone needs to admit this!

That said, your ONLY fair choice is option b) to grandfather in current keepers.  Leagues evolve and if the majority wants to change the keeper rule going forward, so be it.  But your league’s current keepers were selected and retained strategically based on your three year rule and to change that rule after the fact is to undermine everything the managers with effective keeper strategies have sacrificed.

To be fair, any change to a a fantasy football rule needs to go into effect when the playing field is level.  That means honoring the three year eligibility of current keepers and putting this new rule into effect for each new draft - when all managers have an equal opportunity to draft new keepers.

It’s not the popular solution, but is surely the only fair solution.

Q:  Team #1 trades Torry Holt  to  Team #2 for Lamont Jordan and Joey Galloway.

A:  Hi Greg.  We don’t see a problem with the trade.  The 2007 stats show Team #1 getting slightly more out of the deal, but a good argument could be made that Team #2 is still upgrading considerably at WR. Holt isn’t off to a great start, but he is still one of the most consistent WRs in the league in recent history and that should count for something.  You also have to keep in mind that Team #2 will have an open roster spot as a result of the transaction and while they won’t be able to find a player at the level of Jordan or Galloway, they will be able to add some value.  No need to overturn this one.