Apolyton Fantasy Football Auction League is open for business

[-Jrabbit]

How is it hurting me? I'm happy to see him playing well and vindicating the pick. He only hurts me when I play MRT, and hurts you just the same. You're hurt every week he outperforms your flex.

So close; you almost had it there. Let me FTFY:

You're hurt every week he outperforms your TE.

Ok, but arguing that the trade was 'unbalanced' or 'unfair' makes no sense to me. You got value, I got value. I don't honestly see the deal as a bad one. I can see if you're high on Rudolph why you'd turn it down. I think Witten was the best player involved. Which is good deal for you down the road. flex WRs are not hard to find.

Despite the fact that you asked for him in trade and that Snoopy pointed out the buzz on him, you haven't yet managed to perceive that I value Michael Floyd.

Given that you weren't willing to trade a starter for a starter, that means he's not a consensus starter.

And that's why you dropped him? I hereby refuse to trade for Drew Brees.

I tried to make a deal. Nobody wanted to trade another starter straight up for Witten which makes him not starting caliber.

I believe he is starting for MRT this week...

[MRT144]

MRT, just want to make sure you fully understand the FAAB bit: *all* players are placed on waivers *every single week* for the first few days after games. IE, Drew Brees dies in a car accident tomorrow, whomever his backup is goes for $30 FAAB easy.

I understand that and still feel that Witten will be the only bonafide starter worth putting money on, even with injuries to studs. The backups to studs usually are flaming hot garbage or already taken and play a role in their offense like Sproles or Woodhead. I will buy the owners of Brees, Manning, et al a pizza if they go down, they bid on their backup and the backup outperforms Witten on a PPG positional basis. 40 dollars max.

[MRT144]

Isn't that what I was saying, it's not the deal, it's me. I have no doubt that had it been another player, JR would have accepted the deal.



JR's rejection of the trade indicates he didn't think Witten is a starter. An opinion at variance with almost everyone in fantasy. I was shocked by that.



It vindicates my opinion of him as a starter. I thought it was curious that people were sending back any trade for Witten that involved a starter. I was like, really? He's a starter. Starter TE for flex is even.



Gives me an idea where people's heads actually are. That's the information I really care about. It gets tiresome swimming through the acres of crap people shovel out here.



Why? I don't feel bad at all. I'm happy he'll be starting for a team that actually wants him.



Don't know. I passed him over in IDP. Only bid on him because I thought he was undervalued in Auction. I personally see Witten as a top 3 TE. Surprises me that most don't. Who else is really there?

Wait. Hold on. Are Fleener and Walker 1 and 2?

And going further up, you had doubts Witten was a starter based on trade rejections? Despite you deeming him worthy of a bid at auction? How do trade solicitations take precedent over your own initial reaction. It's not like he's a completely sunk cost to you at this point - he hasn't even played a game this year.

And Yes, your caustic personality leads me to be suspicious of you, why is this surprising at this point in time? It's also not all about you though. I could probably make similar trade offers with Witten now and they'd be rejected. I probably need a backup WR while Welker is drying out but I wouldn't be surprised if no one took an offer for Witten unless they really had a rogue's gallery at TE and an abundance of WRs.

When I saw you were releasing him I immediately thought he was injured and had to scour Dallas Cowboy from your local news. That is how insane such a release is, where the only cogent explanation is he is unable to play the game.

[Ben Kenobi]

Despite the fact that you asked for him in trade and that Snoopy pointed out the buzz on him, you haven't yet managed to perceive that I value Michael Floyd.

Given that I bid for him, yes, I perceive your value for him. Hell, I owned him last year. I like the guy. I also like Witten, both are good players. That's why I thought the deal was fair, and I thought Witten was the more valuable player.

And that's why you dropped him?

Four people refused to trade for him, I was a bit shocked at that, but whatever. I know there's a general 'Kenobi discount' and it's tough to swing a deal. I wanted to swing one for Witten while his value was highest. He gets injured I end up with nothing. Here - someone else gets that risk, and I can move on. I'm cutting my losses since I couldn't swing a deal.

I believe he is starting for MRT this week

Which makes me amused that you turned down the deal. *I* thought he was a starter, you did not. If Witten beats out Floyd it will be a hoot.

As for Lacy, Blagh. I own him in IDP. I want him to kick ass. *sigh*.

[Ben Kenobi]

Wait. Hold on. Are Fleener and Walker 1 and 2?

TE1 - Graham

TE2 - Davis
TE3 - Witten
TE4 - Thomas
TE5 - Cameron

and Walker's in the mix with all the others.

Graham's on my 'let someone else pay the TE premium'. Davis was my TE2. Those are the only TE's on my bid list save Gates.

Green was not on my bid list. If I couldn't get any of those the backup plan was a buck for Walker or someone similar.

[Ben Kenobi]

I understand that and still feel that Witten will be the only bonafide starter worth putting money on, even with injuries to studs. The backups to studs usually are flaming hot garbage or already taken and play a role in their offense like Sproles or Woodhead. I will buy the owners of Brees, Manning, et al a pizza if they go down, they bid on their backup and the backup outperforms Witten on a PPG positional basis. 40 dollars max.

Will be a hoot if Witten gets a freak injury again.

[MRT144]

Delanie Walker is my TE1, I'm not scared of the Titans. I grabbed Fleener as cheap insurance.

TE's not even my biggest need. I really need a Cutler for an RB trade.

Still though, you think Walker will outperform Witten on a week by week basis or in specific matchups? I mean, that's a POV and I obviously can't shake you of it now but even so, is your hope that Witten will be so proficient that I somehow eliminate everyone BUT you from contention?

Also, I always felt that you stocking up on QBs in the hope of trading them was kinda risky but I find it hard to believe you'd drop Cutler because nobody wanted to trade for him and you'd pick up an RB from the Free Agency pool afterwards. Is there a different logic at play here for the position?

[MRT144]

Will be a hoot if Witten gets a freak injury again.

I just hope everyone has good pizza nearby.

[snoopy369]

I understand that and still feel that Witten will be the only bonafide starter worth putting money on, even with injuries to studs. The backups to studs usually are flaming hot garbage or already taken and play a role in their offense like Sproles or Woodhead. I will buy the owners of Brees, Manning, et al a pizza if they go down, they bid on their backup and the backup outperforms Witten on a PPG positional basis. 40 dollars max.

If that's the case, then it's honestly an indictment of our overly large benches. In my ESPN league, with reasonable bench sizes, there was a lot of solid waiver wire acquisitions. Zac Stacy, for example, went for $52 (this is a keeper league, which is part of that). T.Y. Hilton. Le'Veon Bell. Brian Hartline. Harry Douglas. Quite a few high-quality starters were on the waiver wire in October and even November as injuries piled up.

[Ben Kenobi]

Still though, you think Walker will outperform Witten on a week by week basis or in specific matchups?

The plan was to trade Witten to get a flex.

I think Witten is a higher risk of an injury, yes. It's happened before. That's why I wanted to trade Witten ASAP while his value was high, and get a serviceable starter in return. I trade a player that people at present perceive that his value is high, for a player that I perceive his value is higher than other people. It's all about relative value.

If I'm valuing my trade bait higher than other people, that's a bad sign. It's a sign that I've overvalued a player. Remember, it's not just about his actual value, but his relative value. I want a player that other people value more than me, not a player that I value more than others.

The response I was getting back from others is that I've overvalued Witten, to the point where he was a interchangeable with Walker in value. That was a shock to me. So I figured I'd cut him, and pick up Walker because I'd made a mistake in valuing Witten.

I mean, that's a POV and I obviously can't shake you of it now but even so, is your hope that Witten will be so proficient that I somehow eliminate everyone BUT you from contention?

I don't want the risk of Witten picking up another injury and see his value drop to nil.

Also, I always felt that you stocking up on QBs in the hope of trading them was kinda risky but I find it hard to believe you'd drop Cutler because nobody wanted to trade for him and you'd pick up an RB from the Free Agency pool afterwards. Is there a different logic at play here for the position?

For Cutler? He's on my trade sheet. I want a RB for Cutler. All offers considered. The Cutler store is open 24/7 for all your nostalgic Bears fans.

Buy Cutler today!

[MRT144]

If that's the case, then it's honestly an indictment of our overly large benches. In my ESPN league, with reasonable bench sizes, there was a lot of solid waiver wire acquisitions. Zac Stacy, for example, went for $52 (this is a keeper league, which is part of that). T.Y. Hilton. Le'Veon Bell. Brian Hartline. Harry Douglas. Quite a few high-quality starters were on the waiver wire in October and even November as injuries piled up.

You might be right about that. I think that the backups for the Top 5 QBs and Top 5 RBs are so far below the players they are replacing that they wouldn't be a Top 5 player at their position while they replace Brees, Jamaal Charles, etc etc. I absolutely believe Witten, when healthy and playing is better at his position than any possible acquisition that could be made for a backup. WRs are a different kettle of fish and if TY Hilton (who I am totally all in on this year) was available on waivers I'd take him, toot suite. And I think you could make a good argument that a currently unowned #2 WR on some NFL teams could become top 10 at WR if the #1 option went down. But the issue is how many unowned #2 WRs there are? For that matter, how many #1s went undrafted. Does anyone know who the starting WRs in Cleveland are?

I always feel that larger benches are for the benefit of less active players so they don't have to manage the waiver wire with people like me and Berz are all over it. Next year I'll probably reduce the bench size by 1 and see how it goes. It's arguable that I wouldn't have Houston's D if we had one less bench slot or a backup TE so the difference might be 2 bench slots. Honestly, my gut tells me that there would just be more team Ds and TEs available, not WRs or RBs.

[snoopy369]

Two down would be right in my book. That will end up with some more RBs and WRs because some people want two DEFs (to play matchups). Carlos Hyde type players really should be relatively rarely owned. Look at the percentage of yahoo owned for some of out bench players. Ludicrous.

[snoopy369]

Example of my ten team five bench ESPN league's WW:
Fred Jackson
Hyde
Shonne Greene
Tre Mason
Ruben Randle
Mike Williams
James Jones
Geno Smith
Brian Hoyer

Etc. Not top line starters (Fred Jackson is sort of a special case) but potential good players if things roll their way.

[Ben Kenobi]

Two down would be right in my book. That will end up with some more RBs and WRs because some people want two DEFs (to play matchups). Carlos Hyde type players really should be relatively rarely owned. Look at the percentage of yahoo owned for some of out bench players. Ludicrous.

I like the big benches. I think it pays off for the folks who are willing to work waivers all year.

[MRT144]

Two down would be right in my book. That will end up with some more RBs and WRs because some people want two DEFs (to play matchups). Carlos Hyde type players really should be relatively rarely owned. Look at the percentage of yahoo owned for some of out bench players. Ludicrous.

I was specifically thinking of Hyde as a player who would be a perfect FAAB bidding war candidate but yes, is owned.