I got Tyreek, should I trade for Davante Adams? Someone sent me that trade, wondering if I should accept.
No way in hell or anywhere else.
Hill is 29. Adams will be 31 in December. Both are tremendous talents, but I would run with Hill, even though I’m a Raider fan and have Davante in a couple of leagues.
However, you did not say what kind of league this is? Redraft or keeper/dynasty? In a longer term league, I would take Davante, because his skill set will give him a few more years. When the Cheetah loses his speed, we still don’t know if he will be able to get separation without his speed to help him. Speed WR’s hit the cliff fast after 30.
Redraft. Honestly, it’s not even me who has tyreek. Some other people were trying to make that trade. I’m just here because I just vetoed that trade and I wanted to see everyone’s reactions on this forum. The person who didn’t get tyreek feels like he’s treated unfair because he was trying to get tyreek from the person in last place and he’s in first place. The person in last place admitted to not caring about the season as much anymore.
I don’t like the trade but no commissioner had the right to veto it.
I did make a statement that I would veto trades if they got too crazy. Maybe I should just have allowed vetos in the first place. I changed the settings back to vetos now, but I didn’t think someone would be trading the best player in fantasy(by current numbers) for rank #10 wider receiver at the time the trade took place. (During week 8)
Edit: Also, the person who didn’t get Tyreek doesn’t even want vetos. He’d rather have free lance trading. Knowing that, what’s stopping us from killing the vibe and stacking teams if I just let that one slide?
I’ve been doing this a long time and this trade is FAR from crazy.
Why is Hill Best? According to who? I use 4 different rankings and they all disagree. Is it at the draft? The week? ROS? Do you add SOS? Do you consider Achane’s return taking away targets?
Just a bit of what you don’t know and why you do not veto. It causes nothing but problems.
This is the key right here. I wouldn’t typically veto trades made in good faith, but when you have one side of the trade admitting that they are not trying to make their team better by way of the trade, then you have a trade that was not made in the spirit of good-faith competition, and vetoing would in fact be an option–not because the trade is “unfair,” but because it was not a bona fide attempt by both owners to improve their teams.
Thank you, this is my point. I do have to take the blame for not allowing league vetos instead of having people trust my intuition. I guarantee the league would not have allowed that regardless but at least he gets to see I’m not speaking for the league.
The man sees a clear gap between a Kincaid and Marquise Brown trade but refuses to see the gap between Tyreek and Adams at week 8. Mainly because of the veto that already happened with Hill and Adams so he wanted to prove a point.
Sounds like a zoo. It’s not your job to look for intent, just a good or bad trade.
This is why I prefer dynasty to redraft.