Gonzo looks slow and worn down to me. He’s only got 1 game this year with more than 41 yards.
I mean, he beats Gronkowski, my only other TE, so I’m not totally down on him, but it seems like it’s about time for him to retire.
The trade page says this won’t be reflected until week 7 - I missed the cutoff by 3 hours. Is there any chance (if this doesn’t get vetoed) we could name our intended starters and retroactively have them put in the lineups after the trade goes through?
I know that’s kind of asking for special treatment, except I’d do it for anyone that asked in the leagues where I’m the commish - that’s the whole point of me switching it to commissioner approval, to give people time over the weekend to finish up trades and still get them processed before game time. Varlos didn’t seem opposed to the idea of fast tracking trades entirely, just that he worried about whether or not he’d be around to make them all happen. Well, with the ability to retroactively set rosters after the week, that wouldn’t have to be an issue - if both players declared their intention then you could just go back and fix it after the trade completes.
Meh. If he does it for you, he kinda has to do it for every trade. Personally, I think the retroactive lineup thing should be used only in emergencies - in hospital so you couldn’t change your starters, etc.
Well, yeah - I mean, I’d want it to be done for every trade. That’s why I do it in the other leagues for everyone. His concern was that he might not be around Sunday morning to process last minute trades, and I’m suggesting that with retroactive roster modification, so long as people declare their intentions, it becomes a moot point.
No big deal about the timing issue. I just thought I’d throw it out there for discussion. It does seem like good policy - the best time to do trades is on Friday and Saturday because you have status updates and that’s when people have time to talk, yet that’s too late to get the trade processed in time by default.
To add to Beef’s defense of this trade, I haven’t started Orton a single time this season even though he’s put up some huge numbers just because he’s Kyle Orton. Who would have guessed he had that kind of production in him? I honestly expect him to trail off any day now (and it’ll probably happen this weekend when I planned to start him with Vick hurt).
On that note, I also pulled the trigger on this trade because I was going crazy with so many good QBs. I have five starting QBs on my team and, obviously, I can only start one. I was also desperate for more RB/WR help. Plus I’m worried that Gonzo will retire and I’d lose a productive offensive player next year with nothing to show for it. This trade solves many of my problems.
I totally understand your feelings about him being Kyle Orton. In my money league I’ve had him on the bench all season in favor of Brett Favre and David Garrard. That’s how inexplicable this is.
I voted against that trade. Royal is a complete nothing. In most leagues he’s not even rosterable. Gonzo doesn’t have much left in the tank but for this season he’s still more valuable than Royal right now.Going forward Orton outweighs Royal by some much it’s embarrassing.
Obviously it’s time for me to start cooking up some trades if people will accept move like this one!
Orton is the #11 ranked scoring WR right now, which definitely isn’t WR3 unless you think it’s a total fluke. Orton is the #3 QB. Of the two, Royal seems more likely to finish the year around his current position (or better) than Orton. I honestly don’t even know if Orton will be the starter next year - would anyone be willing to bet on that?
I’d also like to add that this doesn’t even change the balance of the league very much since Aaron Rodgers will still be my starting QB pretty much always. So unless I turn around and trade Rodgers or something (which I may do, if my RB situation gets desperate enough or I get a good enough offer), it barely affects my scoring output.
Incidentally, in all these years, have any trades ever been vetoed in SDMB leagues? I can think of a few that caused a stir but none that have actually been vetoed.
Holy shit, I’m in Box City. I’m on my cell phone, or else I’d get into this in more detail.
I said earlier that in general I wouldn’t be fast-tracking trades, but that it wasn’t impossible if circumstances seemed to warrant it. In this case, I think they do: we’ll have almost the entire two-day review period for people to vote the trade down, and it’s a trade that’s largely without a purpose for one team if it doesn’t go through for this week (is Aaron Rodgers still probably a scratch?).
I’ve always maintained that retroactive roster adjustments per se are fine as long as one’s intentions are made crystal clear beforehand. (But please try not to abuse the privilege by, for instance, making it my job to help you take advantage of any game-time decisions, except in relatively exceptional circumstances.)
That said, I don’t have commissioner approval turned on, and so might not have the ability to fast track it. Am I able to retroactively adjust rosters even if the players were on a different teams at the time? It’s possible, I suppose, that I don’t have the ability to do anything (in which case I’ll turn on commish approval next season).
Who is Beef’s opponent this week? Does he have an opinion? I won’t be around much, but I’ll try to check in tonight, or at least tomorrow morning.
Rodgers is cleared to play, has practiced, and is a virtual guarantee to start. (Plus, Orton plays the Jets.) I’m Beef’s opponent, and I’m fine with whatever he wants to do. This is a matchup between the top two teams in the league; it shouldn’t be decided by bookkeeping issues.
As a general rule, I’m an advocate for using the commish as a fail-safe game-time decision manager. If anyone in the keeper league posts their intention for a game-time decision, eg “I want to play x if he starts or y if he doesn’t,” as long as they post it before the game actually starts I’m happy to retroactively give them their preferred lineup.
IMO, fantasy shouldn’t be about not being able to get the game-time decision info. I guess some might view that as just part of FF, but I do not. I view it as the equivalent to having a power outage Sunday morning before you set your rosters. In all possible cases it should be removed from the game.
Just my opinion. I’m not bothered at all if you (and Beef) want to run the other leagues differently, as it rarely comes up and when it does it’s not like it’s the end of the world anyway.
This isn’t too urgent because it looks like Rodgers is okay, although my TE situation is almost equally urgent with Finley going down, I’d be looking at starting Rob Gronkowski. I’d much rather have Gonzalez.
I wouldn’t ask to do anything I wouldn’t do for anyone else or that I didn’t think was good policy. This trade, I guess, may end up getting veto votes anyway, I’m not sure who’s going to go so far as to veto it, so you may want to delay it for that reason. Or at least… only retroactively change the rosters pending a non-veto.
It’s not urgent, so if this is a problem don’t get too worked up about it. I did only miss the 48 hour processing period by about 2 hours though, so that seems like a silly reason to scratch a week. Anyway, not a big deal, just seems like good policy in general to me to be able to get trades done on fri/sat and still have them go into effect.
If it’s necesary to make people happy, I’d probably be willing to throw something else in - but I think people are evaluating this too much on the short term. How many more years is Gonzo going to play? I’ve seen him play two games this year and he seems to have lost a lot - I think he’s got till the end of the year, or maybe one more. He’s a dynasty dead end.
And what are the odds Orton starts the next 3 years? It’s not guaranteed. McDaniels is more willing than anyone to thumb his nose at the league and defy conventional wisdom. He drafted Tebow in the first round. There’s a decent chance he tries to prove the NFL wrong and turn him into a starting QB. Orton is doing great right now, but is it Orton or is McDaniels a QB genius? Probably somewhere in between. What would you put as a percentage chance that Orton is the starter for the next three years?
Compare this to… how long is Royal going to be a productive WR? He’s #11 in the league in scoring right now and it’s not from one flukey big game. He’s young, in his third year, and in a productive offense. He has higher long term upside than either of those guys and he’s pretty much guaranteed to not be a backup.
As far as league balance goes, what’s the best case scenario for me? Orton stays the starter and produces at a top 8 type level - but I already have Rodgers producing at a top 3 level. So unless I trade away one, Orton will have backup status most of the time. Gonzalez may play at a lower level for a few more years - but I’ve got Finley who I will always start when healthy. So most of the time I won’t even be starting either of these players. Gonzo is a one year injury fill-in, and barring a trade, Orton is a backup on a hot streak. I guess maybe I can play matchups between him and Rodgers. Either way it’s not like I’m going from mediocre QB production to high.
I think people aren’t appreciating the dynastic aspects of this enough. Royal for Gonzo would be an okay trade in a redraft league, but it would be stacked against the Royal owner in a dynasty trade. Orton is maybe less justifiable if you think he’s turned into Peyton Manning, but I’m not sure how many of us seriously believe he’ll keep up anywhere near his current production.
Edit: Incidentally I was given a choice of QBs in the trade, so if it would make people happier I could “downgrade” to Michael Vick.
Ok, so here’s the deal: since Aaron Rodgers looks like a go, and Justin still has Orton and Gonzo plugged into his starting roster and I don’t know who should be started in their stead, I think the balance in the “retro-fast track the trade” question is tipped toward not doing it. If there’s a god in heaven, Beef’s game this week won’t be decided by the difference between Gonzo and Gostowski, and this won’t be a thing.
Oh, and in passing, I think Beef’s defense of the trade as being pretty fair is a good one, though I’m SOMEWHAT more sanguine about Orton’s chances to be a starter somewhere over the long-term. Certainly I don’t think it’s necessary (or even wise, heh) to be offering to downgrade your end of the trade absent its being voted down.
I have a feeling that Gonzo’s gonna end up putting up 22 points, Gronkowski will put up 0, Royal will score the the same as the guy I’d replace him with (probably Bess), and I lose by 20 points.
Then I’m gonna set myself on fire.
Ellis Dee will probably win handily actually, he’s got so many good matchups and I don’t at all.
I actually have gone back in a trade and added more to my side of the deal just to settle some protest. I have a long and distinguished history of making trades that make people grab torches and pitchforks and charge my castle. You saw one instance in the auction league earlier this year - this objection is much more justified but almost every damn time I make a trade I go into a bunker.