Our Ask the Arbitrator feature provides quick, unbiased trade review when controversy divides your league. Today's trade dispute comes from Joshua Johnson's .5 PPR keeper league (max of three players kept):
This trade should be upheld. Normally, the standard of review is simple: could a reasonable fantasy football manager make a case for this trade helping their team this season? But this is a keeper league. In a keeper or dynasty league, the standard of review is even lower because the rationale and ramifications extend beyond this season. So, let's take a look at what is really happening here.
Team 1 gives up two young SEC RBs in Zac Stacy and Isaiah Crowell (initially played for Georgia before transferring to FCS) to Team 2 for up-and-coming TE Travis Kelce and young QB Nick Foles.
Zac Stacy is the starting RB in St. Louis and has looked good in his first two seasons. Crowell is a rookie in a crowded backfield, but many believe he is the most talented back in Cleveland.
Travis Kelce is quickly becoming a TE1 in PPR scoring while Nick Foles is a top-10 QB in either format. As starters go, Foles and Kelce are probably better players than Stacy and Crowell right now. But it's entirely possible that Kelce is a backup RB for Team 2 while Foles could be his team's QB1 or QB2.
Team 1 is most likely starting Stacy and stashing Crowell. So, in effect, this is a situation where Team 1 cashes in on his RB depth (one starter and one stash) for an upgrade at QB and TE.
For Team 2, they sacrifice depth for a RB who is a stud right now and a RB who is predicted to be a stud soon. And this is a keeper league.
Whether Team 2 truly has enough depth to pay this price is in the eye of the beholder. Whether Foles and Kelce are worth losing a stud RB in Stacy and a potential stud in Crowell is up to Team 1 to decide.
This trade would be borderline if it were a redraft league, in which case it would essentially be Stacy and a lottery ticket at RB for Foles and Kelce. But this is a keeper league, so the lower standard of review saves the trade.
Ruling: The trade should be upheld.
Do you have a trade dividing your league? Send it to us and we'll arbitrate the dispute.
That being said, I don't care if the Chiefs were an original member of the AFL or that their uniforms have remained the same since the beginning. The Chiefs are flat-out boring. Even when they had Priest Holmes, Dante Hall, and Larry Johnson they were boring. They're boring with Jamaal Charles in the backfield. Their color scheme makes them look like they're coached by Ronald McDonald (when they're actually coached by the Kool-Aid Man).
Their QB is "efficient" . . . which means he doesn't suck, but he's boring. That's pretty much the Chiefs' M.O. The same could be said for Cassel before him. Or Trent Green save for a couple seasons. Or Rich Gannon before he became a league MVP in Oakland. Or Joe Montana when he played for the Chiefs long past his prime. Or Steve DeBerg. The list goes on.
Their top wide receiver is a top wide receiver only in that he is the best guy at his position on his team. The only thing consistent about him is the ability to drop passes and disappoint both Chiefs fans and fantasy football managers dumb enough to draft him. Yet he's the best they've got because the Chiefs front office looked at their horrible passing game after last season and decided not to improve it.
Because they're consistently mediocre, they rarely have a very high draft pick. But they recently were so bad (but still boring) they were awarded the number one pick in the draft . . . and they spent it on a lineman from Central Michigan who went on to a horrible season at right tackle. Now, that's boring Chiefs football.
The most exciting era in recent Chiefs history was coached by Marty Schottenheimer. Think about that. While I think Schotty was a good coach, "Marty Ball" was flat out boring . . . and that's as good as it's going to get for Chiefs fans.
Even their name is boring because they can't even misappropriate Native American culture correctly. While everyone has a firm stance on whether the Washington Redskins is offensive, no one even seems to care about the Chiefs and their own headdress-wearing fans. The Chiefs use just enough imagery to let you know what kind of chiefs they're referring to but not enough to make the team or its identity at all exciting.
I grew up in and live in Oklahoma (which, for the geographically-challenged, borders Kansas and Missouri), and I've only seen two people in my lifetime wear Chiefs merchandise. One was a homeless guy who wore the same Chiefs Starter jacket for years (because it was probably free), and the other grew up to be a Juggalo. That's even more amazing when you consider Hall of Fame Chiefs lineman Will Shields is from my hometown. One of the best players of his era was from a town one state away and yet no one there rooted for his team. That's some elite-level indifference right there. And that's everyone's opinion of the Chiefs: indifferent. No one hates the Chiefs because they never do anything to threaten your own team on the field (like division "rival" Denver) and never do anything worth arguing over off the field (like, say, the Raiders).
I've known more Chargers, Jaguars, Bengals and Browns fans in my life than Chiefs fans . . . and they're thisclose to us. Yet, due to the NFL rules on regional broadcasts, I'm routinely left with only one option: watching the Chiefs on a Sunday either lose terrifically or win boringly. Then, when anyone suggests Oklahoma City as a possible NFL-expansion location, people say we've already got the Cowboys, Chiefs and Rams, not realizing that no one here likes the Chiefs and the only Rams "fans" here are just Sam Bradford fans hoping he makes OU look good. But no one likes the Chiefs. No one. And yet, outside of the Cowboys, I've seen more Chiefs games than any other halfway interesting franchise. Thanks a lot, Kansas City.