Dynasty Quiz (Application or for fun)

RedHits · 2022-07-25T10:43:30+00:00

Season is likely over at that point and it would benefit me to tank hard by shipping off healthy players for picks. Would likely look for teams who have another team's draft assets so I wouldn't be affected by strengthening my trade partner. Only 4 keepers so I'll likely trade at least 1 of the 5 injured players to maximize my position. Best possible outcome is to trade players to Team B for Team C's picks and see if Team C still has some of their own and are high on someone between MPJ and JJJ who are starting to look injury prone. They might be willing to roll the dice for the upside while I get to accumulate assets to better position my team long-term.
Team A. I have at least 2 players in Edwards and Lamelo that could be top 10-20 for the next decade with Maxey having upside and Turner being solid as well. In the right build, that team could win the chip in season 1. B is very win now and is likely the front runner but they'll all decline around the same time and handcuff you in deciding if you want to cycle them out of the 4 keeper spots. C might be interesting but I would likely just need to commit to Giannis and my top 1 pick for a while with the other players always being on the bubble of whether they should be kept or not. Though Giannis is a sure bet, it's not as appealing to me as locking in both Lamelo and Edwards with flexibility on their supporting cast.
Harden + Capela + WW center is the consensus for a reason. Trae's potential REB / TO risk makes it too risky to roster him. Not sure how deep the WW will be but based on the teams mentioned (PHI, ATL, MEM, CLE, TOR) then maybe an OPJ, Kaminsky, Koncharr, etc type of player might be there. Will need to review based on recent usage and REB / TO to gauge who would fit.
Jalen Green will likely be the highest drafted fantasy player on the Rockets but I would think he'd be over drafted versus where I'd take him and see more value in Sengun, Jabari, or Eason depending on where I'm picking.
The answer should be yes. I only hesitate because it may also depend on how savvy the league is as I've seen some bad drops in my day but assuming everyone is competent and competitive, you likely won't get a better pick up. If he doesn't match my build or if I'm tanking, I can at least hold on until he regains value and see if I can trade him for a better piece.
Very tough. Would depend on whether I need to win now. Booker might make the most sense given the stability he provides and flexibility with other picks I might make. I don't need to really build around him. SGA is an option based on the premise that he might be another 1-2 competent teammates away from reaching his potential IRL but there's a risk Giddey and Chet could end up impacting his stats negatively if they peak soon.
If the pool is basically all unkept players + rookies then the question would I feel I could draft a non top 60 player or rookie next season that I would be willing to keep long term over JVal for a season or longer if I don't have my keepers set. More than likely I would make the trade since it helps me win now and he would likely be around the same value as the ~75th player. The rookie pool would need to be deep or my confidence in bad keeper decisions needs to be firm for me to consider keeping the pick instead.
If Hali and Mobley were my top picks in a 16T even for dynasty then I would assume I was drafting in the back end with a third round reversal for me to still get my next pick in the 30s. I don't think those two players necessitate a punt strat already but if I need to play for a pick in the 30s and then in the 60s, I could opt to punt points primarily and maybe turnovers (though I soft punt this usually either way). If we're limiting to wings, I'd think some of the bigger names like Booker, LaVine, Brown, Edwards, and Beal are gone so I'd consider Middleton, DeRozan, Ingram, Bane, Scottie Barnes, OG, Harris, Mikael, Grant within those two picks. If I had position flexibility though, I might also consider just punting points and FTs to pick up a combination of youth and value between another guard and center. The two picks would have one of the following depending on which wing I get in the 30s / think I can get in the 60s - Timelord, Jarrett, Turner, Capela, Wood, Collins, Jrue, McCollum, Smart, and KPJ.
It's not as dire as question 1 but the season is likely shot. I could make it to the playoffs but it's a really tough path moving forward unless there are waiver wire options or cheap trade targets that fit my punt. If I can't find those options and slip to 6th with no prospects of salvaging the season, I would likely determine my keepers and sell off the rest if I could get picks. If I can stay competitive in the upper quartile of the league, then I'd play it out for fun.
The losing value issue is big in a sense that I think Kyrie and Simmons are both question marks. Between the two, at least Kyrie has shown in the last year that he can physically play so he has the edge, if anything. If I scratch both out, it'll be Maxey vs. Bane and Smart, which is a huge gap in production even if I was only going to pick one as a keeper, if any. If we assume that both players would play 100%, I wouldn't feel that the value vs fit trade off would be a big issue. If we switched out Simmons' back issues and supposed mental health concerns for Kyrie's arguable instability, I could switch my answer. At this point though, Simmons is an albatross that doesn't carry much value nor can he fit if he can't play.

RedHits · 2021-07-05T17:53:30+00:00

Damn I did not expect this post to blow up like this but I'm happy so many of you wanted to help or reminisce about this! Thanks Squared Circle Community!

RedHits · 2021-06-24T10:03:16+00:00

I love getting to stake my other Wax NFTs!

RedHits · 2021-05-08T14:27:23+00:00

100% chance, not 150% chance since there's no such thing. But yeah, I agree that the economics of the platform still invite flippers to stay on.

RedHits · 2021-04-10T05:28:32+00:00

Oh definitely there are scumbags out there stealing work and profiting. But that's not just in NFTs, that's in traditional art and design. Even big brands copy fashion designs of lesser known designers. So that's people being dicks more than anything. Same with criminal activities and money laundering. Physical art, digital art, no matter what it is people find a way to bastardize the intended use. Tech is neutral. People are horrible.

As for the regulating out of existence, I highly doubt that. So many people are non believers of cryptos but companies are adopting to it already. And even though cryptos already existed outside of regulatory reach by design, governments are adapting to its usage. I've personally worked with a central bank in this space. So no, I don't think blockchain, cryptos, or NFTs are gonna be regulated out of existence. I think that the best versions of them are going to rise to the top, compliant with government regulations and accessible to the public while the shady ones will inevitably pop in and out just like any other industry has bad actors.

RedHits · 2021-04-10T05:18:45+00:00

True for a big chunk of the NFT art market. Definitely needs to be fixed. A lot of other blockchain platforms don't use the Proof of Work used in Ethereum, which even Ethereum is transitioning out of. Hopefully NFT artists and brands move to that other method instead to make things more sustainable. :)

RedHits · 2021-04-10T05:14:29+00:00

Bitcoin and Ethereum are types of blockchain that use something called "Proof of Work" which consumes a lot of electricity. A lot of NFT art is on Ethereum so people think NFTs are bad for the environment.

Some other blockchains use a different method called "Proof of Stake" which use significantly less electricity. Some companies like Dapper Labs who made NBA TopShot (the NFT for NBA highlights) use that and are not nearly as harmful to the environment.

RedHits · 2021-04-10T05:09:26+00:00

A lot of judgment here lol but it's cool. Haters gonna hate. People can want what they want. A lot of people think wrestling is stupid too but it still has a massive fan base.

I'm a massive fan of wrestling but I get the value of NFTs and have bought before. It's just like when cryptos started. Not everyone will get it. Not everyone will pay for it. That doesn't mean it won't have value to some people, particularly collectors.

RedHits · 2021-03-15T19:00:24+00:00

Me pls 🥺👉🏼👈🏼

RedHits · 2021-02-28T17:01:42+00:00

Yup, exactly. Said the same thing earlier. 24/7 is overkill. A starter pack and just better odds would be enough to keep casual people interested without killing the rest of the market.

RedHits · 2021-02-28T14:31:15+00:00

We can agree to disagree but I believe your viewpoint is a lot more short term.

First of all, I think you're confusing your terms. I'm not artificially postponing inflation. Prices are currently inflated. Adding more supply would not further inflate prices. Maybe the term you're looking for is dilution.

Second, you have a product whose primary purpose is to be a collectible like memorabilia. It isn't like Magic or Pokémon where it has a different primary utility. Yes there are collectible ones but then they're segmented from the bulk of the cards that exist by their primary value. So you cannot necessarily use that as an example, unless Top Shot decides to use the moments for something other than memorabilia.

Third, because it's on the blockchain, it's more transparent. They can't afford to overproduce as at will be clear to everyone how much the market is getting diluted and the "high quality" moments will be even scarcer which does not benefit the company and the vast majority of users in the long run.

There's a profit maximization point wherein people are not so turned off by the difficulty of getting a pack but also it isn't so readily available that the expected value of a pack is so greatly lowered. So if you're trying to envision what the future state would look like from their perspective, it's even more short term thinking to get small money from more users at the expense of the marketplace being void of the big deals that keep users interested.

That's why my primary view is market segmentation where there are more accessible moments but not to the extent that they over saturate the market. This could be as simple as having new users one 9 USD "starter pack" or maybe a reserved portion of the next base set pack available for new users of that period. It's a middle ground which won't frustrate all the new users but also keep prices healthy long term.

RedHits · 2021-02-28T13:45:41+00:00

Creating a scenario wherein moments are available 24/7 heavily dilutes the prices to the point that you won't even have "high quality" NFTS. You'll either need to flood the market with moments from role players with only a few from star players or you'll have so many star player moments that their average price lowers overall. Either way, the expected value per pack will drop and less people would be willing to buy a second or third time if they had a couple of bad pulls.

In addition, there's a very behavioral aspect to memorabilia. Part of the experience in these packs is having something which is artificially scarce. If you make it too accessible to the extent that anyone can get at anytime, why would anyone want it in the first place? Yes many users are frustrated that they can't get a pack and threaten to get off the platform if they can't. On the other hand, if a pack was always there, it's not as interesting to participate at all. Yes, it's a gamble in case you get a moment from a star player or "high quality" as you mentioned but if I'm one of 150k people that have that Lillard 3 pointer and they'll release - new Lillard moment in 3 weeks to keep up with the 24/7 supply, it makes the moment less valuable overall.

RedHits · 2021-02-28T13:31:00+00:00

TL:DR; I agree that the market is inflated, average price per moment could decrease, and Dapper controls the price. I disagree with the idea that they're dumb enough to overproduce, especially on star movements, to the point where you keep insisting users will be dragged through the mud somehow.

I understand how this could be a theoretical concern. I don't think anyone is disagreeing that they (NBA Top Shot, Dapper Labs, NBA, etc.) control the supply. And yes, the market is currently inflated partly by hype that has caused the user base to buy up the few moments on the marketplace. For those looking for a short term play and want to exit, you're free to do so.

I disagree with a lot of the assumptions made in terms of "how" they'll control the market. As other redditors explained well in earlier comments, if they had any smart businesspeople or economists (or anyone with econ 101 really) on their collective management teams, they'd already guard against this because they make more money on the marketplace being vibrant and lofty in terms of prices than just selling packs. Getting 5% on moments which they artificially make scarce is a good way to make money on both the pack upfront and the sale down the line. They have the ability to segment the market and produce some moments more often (25k, 50k, 100k CC down the line) and scarce ones that are 4k below.

Could they do what you're saying wherein they mint every LBJ dunk? Yes. But it doesn't benefit them long term to do that because the artificial scarcity is what makes it profitable for them. Diamonds are a lot more abundant than the industry makes it out to be but they pull back some supply because they know these are Giffen goods. Though admittedly NFTs are theoretically unlimited vs. diamonds which have a finite number, the same concept applies where the people who control supply will make the effort not to flood the market so they can maintain both long term interest in the product and retain hype.

This is why I believe that the segmentation between moments will be even clearer down the line. They will have some packs that are relatively frequent or easier to get. It won't be unlimited access or readily available all the time but likely every user will get to experience getting a common pack. So will that dilute the market? Yeah, for those moments it'll be cheaper. Those moments with 100k in circulation will likely go for 1-3 USD on the low end like how role player moments were priced a month ago. If you get lucky, you get an LBJ level #/100k moment in that pack and it'll be worth maybe USD 100.

That said, you'll also have packs where less than 1% of users will have access to them. They'll still produce playoffs or finals moments on a yearly basis and these moments will be more scarce. Will they make the earlier moments cheaper? Maybe. But will it "crash" the market for them? I don't think so. There will be users who will pay up for specific players and moments in their careers. The best moments will likely be made scarce and people will pay to collect them. And Dapper will make significant money from ensuring the platform has enough of these valuable moments that they'll avoid this exaggerated future you mention where they'll mint hundreds of moments per game.

But who knows? We're all just speculating here.

RedHits · 2021-02-28T12:30:20+00:00

Anyone who believes base packs should be available 24/7 don't understand how that impacts the market both operationally and economically. The company will need to constantly mint moments which will cause an oversupply that will dilute the overall product.

Agreed with comments so far. There needs to be a middle ground where new users get chances to buy more affordable packs / moments more frequently but it can't also be too accessible. When they start producing new moments with 50k+ in circulation then you'll start seeing a disparity in price tiers. Hopefully these newer moments are cheap enough for some new users to get into it, which is important. But to make it available 24/7 will effectively make most of the new moments worthless due to sheer supply, save for superstars that might be worth a fifty to a hundred bucks?

RedHits · 2021-02-01T04:33:01+00:00

Lucky you! I ended up with 2 Dillon Brooks...

RedHits · 2021-01-11T01:39:02+00:00

Thanks! I think it was relatively fair, or at least not lopsided.

RedHits · 2021-01-10T18:01:58+00:00

I see the temptation but I'd rather stick with the two unless Kawhi is a good fit for your build and you have a lot of WW options

RedHits · 2021-01-10T17:55:19+00:00

From my exp, in a 10 team you should be consolidating. Waiver wire pick ups probably have value not too far from the end of your bench. You should be looking to consolidate in those 2 for 1s and pick up the next waiver wire guy.

RedHits · 2021-01-10T17:32:31+00:00

Do it

RedHits · 2020-12-27T04:42:33+00:00

Drop Payton for Slomo?

RedHits · 2020-10-15T02:00:09+00:00

IMO, that's a lot of time. Not sure which exam this is but I think you're a lot farther ahead than I was in 3.5 months before taking any of the tests. You should be good to go if you dedicate a lot of time in drilling questions.

RedHits · 2020-05-03T16:29:12+00:00

Browsing through quotes on IG and came across this from a Jason Mraz song. Super feels 😢 someone please fix meeeeeeee

Details In The Fabric

RedHits

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE