Notifications
Clear all

H2h Trade Bledsoe for Randle and Sato

16 Posts
5 Users
0 Reactions
508 Views
(@nikkygo)
Posts: 80
Member Customer
Topic starter
 

I'm being offered Bledsoe for Randle and Satoransky. I'd probably receive Bertans / Zeller as a plus 1. Would you do the trade?
Also have the option to trade Randle for Lamb and DeJuante Murray. but I'm thinking I'd rather have a top 50 guy in Bled over Lamb and Murray. Thoughts?

H2h 9 cat

Line up consists of
Lillard
Booker
John Collins
Capela
Brook Lopez
Randle
Hayward
Delon Wright
Satoransky
OG
B. Clarke
R. Hachimura

 
Posted : 26/09/2019 10:52 pm
(@kjay84gmail-com)
Posts: 475
Honorable Member
 

I would probably take the bledsoe side of that trade.

Trade up, not down. Generally speaking avoid the receiving end of a 2 for 1.

 
Posted : 27/09/2019 1:01 am
(@dbesbris)
Posts: 9458
Member Customer
 

Yeah I'm in for getting Bledsoe. If you add Bertans it's just icing.

 
Posted : 27/09/2019 6:32 am
(@joe-sarvadi)
Posts: 916
Member Customer
 

I'm completely on the other side of the deal. I believe Randle will have a better season than Bledsoe. I also think Sato is going to get solid minutes for Chicago. Sit chilly! Randle is a monster!

 
Posted : 27/09/2019 8:14 am
(@nikkygo)
Posts: 80
Member Customer
Topic starter
 

I do hope Sato starts and logs heavy minutes his game great for fantasy. Loved his production in Washington last year. Was surprised they moved him with Wall injured. You think Dunn or White will give Sato trouble?
Randle on the other hand is intriguing given he'll be the focal point of this bad Knicks team.
So I guess I'll stick to starting the season with what I have an adjust from there. Thanks Coach!

 
Posted : 27/09/2019 8:22 am
(@dbesbris)
Posts: 9458
Member Customer
 

9-cat? Julius Randle was number 77 per game last year. He is a shutdown risk. He gets no defensive stats and his FT% sucks.

Bledsoe was 43 and his FT% was below his career avg AND Brogdon is gone.

Even if Julius goes ham, he's not catching Bledsoe in 9-cat.

 
Posted : 27/09/2019 8:27 am
(@nikkygo)
Posts: 80
Member Customer
Topic starter
 

Good point Dan! great argument on that.

 
Posted : 27/09/2019 9:15 am
(@joe-sarvadi)
Posts: 916
Member Customer
 

Dan, side bet. Randle finishes higher than Bledsoe in 9 cat for the season. We can bet an entire box oh Kona Coffee. Let's go!You accept?
Randle will go ballistic in NY and Bledsoe already signed a contract extension and is overrated.

Don't forget that Sato can play as well!

 
Posted : 27/09/2019 2:32 pm
(@dbesbris)
Posts: 9458
Member Customer
 

Haha, if I could drink coffee, I'd be all about it. Are we talking totals or per-game?

 
Posted : 27/09/2019 2:34 pm
(@annakarina)
Posts: 491
Reputable Member
 

I'm not the biggest Bledsoe fan but I definitely wouldn't say he's overrated, especially going into this season.

 
Posted : 27/09/2019 3:48 pm
(@nikkygo)
Posts: 80
Member Customer
Topic starter
 

Coach vs. Dan! I’ll keep tabs of this side bet haha

 
Posted : 28/09/2019 1:30 am
(@joe-sarvadi)
Posts: 916
Member Customer
 

Season totals Randle vs. Bledsoe. I'm in for whatever.

BTW...good luck Nick!

 
Posted : 28/09/2019 7:19 am
(@nikkygo)
Posts: 80
Member Customer
Topic starter
 

Thanks Coach!
Have quite a number of Bledsoe shares in other H2h and Roto leagues. Just scary having him all over.
I like to typically spread out players.
He seems to be there at round 4 most of the time.
Would you rather have Lavine or Bam over him?

9 cat Randle's TO's are a bit scary haha

 
Posted : 30/09/2019 12:15 am
(@joe-sarvadi)
Posts: 916
Member Customer
 

I really like Lavine this season but he struggles a bit with FG% and turnovers so that makes it very close with Bledsoe.
If you need a big rather than a guard then this should be a break out year for Bam.
If Randle can improve at the FT line and reduce turnovers I think he will be a top 40 player. We will see 🙂

 
Posted : 30/09/2019 9:05 am
(@annakarina)
Posts: 491
Reputable Member
 

I'd rather have Bam of the three guys mentioned.

 
Posted : 30/09/2019 9:06 am
Page 1 / 2
Share: