This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
In 3 years, Turner will be an after-thought and Manning will definetely be on the decline. Desean Jackson will be a superstar, and Cutler and McCoy will be in the prime of their career (I'm not defending his trade 100% as I'm not a big Cutler fan. But if HE likes him as a fantasy QB for the future, that's his choice and his reasoning is spot on)In 2010? Eh, he's probably going to be even. Although it's not out of the realm of possibility that McCoy could equal Turner. Then is Cutler and Desean better than Manning? Depending on league format and roster sizes, I'd say yes for sure.Again, this is EXACTLY WHEN YOU TRADE PEYTON MANNING. When other people in your league think you are an idiot for doing so. Remember, if you traded LT 2-3 years ago, or Shaun Alexander right before he fell apart, people would tell you you're crazy for "trading studs". Look at ages when guys historically start falling apart, and don't get blinded by current production.
Dude don't listen to them. They have no idea what they are talking about. You completely broke the bank on that trade and are well positioned for the future, instead of having a team of scrubs and 2 guys that are getting older. You can't beat father time. Now maybe Manning will. But that's not your concern anymore. You got great value and have a good young team for the future.
Why is Manning more "akin for Favre"? Because you want him to be? And because of Favre's age, he hasn't had dynasty relevence in 4 years (from a trade value perspective, which is the whole point of the thread). The point is that Manning's trade value is going to go down FOR A CERTAINTY over the next 5 years, regardless of his production. As his age gets closer to 40, his value will fall. I'm of the opinion that this is the last off-season that he'll be considered superstud status (which is proving true when reading replies from Manning fans), before the rest of the fantasy world realizes that he's aging. Being ahead of your leaguemates is how you win.
MJD and Wayne for Charles and Kelly?I would have slapped the guy.
Wow, if that's the current thoughts on Wayne you have to hold onto him. I think Wayne is a guy to go get this off-season, if the owner in a league is trying to get rid of him.
I've been getting Favre for cheap in every dynasty league I can. If he plays he'll be top 5 in that offense....hopefully
I'm convinced half the people responding do not play in Dynasty leagues or are not good at it. It isn't about whether or not Manning can put up stats, its about his trade value as well as stats. What the original poster is saying is - If you can get Phillip Rivers and a great RB or WR prospect for Manning this could be the year to pull the trigger on that deal. Manning won't hold that value for much longer in DYNASTY even if he does put up stats. The difference in points between another QB and another RB for Peyton will negligible. Wait another year or two and you will never be able to trade Manning for another top QB plus a player. This year you probably could. His reasoning is sound. Like he said he is probably out ahead of the curve on this a year before others would be, but thats the point. Getting a great QB plus another really good player for Manning is smart. You won't be able to do that indefinitely.
I like those first two a lot. And both come from teams that have a lot of hype this spring, and that helps. And Sanchez could turn into a very good QB, that isn't a very good fantasy QB. I think a guy like that, not all leagues would you get a nice return. Would depend on the league format.As to DeSean, I am a believer. Can truly score at any time, and will be in an offense that loves to pass for the forseeable future. I would be trying to trade for him.
No, a LOT of us now play in leagues (I play & COMPETE WELL in MULTIPLE leagues - your statement was slightly condecending), where SO much emphasis has been put on AGE rather than production, that Rivers now goes for a decent bit MORE than Manning ($51 vs: $36 in my last auction). Therefore, you could have gotten MANNING AND A DECENT PLAYER for the price of Rivers. I like Rivers, I think he is a very good QB - Is he "50% better" than Manning even with trade value included? I personally don't think so. Rodgers went for $78 & Brees went for $55 but Manning has "no" trade value & is "old", so he only went for $36. I've seen Schaub (who I like) go for more than Peyton, & I saw another in the Startup Draft thread where STAFFORD went before Peyton. I believe Manning was QB 7 or 8 there (the guy that finally drafted him wrote - "what kind of bizarro draft is this?"). Favre went for $4 out of $400 in our auction - he has a MUCH better chance (if he plays - LOL) of helping a team WIN this year in my opinion, than a LOT of guys that were going in the same price range but were of course a lot younger (& 1 out of 10 of them may be tradeable in the future too probably). Will they ever finish in the top 6 or 7 like Favre did last year? NO - but they are only 25 or 26 so they MUST be worth more. There were guys going for that who may never even play a meaningful down in the NFL, much less help your fantasy team.I am convinced that the pendulum has swung so far the other way (I can't get "stuck" with Gore @ 27 next year, so I'll grab Forte or Slaton or Kevin Smith PLUS a player and be set for a while - How did that work out last year? I saw a lot of people doing it) in some cases that you need to set up a whole new baseline for establishing a WINNING team. Do you want all guys 30 plus? Of course not. But a mix is nice in my opinion. I've seen guys in a 24 roster league take TEN to TWELVE rookie draft picks (& the highest usually is about 1.03 because of 1st RD prices). They'll all be YOUNG though.....Of course what is really funny, is the same people that wouldn't consider FAVRE to draft @$4, ALL want him to return TO HELP RICE who they spent $70-$80 on....TitansFan10 said:I've been getting Favre for cheap in every dynasty league I can. If he plays he'll be top 5 in that offense....hopefully
I'm convinced half the people responding do not play in Dynasty leagues or are not good at it. It isn't about whether or not Manning can put up stats, its about his trade value as well as stats. What the original poster is saying is - If you can get Phillip Rivers and a great RB or WR prospect for Manning this could be the year to pull the trigger on that deal. Manning won't hold that value for much longer in DYNASTY even if he does put up stats. The difference in points between another QB and another RB for Peyton will negligible. Wait another year or two and you will never be able to trade Manning for another top QB plus a player. This year you probably could. His reasoning is sound. Like he said he is probably out ahead of the curve on this a year before others would be, but thats the point. Getting a great QB plus another really good player for Manning is smart. You won't be able to do that indefinitely.
If you had all those players - MJD, R Rice, Fitzgerald, Garcon, Welker, P Willis, and Z Miller - you didn't have a situation where you were "...turning around [a] dynasty team...". You had a hell of a nucleus already.
I'm not sure you play in dynasty leagues if you think anyone would give up Rivers for Manning straight up, nevermind with a "great" RB or WR prospect.
???DeSean and CJ were neck and neck as the two most dynamic playmakers for 2009.
Your post gave me something to think about. Every league is different though and I haven't noticed my dynasty leagues get as "youth-oriented" as yours. If I was in your league though, I think it would be very easy to decide on a strategy. I'd sell young guys that show flashy potential for established veteran talent.Turner scores TD by the truckload,something SJax never does..Turner has a better supporting cast,better offense, overall a better team in Atl..Sjax has over 1500 carries in his career, loads of recs, and with a bruising upright running style..plays behind a makeshift o-line, with perhaps a rookie QB if they decide to go with Bradford right out of the gate.If they do,that could significantly impact Sjax's chances...
If I was in your league though, I think it would be very easy to decide on a strategy. I'd sell young guys that show flashy potential for established veteran talent.
The great part about doing that is there's never a shortage of new talent to trade away. Some of our savier owners trade their picks every year for good 26-28 year old players, they always end up with late picks but even with those late picks they're able to get productive talent in trades. They usually don't have the teams that people look at as exciting, but they win a lot.
I was refering to Eric's team not my own.
Yeah no shlt.
I wouldn't give Crabtree for Bush, Addai, and Donald Brownstrange offer
I agree with this point, and love to take the Eagles' "sell before they're perceived as old" approach as well. The problem is, you can't force it when it's not there, and the overcorrection of the FF community in that regard makes it almost not worthwhile for certain guys.The problem with guys like Jackson/Gore is that people are already treating them as if they're 29 year old guys on their last legs. That's what their value is. So you're selling a 27 year old with the value of a 29 year old, and basically losing out on two years of production. Selling them to get younger only prolongs the life of your team if you're getting good young players in return, otherwise you're just making it even shorter.If you trade Jackson for some longshots like Bush/McFadden and Bush/McFadden never pan out, then instead of 3 years of solid production before a fade into obscurity out of your RB1, you just got 0 years of solid production before that fade. In order to keep rolling over your roster with young players you have to keep being right about those young prospects, and no one is ever right with them more than 50% of the time, and that number goes way down when we start talking about the lower tiered prospects that guys like Jackson and Gore are bringing in at this point. Like someone mentioned, you can't get Ryan Matthews for them (I tried).If you're going to try and move Jackson/Gore/Moss at this point, you're better off doing it during the season when they're producing. Youth is always tremendously overvalued in the offseason, and when someone is staring down 3 points per week out of one of their failed prospects while Jackson/Gore/Moss are consistently putting up 15, they're a lot more willing to pay a reasonable price.
I've seen quite a few of your posts on these boards over the last few weeks and I think it is true that the league you play in is very different than a typical dynasty league in terms of the value of older players. This makes these guys you're bringing up good "sell highs" in your league, but not most leagues.Between the multiple threads I've seen mention of moving Michael Turner for Beanie + more, and moving Peyton for Rivers + more. As some others have mentioned, in 99% of the leagues the Beanie and Rivers sides of those deals would laugh those offers away. Realistically, you'd have to give Turner + A LOT to get Beanie, and Peyton + A LOT to get Rivers. I don't consider myself someone who values youth as highly as most yet I own both Rivers and Beanie in my main league and wouldn't even consider moving either for Peyton or Turner unless I was getting something really good along with them. Something good enough that Peyton/Turner would be considered the throw-in part of the deal, not the thing that came with them.Your post gave me something to think about. Every league is different though and I haven't noticed my dynasty leagues get as "youth-oriented" as yours. If I was in your league though, I think it would be very easy to decide on a strategy. I'd sell young guys that show flashy potential for established veteran talent.
You're probably right. I realized that as I watched the replies roll in. There is no way I'd give up Peyton and ALOT to get Rivers. Not in a million years. If a league is that "youth" oriented, I would think it'd be pretty easy to manipulate the owners and win with vets..I've seen quite a few of your posts on these boards over the last few weeks and I think it is true that the league you play in is very different than a typical dynasty league in terms of the value of older players. This makes these guys you're bringing up good "sell highs" in your league, but not most leagues.Between the multiple threads I've seen mention of moving Michael Turner for Beanie + more, and moving Peyton for Rivers + more. As some others have mentioned, in 99% of the leagues the Beanie and Rivers sides of those deals would laugh those offers away. Realistically, you'd have to give Turner + A LOT to get Beanie, and Peyton + A LOT to get Rivers. I don't consider myself someone who values youth as highly as most yet I own both Rivers and Beanie in my main league and wouldn't even consider moving either for Peyton or Turner unless I was getting something really good along with them. Something good enough that Peyton/Turner would be considered the throw-in part of the deal, not the thing that came with them.Your post gave me something to think about. Every league is different though and I haven't noticed my dynasty leagues get as "youth-oriented" as yours. If I was in your league though, I think it would be very easy to decide on a strategy. I'd sell young guys that show flashy potential for established veteran talent.
Have we really come to the point where Peyton Manning is considered a "throw-in?" Wow.You're probably right. I realized that as I watched the replies roll in. There is no way I'd give up Peyton and ALOT to get Rivers. Not in a million years. If a league is that "youth" oriented, I would think it'd be pretty easy to manipulate the owners and win with vets..I've seen quite a few of your posts on these boards over the last few weeks and I think it is true that the league you play in is very different than a typical dynasty league in terms of the value of older players. This makes these guys you're bringing up good "sell highs" in your league, but not most leagues.Between the multiple threads I've seen mention of moving Michael Turner for Beanie + more, and moving Peyton for Rivers + more. As some others have mentioned, in 99% of the leagues the Beanie and Rivers sides of those deals would laugh those offers away. Realistically, you'd have to give Turner + A LOT to get Beanie, and Peyton + A LOT to get Rivers. I don't consider myself someone who values youth as highly as most yet I own both Rivers and Beanie in my main league and wouldn't even consider moving either for Peyton or Turner unless I was getting something really good along with them. Something good enough that Peyton/Turner would be considered the throw-in part of the deal, not the thing that came with them.
Your post gave me something to think about. Every league is different though and I haven't noticed my dynasty leagues get as "youth-oriented" as yours.
If I was in your league though, I think it would be very easy to decide on a strategy. I'd sell young guys that show flashy potential for established veteran talent.
In most leagues, you're going to have some owners who are always going after the shiny new toy, and others who are collecting the aging veterans on the cheap. Just because you would laugh at those offers doesn't mean everyone would, and there's no way 99% of owners would. Are you saying that 99% of owners have Rivers rated the same or higher as Peyton? No way that is the case, I'd bet it's closer to the opposite, which would mean you'd have to give up something with Rivers for Peyton. I don't think it would have to be a lot more, but something. I can't imagine anyone giving up Peyton, plus a player better than Peyton, for Rivers. That would be insanity. You could at least make a better case for the Wells/Turner side, but I still don't know anyone who would give up A LOT with Turner for Wells.Just because it's how you feel doesn't make it "realistic". Especially in larger leagues, there are usually owners at both ends of the spectrum, which leads to a wide range of player values. Some may agree with you, most of the owners I know (along with most of the dynasty rankings) do not.I've seen quite a few of your posts on these boards over the last few weeks and I think it is true that the league you play in is very different than a typical dynasty league in terms of the value of older players. This makes these guys you're bringing up good "sell highs" in your league, but not most leagues.Between the multiple threads I've seen mention of moving Michael Turner for Beanie + more, and moving Peyton for Rivers + more. As some others have mentioned, in 99% of the leagues the Beanie and Rivers sides of those deals would laugh those offers away. Realistically, you'd have to give Turner + A LOT to get Beanie, and Peyton + A LOT to get Rivers. I don't consider myself someone who values youth as highly as most yet I own both Rivers and Beanie in my main league and wouldn't even consider moving either for Peyton or Turner unless I was getting something really good along with them. Something good enough that Peyton/Turner would be considered the throw-in part of the deal, not the thing that came with them.
Really, I think the question here is why would anyone in their right mind trade Rivers for Peyton unless they were getting something very good in return? I think Peyton Manning is the best real life QB of all-time, but from a fantasy perspective he's really not any better than Rivers at this point (their totals over the last two years are basically identical, with Rivers actually being a little better), only Rivers is SIX years younger. SIX.Have we really come to the point where Peyton Manning is considered a "throw-in?" Wow.You're probably right. I realized that as I watched the replies roll in. There is no way I'd give up Peyton and ALOT to get Rivers. Not in a million years. If a league is that "youth" oriented, I would think it'd be pretty easy to manipulate the owners and win with vets..I've seen quite a few of your posts on these boards over the last few weeks and I think it is true that the league you play in is very different than a typical dynasty league in terms of the value of older players. This makes these guys you're bringing up good "sell highs" in your league, but not most leagues.Between the multiple threads I've seen mention of moving Michael Turner for Beanie + more, and moving Peyton for Rivers + more. As some others have mentioned, in 99% of the leagues the Beanie and Rivers sides of those deals would laugh those offers away. Realistically, you'd have to give Turner + A LOT to get Beanie, and Peyton + A LOT to get Rivers. I don't consider myself someone who values youth as highly as most yet I own both Rivers and Beanie in my main league and wouldn't even consider moving either for Peyton or Turner unless I was getting something really good along with them. Something good enough that Peyton/Turner would be considered the throw-in part of the deal, not the thing that came with them.
Your post gave me something to think about. Every league is different though and I haven't noticed my dynasty leagues get as "youth-oriented" as yours.
If I was in your league though, I think it would be very easy to decide on a strategy. I'd sell young guys that show flashy potential for established veteran talent.
Not sure. A king's ransom to be sure, but say you are sitting there with Desean and your team isn't really a contender. His value will likely never be as high as it is right now. What could realistically happen that would raise his value in the future?
The question I was asking is whether Manning was a throw-in at this point -- you specifically said you wouldn't trade Rivers for Manning unless Manning was considered a "throw-in" part of the deal. I have no prob with people ranking Rivers above Manning, but to consider him a "throw-in", ie almost worthless, makes absolutely no sense to me. I'm curious as to what you would want in addition to Manning to make a deal for Rivers worthwhile -- ie Manning + Wells for Rivers? Manning + Crabtree for Rivers? What to you would be good enough value that Manning would be a throw-in? I couldn't get anything remotely close to that in any of my dynasty leagues.Really, I think the question here is why would anyone in their right mind trade Rivers for Peyton unless they were getting something very good in return? I think Peyton Manning is the best real life QB of all-time, but from a fantasy perspective he's really not any better than Rivers at this point (their totals over the last two years are basically identical, with Rivers actually being a little better), only Rivers is SIX years younger. SIX.Have we really come to the point where Peyton Manning is considered a "throw-in?" Wow.You're probably right. I realized that as I watched the replies roll in. There is no way I'd give up Peyton and ALOT to get Rivers. Not in a million years. If a league is that "youth" oriented, I would think it'd be pretty easy to manipulate the owners and win with vets..I've seen quite a few of your posts on these boards over the last few weeks and I think it is true that the league you play in is very different than a typical dynasty league in terms of the value of older players. This makes these guys you're bringing up good "sell highs" in your league, but not most leagues.Between the multiple threads I've seen mention of moving Michael Turner for Beanie + more, and moving Peyton for Rivers + more. As some others have mentioned, in 99% of the leagues the Beanie and Rivers sides of those deals would laugh those offers away. Realistically, you'd have to give Turner + A LOT to get Beanie, and Peyton + A LOT to get Rivers. I don't consider myself someone who values youth as highly as most yet I own both Rivers and Beanie in my main league and wouldn't even consider moving either for Peyton or Turner unless I was getting something really good along with them. Something good enough that Peyton/Turner would be considered the throw-in part of the deal, not the thing that came with them.
Your post gave me something to think about. Every league is different though and I haven't noticed my dynasty leagues get as "youth-oriented" as yours.
If I was in your league though, I think it would be very easy to decide on a strategy. I'd sell young guys that show flashy potential for established veteran talent.
"Throw-in" was probably a poor term, and was really just me getting carried away with hyperbole in my typing rant
That said, the point I'm stressing is that not only would you need to give Peyton+ to get Rivers in most leagues with established players, but you'd have to give Peyton + something good. That is, we're not talking about Peyton + 2nd round pick here. As to what exactly it would be along with him, I don't know, that would depend on my team, but it would have to be something that I valued highly. Rivers to Peyton is a lateral move in the present, and a huge downgrade in the future. There's no reason to make that move unless you're getting something substantial along with it."Rankings" are just floating numbers on a page to make us feel better about our players. Put the dynasty rankers in a position of action and ask them to make trades that equate to their rankings with their own teams and there are many cases where they won't do it. Many have admitted as much on these boards, and/or been caught in such contradictions. Rankings and trade value are not necessarily compatible, even though logically they should be.As for Turner/Wells, there was a thread on here a while back talking about Turner's trade value in terms of rookie picks. Most of the established posters around here had him valued around the 1.5-1.6 rookie pick. So with that as your baseline you can figure out what it would take along with a mid-1st round pick to get a guy like Beanie, who many see as the next big thing. You may be able to find someone that doesn't follow FF trends very closely to overpay for Turner in your league, but in general 28 year old running backs coming off an injury just don't have much trade value in the modern FF world, low career carry count or not.But hey, if anyone is in a position to pull off these trades that you guys are talking about, more power to them. Trade value in my leagues tend to pretty closely resemble trade value on these boards (particularly, the running dynasty rankings thread run by F&L), so it won't fly for me.
Funny thing is that Michael Bush is pretty old for a RB. He's 11 months younger than SJax. A lot less mileage, of course. Even if he does hit, that leaves a pretty small window. (Don't get me wrong, I am still targeting him for short term value, but something to keep in mind.)My worry about SJax is that his back problems will limit his shelflife to a lot less than 3 years. He's a "straw that breaks the camel's back" player, and that's the best reason to sell high on him, not the age. DeAngelo Williams is even older, but I would not sell him for a collection of parts.FreeBaGeL said:
Pretty much true.Other than the inaugural drafts, I've never been in (re)build mode. Always in win now mode, never had a fire sale. There are more ways than a first round rookie pick to keep a team competitive. 3 years is a long time in dynasty leagues. If one can't draft, trade, or waiver a back-up to replace their aging stud in 3 years time, perhaps redraft leagues are more their style. (Notice I said replace the stud, not trade away the stud)And then there are the owners that are always in rebuild mode, from year one to year twenty. New shiny toy guy, we love you.DansRams said:
I kind of agree and put him on the block to see what I could get for him this offseason and people weren't valuing him as a top 10 WR. (I think he finished as WR2 in my league (which is 16 teams) because we award some points for return yardage). This is also a contract/salary league where he's basically making the league minimum for another 3 years.Sabertooth said:
There are a ton of people that 'need to see it again' from DeSean. Find a WR with similar numbers that has as many detractors. "Oh, he scored some nice TDs, but they were all long...." That's an actual argument I am seeing from people. Like he was a season-long fluke. And hey, maybe he was. But if he has another great season, you will see a lot less doubt. And alot more value.Sabertooth said:
While that may be true and he could very well turn into a superstar, I think many think that Maclin is just as talented if not more and comes at a heavy discount right now while capable of putting up the same numbers.
I'm not sure you play in dynasty leagues if you think anyone would give up Rivers for Manning straight up, nevermind with a "great" RB or WR prospect.
