What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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!

Dynasty: trading future rookie picks (1 Viewer)

SSOG

SSOG

Footballguy
Moderator
I was curious how other people value future rookie picks in dynasty. How many future firsts would you trade for a top-5 dynasty player? How many future firsts would you trade for a low-end stud (say, RB12 or WR12)? How many 1sts would you trade for a Hall of Famer in his rookie season? If you could get Jerry Rice or Emmitt Smith as a rookie, would you trade an entire first round for them in a weak draft? How about in a strong draft?

In my league, the general going rate for lower-end studs is a pair of rookie firsts. Andre Johnson and Frank Gore both went for two firsts back when they were mid-to-low top 10 players at their respective positions. In my mind, that seems a little low, unless one or more of the picks is top 3. On the other hand, the real high-end studs (Calvin, Julio, Rice, McCoy, Foster, etc) are either untouchable, or their owners want 4+ rookie firsts. In my mind, this seems high, unless none of those picks is top 3. It's like they forget that their stud likely started his career as just another generic rookie first. What is the going rate in other leagues? What's the most in future picks you've ever spent for a player? What would it take for you to trade a Calvin Johnson or Arian Foster?

 
'SSOG said:
I was curious how other people value future rookie picks in dynasty. How many future firsts would you trade for a top-5 dynasty player? How many future firsts would you trade for a low-end stud (say, RB12 or WR12)? How many 1sts would you trade for a Hall of Famer in his rookie season? If you could get Jerry Rice or Emmitt Smith as a rookie, would you trade an entire first round for them in a weak draft? How about in a strong draft?In my league, the general going rate for lower-end studs is a pair of rookie firsts. Andre Johnson and Frank Gore both went for two firsts back when they were mid-to-low top 10 players at their respective positions. In my mind, that seems a little low, unless one or more of the picks is top 3. On the other hand, the real high-end studs (Calvin, Julio, Rice, McCoy, Foster, etc) are either untouchable, or their owners want 4+ rookie firsts. In my mind, this seems high, unless none of those picks is top 3. It's like they forget that their stud likely started his career as just another generic rookie first. What is the going rate in other leagues? What's the most in future picks you've ever spent for a player? What would it take for you to trade a Calvin Johnson or Arian Foster?
Click to expand...
I have 6 1sts in a league right now, doubt I could get any of those studs for all of them.
 
I would trade any amount of firsts to get one of those studs. No matter how good a rookie looks it is still a bit of a crapshoot. Take the stud and win now. It's like cashing in your chips while your ahead, sure maybe you could make more money if you keep playing, but it's smarter to take the safe money and run.

 
'SSOG said:
What would it take for you to trade a Calvin Johnson or Arian Foster?
Click to expand...
Another Calvin Johnson or Arian Foster. Or an AJ Green/Matt Forte kind of combo. Picks wouldn't do it, regardless of how many you want to give me.I traded for Lesean McCoy in a PPR dynasty in the offseason and gave up Matt Forte and Vincent Jackson, and I was thrilled with that. I own Arian Foster and Calvin Johnson in other leagues, and while I'll trade anyone for the right price, I'd pretty much need to be given an offer I can't refuse to make it happen.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It really all depends on the owner...

My leagues we have a combination of both; the owner that severely over-values rookie picks, and the owner that would rather trad his picks to acquire established players. I fall somewhere in the middle depending on the year, this is why it pays to follow College Football. For example this year, if you did t have a top 3 pick you should have traded out. I had a late 1st round pick...which would get me exactly the same talent I could get in the 2nd, so i traded out.

The y key to dynasty rookie picks is getting a good gauge on the draft class...and act accordingly based on the strengths of your team. Next year I believe will be WR once again, no real sure fire QB, and question marks at RB.

I'm a true believer of stock piling later round picks if you have a strong squad that's not in the running for a top 3 pick...

 
'solorca said:
'SSOG said:
What would it take for you to trade a Calvin Johnson or Arian Foster?
Click to expand...
Another Calvin Johnson or Arian Foster. Or an AJ Green/Matt Forte kind of combo. Picks wouldn't do it, regardless of how many you want to give me.I traded for Lesean McCoy in a PPR dynasty in the offseason and gave up Matt Forte and Vincent Jackson, and I was thrilled with that. I own Arian Foster and Calvin Johnson in other leagues, and while I'll trade anyone for the right price, I'd pretty much need to be given an offer I can't refuse to make it happen.
Click to expand...
This is my thinking.Their can be a lot of offer's that are fair value, but when it comes down to it... you would still rather have that ultra stud than 3 or 4 really good players.

But again, anything can happen and if Calvin or Foster is the only guy on your team... perhaps trading them for 6 firsts or something crazy could work out for you.

 
Great topic.

I think late 1sts vs. Early 1sts are the main difference. One top pick is worth multiple lower ones to me. The high rate is decent on top3 picks, so a couple of those are worth a middle range stud IMO

 
'Ray Barboni said:
It really all depends on the owner...

My leagues we have a combination of both; the owner that severely over-values rookie picks, and the owner that would rather trad his picks to acquire established players. I fall somewhere in the middle depending on the year, this is why it pays to follow College Football. For example this year, if you did t have a top 3 pick you should have traded out. I had a late 1st round pick...which would get me exactly the same talent I could get in the 2nd, so i traded out.

The y key to dynasty rookie picks is getting a good gauge on the draft class...and act accordingly based on the strengths of your team. Next year I believe will be WR once again, no real sure fire QB, and question marks at RB.

I'm a true believer of stock piling later round picks if you have a strong squad that's not in the running for a top 3 pick...
Click to expand...
Bingo... It's hugely dependent on the year, I think the past two years have treated us at the top of the draft, I'm not sure this upcoming year will be the sameWhen you see a guy coming down the line like :Luck, Julio, AJ Green, Richardson... stockpiling on draft picks is a great idea, but they dont come along every year.

It's tough to say who is going to be a bust and who isn't, but the way things look right now, the concensus has been saying those guys were going to be future studs since their freshman year in college. (maybe not Luck, be he was the clear #1 pick and talked about like it even before his junior year started)

 
I find the 1st round picks are the most valuable between the nfl draft and my dynasty draft. I've gotten steals for late 1st and 2nd round picks on draft night when I knew some guy was really high on a player still left at my draft position.

Too many busts in the first round for my taste. They are always overvalued when the hype is highest.

 
'mr roboto said:
I find the 1st round picks are the most valuable between the nfl draft and my dynasty draft. I've gotten steals for late 1st and 2nd round picks on draft night when I knew some guy was really high on a player still left at my draft position. Too many busts in the first round for my taste. They are always overvalued when the hype is highest.
Click to expand...
They are all overvalued initially, but after a week or two last year ... everyone wished they overpaid for Julio Jones and AJ Green
 
I have found the value of picks to be very different from league to league. I am in 1 where they are not valued that much at all, then another where a 1st rounder can sometimes be traded for a stud pretty easily.

I just offered 6 draft picks for a 5 round rookie/FA draft and DHB for Demaryus and was shot down.

 
My primary strategy is to accumulate as many #1's as possible by building depth and as that depth is ready to start trading away current starters for #1's...then when I see a guy I want I pay what I have to in order to get them.

I first did this to get Dez.

Recently did it to get Richardson.

I try not to use my current year #1 to make that happen, so I'm continually re-stocking the team too. Picked up Addai, Willis (IDP league), Chris Johnson, and Percy before Dez (inaugural season - 2005). Traded away my 2011 pick for an extra 2012 #1 - guys drafting AJ Green and Julio wouldn't move back - and LeShoure didn't fall (only other guy I really wanted) which gave me three #1's in 2012 so I was able to move up and get Richardson as well as pick RG3 with my pick.

I will use my #1's to get studs, but in 7 years in this league I haven't seen a trade in which an owner sent a #1 away and ended up with a stud in return. Calvin, Rodgers, the top 3 RB's, etc. won't get traded for a #1, it'll take several and I just don't see that as feasible in our game. It's all about maintaining flexibility and by accumulating picks you're doing that - fantasy owners don't like every name but every fantasy owner likes picks. By utilizing this strategy I have built this team

RG3/Cutler/Kaepernick

Richardson/Bradshaw/Andre Brown/Quizz/Dwyer/Ben Tate/LMJ/Ogbonnaya

Percy/CAR Steve Smith/Decker/Cobb/Hawkins/McCluster/Collie/Avery/J Gordon/AJ Jenkins/Criner/TJ Graham/Edelman/Damaris Johnson

Gates/Celek/Pitta

IDP summary - 3 quality DE's (start 2), stud DT + good backup (start 1), 5 very strong LB's + 2 fliers (start 3), 4 strong DB's (start 2)

Since May I've traded away Greg Jennings, Chris Johnson, a stud LB, Rivers, Denarius Moore, and Antonio Brown and have brought three extra #1's back so far. Some new faces above too but the focus has been picks.

 
'wiscstlatlmia said:
'Ray Barboni said:
It really all depends on the owner...

My leagues we have a combination of both; the owner that severely over-values rookie picks, and the owner that would rather trad his picks to acquire established players. I fall somewhere in the middle depending on the year, this is why it pays to follow College Football. For example this year, if you did t have a top 3 pick you should have traded out. I had a late 1st round pick...which would get me exactly the same talent I could get in the 2nd, so i traded out.

The y key to dynasty rookie picks is getting a good gauge on the draft class...and act accordingly based on the strengths of your team. Next year I believe will be WR once again, no real sure fire QB, and question marks at RB.

I'm a true believer of stock piling later round picks if you have a strong squad that's not in the running for a top 3 pick...
Click to expand...
Bingo... It's hugely dependent on the year, I think the past two years have treated us at the top of the draft, I'm not sure this upcoming year will be the sameWhen you see a guy coming down the line like :Luck, Julio, AJ Green, Richardson... stockpiling on draft picks is a great idea, but they dont come along every year.

It's tough to say who is going to be a bust and who isn't, but the way things look right now, the concensus has been saying those guys were going to be future studs since their freshman year in college. (maybe not Luck, be he was the clear #1 pick and talked about like it even before his junior year started)
Click to expand...
You have to make your own opinion and not be a fanboy - trust your gut. If you see a 'stud' you want then do what you can to get them. Unfortunately the holder of that pick may have fallen in love making it impossible to get the pick, but try try and try again and eventually you'll find one that will make a move.You have to stay objective though, just because he's the consensus #1 doesn't mean anything. I wanted nothing to do with Ingram, Knowshon, Beanie, Spiller, among others at their ADP. I did not think they were strong prospects, they belonged in the group of 'situation' options after the top 3-8 - depending on the draft. Good players, but I did not think they were great. Trust your eyes, trust your analysis, then evaluate the draft, and get to the spots in the draft you need to be to get the guys you want.

 
Jennings, Johnson, stud LB, Rivers, Moore, and Brown all for three 1sts and change?

Terrible. Your team would be a championship contender in need of just a couple consolidation-type trades, trading depth + starter for better starter, to be truly elite. Ouch.

That's just my opinion though. Richardson, RG3, and Harvin don't come along every year or contribute so quickly every year. I think you are overvaluing future mystery 1sts in this situation.

 
'Ray Barboni said:
The y key to dynasty rookie picks is getting a good gauge on the draft class...and act accordingly based on the strengths of your team. Next year I believe will be WR once again, no real sure fire QB, and question marks at RB.
Click to expand...
I don't believe in gauging drafts anymore. I think you can gauge which drafts have really good top-end talent (Richardson, Peterson, Calvin, etc)... But the last "weak draft class" I saw wound up producing Lesean McCoy, Percy Harvin, Hakeem Nicks, Jeremy Maclin, and Mathew Stafford. I don't recall anyone hyping the 2008 class as the greatest draft of all time ahead of time, and it gave us McFadden, Rice, CJ2K, Forte, Charles, Stewart, Slaton, and Desean. See, I think the "I'd pay any cost to get a stud" crowd is off its rocker. I believe the psychological term for the phenomenon at work here is "hyperbolic discounting". For instance, in my league, the following players were top 12 picks in my leagues over the past 6 years:2012- Richardson, Martin, Luck, Griffin, Blackmon, Morris2011- Julio, Green, Newton, Cobb, Ridley2010- Dez, Spiller, Mathews, Demaryius, Aaron Hernandez2009- McCoy, Harvin, Nicks, Stafford2008- McFadden, Forte, Stewart, Mendenhall, Rice, CJ2K, Ryan, Desean2007- Peterson, Calvin, Lynch, BoweMost of these guys who people would trade 4-6 rookie picks for today were themselves just rookie picks a few years ago. If you traded a bunch of rookie firsts for Calvin last year, you might have unwittingly given up Julio Jones. Last year's rookie firsts turned into this year's untouchable Richardson or Robert Griffin. Look at those lists. 4 rookie picks practically guarantees you at least one name on those lists, and you're more likely to get two than you are to get zero. With 6 rookie firsts, you're looking at a huge chance to land 3 names on one of those lists. It's easy to say you'd trade Calvin for 6 1sts, but would you trade him for Julio, Cobb, and Ridley? For Spiller, Mathews, and Hernandez? For McCoy and Nicks? Once you start attaching names to those picks, it looks like much less of a bargain. And, sure, with rookie picks it's possible you'll roll snake eyes and walk out with nothing... but with a bunch of picks, it's unlikely. And it's also possible to hit 3, or even 4 of those picks. Imagine walking out of a draft with Julio AND Green. Or Richardson AND Griffin. Or Peterson AND Calvin. Or McFadden, Rice, AND Forte.There's not a player in the league I would trade 6 firsts for. As I said, I have a hard time deciding if the real top of the line guys are worth even 4 rookie firsts.
 
'Ray Barboni said:
It really all depends on the owner...My leagues we have a combination of both; the owner that severely over-values rookie picks, and the owner that would rather trad his picks to acquire established players. I fall somewhere in the middle depending on the year, this is why it pays to follow College Football. For example this year, if you did t have a top 3 pick you should have traded out. I had a late 1st round pick...which would get me exactly the same talent I could get in the 2nd, so i traded out.The y key to dynasty rookie picks is getting a good gauge on the draft class...and act accordingly based on the strengths of your team. Next year I believe will be WR once again, no real sure fire QB, and question marks at RB. I'm a true believer of stock piling later round picks if you have a strong squad that's not in the running for a top 3 pick...
Click to expand...
How much does it really pay to watch college football? How many thought Ridley would be the guy in NE over Vereen? I'll trade draft picks all day long for solid guys that have fallen out of favor.
 
'ConnSKINS26 said:
Jennings, Johnson, stud LB, Rivers, Moore, and Brown all for three 1sts and change?Terrible. Your team would be a championship contender in need of just a couple consolidation-type trades, trading depth + starter for better starter, to be truly elite. Ouch. That's just my opinion though. Richardson, RG3, and Harvin don't come along every year or contribute so quickly every year. I think you are overvaluing future mystery 1sts in this situation.
Click to expand...
Got back Bradshaw (claimed Andre Brown), Cutler, Decker, and Celek too.I feel better about Bradshaw and Brown than I do Johnson. I'm confident enough in RG3 I don't feel the need for Rivers, still need someone but don't need someone that strong. I felt I needed a more reliable backup TE, but then I claimed Pitta and he followed up on week 1. Might not have needed that.I don't think I need Jennings, Moore, and Brown because of my other WR's. I don't believe in too much of a good thing, trade them for #1's now if you have the lineup to fall back on and then come draft time when they're overvalued use them to your advantage or to move up and get a horse. If injury and ineffectiveness strike, then use those #1's to trade with a seller to get a guy like the ones I traded away back - hopefully that's not needed though.
 
'FF Ninja said:
'Ray Barboni said:
It really all depends on the owner...My leagues we have a combination of both; the owner that severely over-values rookie picks, and the owner that would rather trad his picks to acquire established players. I fall somewhere in the middle depending on the year, this is why it pays to follow College Football. For example this year, if you did t have a top 3 pick you should have traded out. I had a late 1st round pick...which would get me exactly the same talent I could get in the 2nd, so i traded out.The y key to dynasty rookie picks is getting a good gauge on the draft class...and act accordingly based on the strengths of your team. Next year I believe will be WR once again, no real sure fire QB, and question marks at RB. I'm a true believer of stock piling later round picks if you have a strong squad that's not in the running for a top 3 pick...
Click to expand...
How much does it really pay to watch college football? How many thought Ridley would be the guy in NE over Vereen? I'll trade draft picks all day long for solid guys that have fallen out of favor.
Click to expand...
You'll never get everything right, but from my experience it at the very least tips you off to the early round land mines. As long as you get your 1st rounder right even if you miss on everything thereafter you'll still have a good team. If you don't miss in round 1 and just find a player or two somewhere else in the draft you could have a great team. By watching and following you feel more comfortable with those picks than just going in blind.
 
'solorca said:
'SSOG said:
What would it take for you to trade a Calvin Johnson or Arian Foster?
Click to expand...
Another Calvin Johnson or Arian Foster. Or an AJ Green/Matt Forte kind of combo. Picks wouldn't do it, regardless of how many you want to give me.I traded for Lesean McCoy in a PPR dynasty in the offseason and gave up Matt Forte and Vincent Jackson, and I was thrilled with that. I own Arian Foster and Calvin Johnson in other leagues, and while I'll trade anyone for the right price, I'd pretty much need to be given an offer I can't refuse to make it happen.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: Let's be honest. You are thrilled now because VJax landed in Tampa Bay and Forte is hurt.At the time Vjax was a free agent and could have landed anywhere. Reports were putting him in either Chicago, New England, or Tampa Bay and I could have easily ended up with a Marshall-esque situation (this was before Marshall was traded) in addition to Forte, in which case it would have been a steal. Or could have had Brady throwing to him. Reid also stated they were planning on giving McCoy fewer touches this year to keep his career going longer and to keep him fresh for the playoffs, but that doesn't appear to be the case so far, either.All in all, you made a fair trade at the time that ended up being very lucky.Edit: I'm the one who took Forte/VJax.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'SSOG said:
See, I think the "I'd pay any cost to get a stud" crowd is off its rocker. I believe the psychological term for the phenomenon at work here is "hyperbolic discounting". For instance, in my league, the following players were top 12 picks in my leagues over the past 6 years:2012- Richardson, Martin, Luck, Griffin, Blackmon, Morris2011- Julio, Green, Newton, Cobb, Ridley2010- Dez, Spiller, Mathews, Demaryius, Aaron Hernandez2009- McCoy, Harvin, Nicks, Stafford2008- McFadden, Forte, Stewart, Mendenhall, Rice, CJ2K, Ryan, Desean2007- Peterson, Calvin, Lynch, BoweMost of these guys who people would trade 4-6 rookie picks for today were themselves just rookie picks a few years ago. If you traded a bunch of rookie firsts for Calvin last year, you might have unwittingly given up Julio Jones. Last year's rookie firsts turned into this year's untouchable Richardson or Robert Griffin. Look at those lists. 4 rookie picks practically guarantees you at least one name on those lists, and you're more likely to get two than you are to get zero. With 6 rookie firsts, you're looking at a huge chance to land 3 names on one of those lists. It's easy to say you'd trade Calvin for 6 1sts, but would you trade him for Julio, Cobb, and Ridley? For Spiller, Mathews, and Hernandez? For McCoy and Nicks? Once you start attaching names to those picks, it looks like much less of a bargain. And, sure, with rookie picks it's possible you'll roll snake eyes and walk out with nothing... but with a bunch of picks, it's unlikely. And it's also possible to hit 3, or even 4 of those picks. Imagine walking out of a draft with Julio AND Green. Or Richardson AND Griffin. Or Peterson AND Calvin. Or McFadden, Rice, AND Forte.There's not a player in the league I would trade 6 firsts for. As I said, I have a hard time deciding if the real top of the line guys are worth even 4 rookie firsts.
Click to expand...
The problem with this logic is that so much luck is dependent on where you draft. In any of those drafts you were just as likely to be in a spot where you drafted Knowshon, Meachem, Felix Jones, Crabtree, Best, Ingram, etc. If you can get a guy like Calvin Johnson for 4-6 first round picks I would definitely do it. You only have so many roster spots, so it is always better to package players for the stud. If you don't even have to package proven players, and only draft picks, all the better.
 
A lot will depend on the dynasty format, your thoughts on the strength of the draft class and the strength of the teams whose draft picks are being offered.

For example, this year, I don't think any one player at draft time this year would have been worth more than the 1.1 and 1.2 combined, not Calvin, no way Arian Foster. In hindsight, its arguable that no one player would have been worth the 1.3 and 1.4 (RGIII and Luck) - although, no way I would have traded Calvin for the 1.3 and 1.4 this offseason.

Much will also depend on the stage a team is in. As a rebuilding team, scoring 6 1st rounders for Calvin would be like hitting the jackpot. As a team ready to win now, trading Calvin away for the 6 1sts would be difficult to do no matter what the likely future value of those picks (a difficult trade, but one that the Calvin owner should still make imo).

From a straight value standpoint, the 6 picks should easily eclipse the value of any one player by draft time. So, if you're in a position to trade for a set of 6 1sts with just one player, its practically a lock that you'll make a profit over a year's time (a substantial profit).

 
'Shanahanigans said:
'SSOG said:
See, I think the "I'd pay any cost to get a stud" crowd is off its rocker. I believe the psychological term for the phenomenon at work here is "hyperbolic discounting". For instance, in my league, the following players were top 12 picks in my leagues over the past 6 years:2012- Richardson, Martin, Luck, Griffin, Blackmon, Morris2011- Julio, Green, Newton, Cobb, Ridley2010- Dez, Spiller, Mathews, Demaryius, Aaron Hernandez2009- McCoy, Harvin, Nicks, Stafford2008- McFadden, Forte, Stewart, Mendenhall, Rice, CJ2K, Ryan, Desean2007- Peterson, Calvin, Lynch, BoweMost of these guys who people would trade 4-6 rookie picks for today were themselves just rookie picks a few years ago. If you traded a bunch of rookie firsts for Calvin last year, you might have unwittingly given up Julio Jones. Last year's rookie firsts turned into this year's untouchable Richardson or Robert Griffin. Look at those lists. 4 rookie picks practically guarantees you at least one name on those lists, and you're more likely to get two than you are to get zero. With 6 rookie firsts, you're looking at a huge chance to land 3 names on one of those lists. It's easy to say you'd trade Calvin for 6 1sts, but would you trade him for Julio, Cobb, and Ridley? For Spiller, Mathews, and Hernandez? For McCoy and Nicks? Once you start attaching names to those picks, it looks like much less of a bargain. And, sure, with rookie picks it's possible you'll roll snake eyes and walk out with nothing... but with a bunch of picks, it's unlikely. And it's also possible to hit 3, or even 4 of those picks. Imagine walking out of a draft with Julio AND Green. Or Richardson AND Griffin. Or Peterson AND Calvin. Or McFadden, Rice, AND Forte.There's not a player in the league I would trade 6 firsts for. As I said, I have a hard time deciding if the real top of the line guys are worth even 4 rookie firsts.
Click to expand...
The problem with this logic is that so much luck is dependent on where you draft. In any of those drafts you were just as likely to be in a spot where you drafted Knowshon, Meachem, Felix Jones, Crabtree, Best, Ingram, etc. If you can get a guy like Calvin Johnson for 4-6 first round picks I would definitely do it. You only have so many roster spots, so it is always better to package players for the stud. If you don't even have to package proven players, and only draft picks, all the better.
Click to expand...
This is why I fully believe in following college football. I won't speak for others, but I had no interest in any of those guys except for Crabtree (oops) and Best (didn't properly calculate concussion risk) at their costs. I found people that wanted them and traded down or up.
 
'MAC_32 said:
'Shanahanigans said:
'SSOG said:
See, I think the "I'd pay any cost to get a stud" crowd is off its rocker. I believe the psychological term for the phenomenon at work here is "hyperbolic discounting". For instance, in my league, the following players were top 12 picks in my leagues over the past 6 years:2012- Richardson, Martin, Luck, Griffin, Blackmon, Morris2011- Julio, Green, Newton, Cobb, Ridley2010- Dez, Spiller, Mathews, Demaryius, Aaron Hernandez2009- McCoy, Harvin, Nicks, Stafford2008- McFadden, Forte, Stewart, Mendenhall, Rice, CJ2K, Ryan, Desean2007- Peterson, Calvin, Lynch, BoweMost of these guys who people would trade 4-6 rookie picks for today were themselves just rookie picks a few years ago. If you traded a bunch of rookie firsts for Calvin last year, you might have unwittingly given up Julio Jones. Last year's rookie firsts turned into this year's untouchable Richardson or Robert Griffin. Look at those lists. 4 rookie picks practically guarantees you at least one name on those lists, and you're more likely to get two than you are to get zero. With 6 rookie firsts, you're looking at a huge chance to land 3 names on one of those lists. It's easy to say you'd trade Calvin for 6 1sts, but would you trade him for Julio, Cobb, and Ridley? For Spiller, Mathews, and Hernandez? For McCoy and Nicks? Once you start attaching names to those picks, it looks like much less of a bargain. And, sure, with rookie picks it's possible you'll roll snake eyes and walk out with nothing... but with a bunch of picks, it's unlikely. And it's also possible to hit 3, or even 4 of those picks. Imagine walking out of a draft with Julio AND Green. Or Richardson AND Griffin. Or Peterson AND Calvin. Or McFadden, Rice, AND Forte.There's not a player in the league I would trade 6 firsts for. As I said, I have a hard time deciding if the real top of the line guys are worth even 4 rookie firsts.
Click to expand...
The problem with this logic is that so much luck is dependent on where you draft. In any of those drafts you were just as likely to be in a spot where you drafted Knowshon, Meachem, Felix Jones, Crabtree, Best, Ingram, etc. If you can get a guy like Calvin Johnson for 4-6 first round picks I would definitely do it. You only have so many roster spots, so it is always better to package players for the stud. If you don't even have to package proven players, and only draft picks, all the better.
Click to expand...
This is why I fully believe in following college football. I won't speak for others, but I had no interest in any of those guys except for Crabtree (oops) and Best (didn't properly calculate concussion risk) at their costs. I found people that wanted them and traded down or up.
Click to expand...
I watch college quite a bit, and even then it is tough to tell. I thought Laurence Maroney was one of the best RB prospects of the last decade after loving him in college. Braylon Edwards, Charles Rodgers, and Roy Williams all seemed like can't miss prospects, the list is endless. Even guys like Jonathan Stewart who is my favorite RB prospect other than Peterson in the last five years, has been stifled by situation and injuries. You just never know with rookies, so take the stud and run. Add in the benefit of extra roster spots, and it's an easy decision for me.
 
'Shanahanigans said:
'SSOG said:
See, I think the "I'd pay any cost to get a stud" crowd is off its rocker. I believe the psychological term for the phenomenon at work here is "hyperbolic discounting". For instance, in my league, the following players were top 12 picks in my leagues over the past 6 years:

2012- Richardson, Martin, Luck, Griffin, Blackmon, Morris

2011- Julio, Green, Newton, Cobb, Ridley

2010- Dez, Spiller, Mathews, Demaryius, Aaron Hernandez

2009- McCoy, Harvin, Nicks, Stafford

2008- McFadden, Forte, Stewart, Mendenhall, Rice, CJ2K, Ryan, Desean

2007- Peterson, Calvin, Lynch, Bowe

Most of these guys who people would trade 4-6 rookie picks for today were themselves just rookie picks a few years ago. If you traded a bunch of rookie firsts for Calvin last year, you might have unwittingly given up Julio Jones. Last year's rookie firsts turned into this year's untouchable Richardson or Robert Griffin. Look at those lists. 4 rookie picks practically guarantees you at least one name on those lists, and you're more likely to get two than you are to get zero. With 6 rookie firsts, you're looking at a huge chance to land 3 names on one of those lists. It's easy to say you'd trade Calvin for 6 1sts, but would you trade him for Julio, Cobb, and Ridley? For Spiller, Mathews, and Hernandez? For McCoy and Nicks? Once you start attaching names to those picks, it looks like much less of a bargain. And, sure, with rookie picks it's possible you'll roll snake eyes and walk out with nothing... but with a bunch of picks, it's unlikely. And it's also possible to hit 3, or even 4 of those picks. Imagine walking out of a draft with Julio AND Green. Or Richardson AND Griffin. Or Peterson AND Calvin. Or McFadden, Rice, AND Forte.

There's not a player in the league I would trade 6 firsts for. As I said, I have a hard time deciding if the real top of the line guys are worth even 4 rookie firsts.
Click to expand...
The problem with this logic is that so much luck is dependent on where you draft. In any of those drafts you were just as likely to be in a spot where you drafted Knowshon, Meachem, Felix Jones, Crabtree, Best, Ingram, etc. If you can get a guy like Calvin Johnson for 4-6 first round picks I would definitely do it. You only have so many roster spots, so it is always better to package players for the stud. If you don't even have to package proven players, and only draft picks, all the better.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. If you were in position to draft Knowshon Moreno, as an example, you would also be in a position to trade the 1st for a stud vet come draft time and still make a substantial profit (without taking on the rookie risk). If you are the gambling type, you could let the rookies ride and make a ridiculous profit (or fall flat on your face).
 
'FF Ninja said:
'Ray Barboni said:
It really all depends on the owner...My leagues we have a combination of both; the owner that severely over-values rookie picks, and the owner that would rather trad his picks to acquire established players. I fall somewhere in the middle depending on the year, this is why it pays to follow College Football. For example this year, if you did t have a top 3 pick you should have traded out. I had a late 1st round pick...which would get me exactly the same talent I could get in the 2nd, so i traded out.The y key to dynasty rookie picks is getting a good gauge on the draft class...and act accordingly based on the strengths of your team. Next year I believe will be WR once again, no real sure fire QB, and question marks at RB. I'm a true believer of stock piling later round picks if you have a strong squad that's not in the running for a top 3 pick...
Click to expand...
How much does it really pay to watch college football? How many thought Ridley would be the guy in NE over Vereen? I'll trade draft picks all day long for solid guys that have fallen out of favor.
Click to expand...
First off...love the avatar..classic game.It pays to watch college football in order to NOT need your 1st round pick. Lets be honest, if you have a good dynasty team your not going to get a top rookie pick anyways. Which means you need to do your scouting for the later rounds in order to continue to successfully build your roster. Trade your late 1st round picks to the more "casual" FFballer and get the established vet, then clean up on the Turbins, Wilsons, Morriss, Richardson's of the draft.I think we are basically agreeing here, just different views of what watching CFB does for your drafting technique.
 
'Ernol said:
'Shanahanigans said:
'SSOG said:
See, I think the "I'd pay any cost to get a stud" crowd is off its rocker. I believe the psychological term for the phenomenon at work here is "hyperbolic discounting". For instance, in my league, the following players were top 12 picks in my leagues over the past 6 years:

2012- Richardson, Martin, Luck, Griffin, Blackmon, Morris

2011- Julio, Green, Newton, Cobb, Ridley

2010- Dez, Spiller, Mathews, Demaryius, Aaron Hernandez

2009- McCoy, Harvin, Nicks, Stafford

2008- McFadden, Forte, Stewart, Mendenhall, Rice, CJ2K, Ryan, Desean

2007- Peterson, Calvin, Lynch, Bowe

Most of these guys who people would trade 4-6 rookie picks for today were themselves just rookie picks a few years ago. If you traded a bunch of rookie firsts for Calvin last year, you might have unwittingly given up Julio Jones. Last year's rookie firsts turned into this year's untouchable Richardson or Robert Griffin. Look at those lists. 4 rookie picks practically guarantees you at least one name on those lists, and you're more likely to get two than you are to get zero. With 6 rookie firsts, you're looking at a huge chance to land 3 names on one of those lists. It's easy to say you'd trade Calvin for 6 1sts, but would you trade him for Julio, Cobb, and Ridley? For Spiller, Mathews, and Hernandez? For McCoy and Nicks? Once you start attaching names to those picks, it looks like much less of a bargain. And, sure, with rookie picks it's possible you'll roll snake eyes and walk out with nothing... but with a bunch of picks, it's unlikely. And it's also possible to hit 3, or even 4 of those picks. Imagine walking out of a draft with Julio AND Green. Or Richardson AND Griffin. Or Peterson AND Calvin. Or McFadden, Rice, AND Forte.

There's not a player in the league I would trade 6 firsts for. As I said, I have a hard time deciding if the real top of the line guys are worth even 4 rookie firsts.
Click to expand...
The problem with this logic is that so much luck is dependent on where you draft. In any of those drafts you were just as likely to be in a spot where you drafted Knowshon, Meachem, Felix Jones, Crabtree, Best, Ingram, etc. If you can get a guy like Calvin Johnson for 4-6 first round picks I would definitely do it. You only have so many roster spots, so it is always better to package players for the stud. If you don't even have to package proven players, and only draft picks, all the better.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. If you were in position to draft Knowshon Moreno, as an example, you would also be in a position to trade the 1st for a stud vet come draft time and still make a substantial profit (without taking on the rookie risk). If you are the gambling type, you could let the rookies ride and make a ridiculous profit (or fall flat on your face).
Click to expand...
Yes, but most likely no #1 pick is going to land you Calvin, or the guys we're talking about. There is no debating that 1st Round Picks all hold value, and the higher picks can hold significant value. However, nobody is out there winning championships by packaging Calvin, McCoy, or Foster for a bunch of draft picks. Also, what's to say luck has it that your draft picks don't all end up in the top four picks of the draft. A lot of times a late first is comparable to a mid-second round pick. I mean a future first round pick loses a lot of luster when it turns into 12th overall in a weak draft.

 
'I was in the pool said:
Great topic.I think late 1sts vs. Early 1sts are the main difference. One top pick is worth multiple lower ones to me. The high rate is decent on top3 picks, so a couple of those are worth a middle range stud IMO
Click to expand...
By and large, I agree. Top-tier firsts have an incredible success rate- in my league, it's around 66%, with 50% becoming top12 players at their position, and about 33% becoming true top-of-the-line studs. Later firsts produce just as many studs, but the hit rate is about half what it is at the top. Still, sometimes it's hard to pin down who will be picking where prior to the season. I remember one year everyone had one team pegged as the sure-fire worst team in the league for years to come. I mean, this guy had absolutely no top-24 RBs or WRs, and no top-12 QBs or TEs. Of course, he wound up having some decent backups on his teams. Guys named Vick and McFadden and Nicks and Lynch and Cruz. Meanwhile, I led the league in total points last year, and yet due to horrible head-to-head luck, I missed the playoffs, landed the 1.04, and drafted Griffin. Any pick is a potential early pick. Any pick is a potential late pick. You can try to handicap the races, but it's hardly an exact science.
 
As an example, in one of my PPR dynasties, I went into a serious rebuilding project this off-season, acquiring 3 additional first round picks, plus an extra 2nd and 3rd. One of the teams that I owned his 1st and 2nd round picks decides that he wants to go into a serious re-build of his own - but he can't really do that with me owning his picks.

So we end up working out a trade where I give up Pettigrew and two 1sts (his and one that will be near the end of the 1st) for Jimmy Graham. That was giving up a lot to get Graham, but he's already a stud, and there's no telling how those picks end up.

 
'Shanahanigans said:
The problem with this logic is that so much luck is dependent on where you draft. In any of those drafts you were just as likely to be in a spot where you drafted Knowshon, Meachem, Felix Jones, Crabtree, Best, Ingram, etc. If you can get a guy like Calvin Johnson for 4-6 first round picks I would definitely do it. You only have so many roster spots, so it is always better to package players for the stud. If you don't even have to package proven players, and only draft picks, all the better.
Click to expand...
With one pick, luck plays a big role. With 4 picks? Not so much. Even the bad drafts produced 4 big names in the first. If we assume that there are 4 big names, and you have 4 of the 12 picks, the odds of not walking away with a single one of them are just 14%. With 6 picks in a good draft, the odds of walking away empty handed are 0.1%.Edit: all these hypotheticals aside, does anyone have any real-world examples? What is the most rookie picks you guys have seen traded in your leagues? What did those picks net?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
12 firsts for a Jerry Rice or Emmitt Smith, 4-5 for a typical top fantasy player, and 2 for RB10 or WR10 - those values seem about right. Using career VBD data from PFR, and guessing who would be a fantasy first rounder based on position and draft slot, the data suggest that first round (top 12) fantasy picks are worth about 150 VBD on average. A top 3 pick is worth more like 275 VBD, and a pick outside the top 3 more like 110 VBD, so if you know where in the draft the pick will be that can change things a lot.

Jerry Rice had 1624 career VBD and Emmitt Smith had 1316 VBD, so a complete first round (1800 VBD) is probably a bit below Rice and ahead of Smith once you account for the value of a roster spot. That's assuming that you were getting their full career, and you knew in advance what they'd do.

What can you expect in advance for a player who is considered to be one of the top few dynasty players? If you judge players solely by their fantasy track record (looking at past players who had put up similar numbers by their age to see what they did over the rest of their career), then the best player out there is the youngest proven RB. Right now that's LeSean McCoy. He just had back-to-back 50+ VBD seasons seasons at ages 22 & 23 - RBs in my data set who did that averaged 579 VBD over the rest of their career (although there were only 6 of them). Alternatively, he just had a 100+ VBD season at age 23, and the 7 RBs in my data set who did that averaged 694 VBD over the rest of their career. So that's about 4 first round picks or a bit more (especially once you account for the value of a roster spot). This method of historical comparison doesn't work so well for someone like Calvin Johnson, since there are too few comparable players (unless you group him in with e.g. every WR who had 80+ VBD at age 26, but that would understate his value).

It's also hard to identify low-end RB1s, because the data I have are so age-dependent and don't deal well with injuries (there are currently only 6 RBs coming off a 50+ VBD season, and that's the cutoff that I used for inclusion in my data set). But there are a group of players in my data set who fit the "low-end top 10 WR" category pretty well: mid-career WRs (age 27-30) who are coming off back-to-back 40+ VBD seasons. They average a little over 200 VBD remaining, which makes them worth between 1 and 2 random first-round picks. PFR numbers tend to undervalue WRs relative to RBs (they use RB 24 and WR30 as the baseline, and no PPR), so perhaps it should be closer to 2.

 
'SSOG said:
'I was in the pool said:
Great topic.

I think late 1sts vs. Early 1sts are the main difference. One top pick is worth multiple lower ones to me. The high rate is decent on top3 picks, so a couple of those are worth a middle range stud IMO
Click to expand...
By and large, I agree. Top-tier firsts have an incredible success rate- in my league, it's around 66%, with 50% becoming top12 players at their position, and about 33% becoming true top-of-the-line studs. Later firsts produce just as many studs, but the hit rate is about half what it is at the top. Still, sometimes it's hard to pin down who will be picking where prior to the season. I remember one year everyone had one team pegged as the sure-fire worst team in the league for years to come. I mean, this guy had absolutely no top-24 RBs or WRs, and no top-12 QBs or TEs. Of course, he wound up having some decent backups on his teams. Guys named Vick and McFadden and Nicks and Lynch and Cruz. Meanwhile, I led the league in total points last year, and yet due to horrible head-to-head luck, I missed the playoffs, landed the 1.04, and drafted Griffin. Any pick is a potential early pick. Any pick is a potential late pick. You can try to handicap the races, but it's hardly an exact science.
Click to expand...
And therein lies the concern in trading players (proven) for picks (speculative). In general, I prefer not to trade many players for 1st round picks, unless I already know the position of the pick - and in general, if it's not top 3, it's not worth anyone who is top 20 at their position (well, top 12 TE). We had a guy this past year who had 3 of the top 5 picks - and landed Luck, Blackmon and D. Wilson. He gave up quite a bit to get those picks - and while Luck looks solid and will likely be very good, Blackmon and Wilson are still very much "wait and see". Just as an example - three years ago (I think) the top 2 RBs were Moreno and Wells. SOmeone in our league had the top 2 picks and took both. That hasn't gone well.

 
'Shanahanigans said:
'Ernol said:
'Shanahanigans said:
'SSOG said:
See, I think the "I'd pay any cost to get a stud" crowd is off its rocker. I believe the psychological term for the phenomenon at work here is "hyperbolic discounting". For instance, in my league, the following players were top 12 picks in my leagues over the past 6 years:

2012- Richardson, Martin, Luck, Griffin, Blackmon, Morris

2011- Julio, Green, Newton, Cobb, Ridley

2010- Dez, Spiller, Mathews, Demaryius, Aaron Hernandez

2009- McCoy, Harvin, Nicks, Stafford

2008- McFadden, Forte, Stewart, Mendenhall, Rice, CJ2K, Ryan, Desean

2007- Peterson, Calvin, Lynch, Bowe

Most of these guys who people would trade 4-6 rookie picks for today were themselves just rookie picks a few years ago. If you traded a bunch of rookie firsts for Calvin last year, you might have unwittingly given up Julio Jones. Last year's rookie firsts turned into this year's untouchable Richardson or Robert Griffin. Look at those lists. 4 rookie picks practically guarantees you at least one name on those lists, and you're more likely to get two than you are to get zero. With 6 rookie firsts, you're looking at a huge chance to land 3 names on one of those lists. It's easy to say you'd trade Calvin for 6 1sts, but would you trade him for Julio, Cobb, and Ridley? For Spiller, Mathews, and Hernandez? For McCoy and Nicks? Once you start attaching names to those picks, it looks like much less of a bargain. And, sure, with rookie picks it's possible you'll roll snake eyes and walk out with nothing... but with a bunch of picks, it's unlikely. And it's also possible to hit 3, or even 4 of those picks. Imagine walking out of a draft with Julio AND Green. Or Richardson AND Griffin. Or Peterson AND Calvin. Or McFadden, Rice, AND Forte.

There's not a player in the league I would trade 6 firsts for. As I said, I have a hard time deciding if the real top of the line guys are worth even 4 rookie firsts.
Click to expand...
The problem with this logic is that so much luck is dependent on where you draft. In any of those drafts you were just as likely to be in a spot where you drafted Knowshon, Meachem, Felix Jones, Crabtree, Best, Ingram, etc. If you can get a guy like Calvin Johnson for 4-6 first round picks I would definitely do it. You only have so many roster spots, so it is always better to package players for the stud. If you don't even have to package proven players, and only draft picks, all the better.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. If you were in position to draft Knowshon Moreno, as an example, you would also be in a position to trade the 1st for a stud vet come draft time and still make a substantial profit (without taking on the rookie risk). If you are the gambling type, you could let the rookies ride and make a ridiculous profit (or fall flat on your face).
Click to expand...
Yes, but most likely no #1 pick is going to land you Calvin, or the guys we're talking about. There is no debating that 1st Round Picks all hold value, and the higher picks can hold significant value. However, nobody is out there winning championships by packaging Calvin, McCoy, or Foster for a bunch of draft picks. Also, what's to say luck has it that your draft picks don't all end up in the top four picks of the draft. A lot of times a late first is comparable to a mid-second round pick. I mean a future first round pick loses a lot of luster when it turns into 12th overall in a weak draft.
Click to expand...
I agree, it makes a huge difference that you land an early pick vs a late pick. Two early picks could very well land you Calvin (as I mentioned earlier, 1.1 and 1.2 this year combined would out-value any one player). Two late picks would be a huge loser. Mass picks (6 was being discussed) helps a lot in offsetting that risk. Evaluating those picks chances helps to offset the risk more. Sure, even if you're good at it, you might miss on a pick. However, for the most part, I think you can tell where a large set of picks will likely be valued as a whole.

 
'SSOG said:
'Shanahanigans said:
The problem with this logic is that so much luck is dependent on where you draft. In any of those drafts you were just as likely to be in a spot where you drafted Knowshon, Meachem, Felix Jones, Crabtree, Best, Ingram, etc. If you can get a guy like Calvin Johnson for 4-6 first round picks I would definitely do it. You only have so many roster spots, so it is always better to package players for the stud. If you don't even have to package proven players, and only draft picks, all the better.
Click to expand...
With one pick, luck plays a big role. With 4 picks? Not so much. Even the bad drafts produced 4 big names in the first. If we assume that there are 4 big names, and you have 4 of the 12 picks, the odds of not walking away with a single one of them are just 14%. With 6 picks in a good draft, the odds of walking away empty handed are 0.1%.Edit: all these hypotheticals aside, does anyone have any real-world examples? What is the most rookie picks you guys have seen traded in your leagues? What did those picks net?
Click to expand...
Not recalling exactly one player for mass picks that have already played out in hindsight, but I traded much of my startup draft last year in order to accumulate 9 1sts that ended up being the 1.1, 1.2, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9 and 1.11. I cashed in those picks for the following:1.2, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.9, 1.11 for Arian Foster, Ben Tate and Cam Newton1.8 for Matt Ryan1.1 drafted Trent RichardsonTraded Foster/Tate for Calvin. In total, traded in 9 1sts for Calvin, Cam Newton, Matt Ryan and Trent Richardson. As for trading a player for mass picks, while the final results won't play out for another year, for that same team, I essentially traded during this preseason Ryan Mathews to a top contending win-now team for RGIII and 3 future 1sts (in order to continue to build value). Obviously, that trade is now a clear win, but at the time, it was similar to trading Mathews for 4 1sts to what was already a top contender (and now a very scary team).
 
Really depends on the league format and the players who will be available in the draft. I play in one 14 team PPR league that has small rosters, no required starting TE and no PPR for anyone. In a league like this, late firsts are practically worthless because the WR/TE have little value and the rosters aren't big enough to hold projects on your bench for multiple seasons.On the other hand, I play in some more balanced 12 and 14 team leagues where a late first is usually quite valuable. In a league like this there are only a handful of players that I wouldn't trade for 2 or 3 random first round picks. Rightly or wrongly, I like my chances to get a good player with a top 10 pick, so I tend to value them pretty highly. Rookie picks have risk, but so do veterans.

'SSOG said:
I don't believe in gauging drafts anymore. I think you can gauge which drafts have really good top-end talent (Richardson, Peterson, Calvin, etc)... But the last "weak draft class" I saw wound up producing Lesean McCoy, Percy Harvin, Hakeem Nicks, Jeremy Maclin, and Mathew Stafford. I don't recall anyone hyping the 2008 class as the greatest draft of all time ahead of time, and it gave us McFadden, Rice, CJ2K, Forte, Charles, Stewart, Slaton, and Desean.
Click to expand...
The 2008 class had 5 first round RBs. The 2009 class had 6 first round WRs. I don't think either class proves that drafts can't be gauged. If anything, they demonstrate the opposite. You can get a pretty good sense for how strong a position group is in a particular draft class just by counting the number of high picks. 2008 was deep with legitimate first round RB talent and nobody should be surprised to see the 2009 WR class excelling given how high they all went.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'SSOG said:
'Ray Barboni said:
The y key to dynasty rookie picks is getting a good gauge on the draft class...and act accordingly based on the strengths of your team. Next year I believe will be WR once again, no real sure fire QB, and question marks at RB.
Click to expand...
I don't believe in gauging drafts anymore. I think you can gauge which drafts have really good top-end talent (Richardson, Peterson, Calvin, etc)... But the last "weak draft class" I saw wound up producing Lesean McCoy, Percy Harvin, Hakeem Nicks, Jeremy Maclin, and Mathew Stafford. I don't recall anyone hyping the 2008 class as the greatest draft of all time ahead of time, and it gave us McFadden, Rice, CJ2K, Forte, Charles, Stewart, Slaton, and Desean. See, I think the "I'd pay any cost to get a stud" crowd is off its rocker. I believe the psychological term for the phenomenon at work here is "hyperbolic discounting". For instance, in my league, the following players were top 12 picks in my leagues over the past 6 years:2012- Richardson, Martin, Luck, Griffin, Blackmon, Morris2011- Julio, Green, Newton, Cobb, Ridley2010- Dez, Spiller, Mathews, Demaryius, Aaron Hernandez2009- McCoy, Harvin, Nicks, Stafford2008- McFadden, Forte, Stewart, Mendenhall, Rice, CJ2K, Ryan, Desean2007- Peterson, Calvin, Lynch, BoweMost of these guys who people would trade 4-6 rookie picks for today were themselves just rookie picks a few years ago. If you traded a bunch of rookie firsts for Calvin last year, you might have unwittingly given up Julio Jones. Last year's rookie firsts turned into this year's untouchable Richardson or Robert Griffin. Look at those lists. 4 rookie picks practically guarantees you at least one name on those lists, and you're more likely to get two than you are to get zero. With 6 rookie firsts, you're looking at a huge chance to land 3 names on one of those lists. It's easy to say you'd trade Calvin for 6 1sts, but would you trade him for Julio, Cobb, and Ridley? For Spiller, Mathews, and Hernandez? For McCoy and Nicks? Once you start attaching names to those picks, it looks like much less of a bargain. And, sure, with rookie picks it's possible you'll roll snake eyes and walk out with nothing... but with a bunch of picks, it's unlikely. And it's also possible to hit 3, or even 4 of those picks. Imagine walking out of a draft with Julio AND Green. Or Richardson AND Griffin. Or Peterson AND Calvin. Or McFadden, Rice, AND Forte.There's not a player in the league I would trade 6 firsts for. As I said, I have a hard time deciding if the real top of the line guys are worth even 4 rookie firsts.
Click to expand...
A lot of it depends on the teams that those picks are coming from. Almost all of those combos you mentioned at the end came from combinations of multiple top 3 or top 4 picks.In my leagues, 1st round picks from teams that are widely considered to be bad are worth a lot, whereas 1st round picks from teams that are widely considered to be good are worth very little. This is typically a lot easier to separate in dynasty leagues as there can grow a much larger divide between the teams over multiple years. For instance, we have a team rolling out Cutler/Holmes/Amendola/Titus Young/Sproles/Bush/Olsen. That guy's rookie pick is worth a top player to the league. Meanwhile we have another team rolling out Brady/Foster/Mcgahee/Welker/Austin/Wayne/Hernandez (Bennett). That one is worth a lot less.My best success has come in picking out teams that I think are paper good and acquiring their picks for cheaper and hoping things don't work out for them. The problem I've noticed develop the last few years in trading for picks of bad teams is that you have to pay the value of the #1 overall pick when trading with them, even though it may not end up being the #1 overall pick.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'ld prefer to get a roughie who I've seen with my own eyes in the big leagues rather than hold onto what I think will generally be a late pick. Haven't used my own first rounder in one league for 5 years now.

Sometimes it means I overpay, sometimes I get it wrong, sometimes it's a win win.

I don't have next years first round pick, having traded it for Vincent Brown (Pre injury). Still relatively happy with the trade all things considered.

I'll normally trade back into the top of the first if I think there's a particular player worthy, or I'll be very cautious trading my futures if I think it'll be a deep class. That being said, I'm not the best drafter for non-studs, and most of my best draft picks have been FAs rather than rookies. I'm always comfortable getting better via trading than drafting.

 
'SSOG said:
With one pick, luck plays a big role. With 4 picks? Not so much. Even the bad drafts produced 4 big names in the first. If we assume that there are 4 big names, and you have 4 of the 12 picks, the odds of not walking away with a single one of them are just 14%.
Click to expand...
So four picks gives you a 14% chance of getting nothing for your top of the line stud? And a good chance of getting two players who'll be very good in a couple years? No chance for a player like Calvin or Gronk. Maybe the next tier down, but not an uber elite guy likely to play for a decade or more.
 
Not only does it matter league to league but also timeframe when you choose to shop them. I scored what is certain to me the 1.1 and 1.2 in my league this summer and I'm going to wait until teams drop out of the playoff race and shop those picks to them for their best players so I can make another run.

 
'Shanahanigans said:
'SSOG said:
See, I think the "I'd pay any cost to get a stud" crowd is off its rocker. I believe the psychological term for the phenomenon at work here is "hyperbolic discounting". For instance, in my league, the following players were top 12 picks in my leagues over the past 6 years:2012- Richardson, Martin, Luck, Griffin, Blackmon, Morris2011- Julio, Green, Newton, Cobb, Ridley2010- Dez, Spiller, Mathews, Demaryius, Aaron Hernandez2009- McCoy, Harvin, Nicks, Stafford2008- McFadden, Forte, Stewart, Mendenhall, Rice, CJ2K, Ryan, Desean2007- Peterson, Calvin, Lynch, BoweMost of these guys who people would trade 4-6 rookie picks for today were themselves just rookie picks a few years ago. If you traded a bunch of rookie firsts for Calvin last year, you might have unwittingly given up Julio Jones. Last year's rookie firsts turned into this year's untouchable Richardson or Robert Griffin. Look at those lists. 4 rookie picks practically guarantees you at least one name on those lists, and you're more likely to get two than you are to get zero. With 6 rookie firsts, you're looking at a huge chance to land 3 names on one of those lists. It's easy to say you'd trade Calvin for 6 1sts, but would you trade him for Julio, Cobb, and Ridley? For Spiller, Mathews, and Hernandez? For McCoy and Nicks? Once you start attaching names to those picks, it looks like much less of a bargain. And, sure, with rookie picks it's possible you'll roll snake eyes and walk out with nothing... but with a bunch of picks, it's unlikely. And it's also possible to hit 3, or even 4 of those picks. Imagine walking out of a draft with Julio AND Green. Or Richardson AND Griffin. Or Peterson AND Calvin. Or McFadden, Rice, AND Forte.There's not a player in the league I would trade 6 firsts for. As I said, I have a hard time deciding if the real top of the line guys are worth even 4 rookie firsts.
Click to expand...
The problem with this logic is that so much luck is dependent on where you draft. :goodposting:In any of those drafts you were just as likely to be in a spot where you drafted Knowshon, Meachem, Felix Jones, Crabtree, Best, Ingram, etc. If you can get a guy like Calvin Johnson for 4-6 first round picks I would definitely do it. You only have so many roster spots, so it is always better to package players for the stud. If you don't even have to package proven players, and only draft picks, all the better.
Click to expand...
This is what I am saying. Often it is easier to look back at 12 draft picks and say "See? 5 of the 12 were studs and 2 were solid players"...but what if you used 3 1st rounders on some of the other players - or only got one of the "solid" players? So you traded a guy like Calvin to nab players like Crabtree, Ingram, Moreno and Beanie Wells. Guess what? You're team is headed in the wrong direction - and it can take years to recover from disastrous trades like that. Especially if you spent your time stockpiling picks for one draft.
 
'wdcrob said:
'SSOG said:
With one pick, luck plays a big role. With 4 picks? Not so much. Even the bad drafts produced 4 big names in the first. If we assume that there are 4 big names, and you have 4 of the 12 picks, the odds of not walking away with a single one of them are just 14%.
Click to expand...
So four picks gives you a 14% chance of getting nothing for your top of the line stud? And a good chance of getting two players who'll be very good in a couple years? No chance for a player like Calvin or Gronk. Maybe the next tier down, but not an uber elite guy likely to play for a decade or more.
Click to expand...
There's also a chance your under-stud gets injured or just fails to perform as expected. 3 years ago Chris Johnson was squarely in the uber-elite category. Larry Fitzgerald would have been in the uber-elite category in 2009 and still is one of the top two WRs in the game but since then hasn't finished top 4. There's always risk, it's just a question of whether you take the lesser risk that your stud won't perform in the future vs. the risk/reward of multiple players doing well for you. Greatly depends on the makeup of your team, if your team has squat aside from Gronk, it may be worthwhile to trade him for 4 1sts. If your team is a contender you probably don't make that type of deal. I have two dynasty teams. in one I'd trade my top guy for multiple 1sts easily but those offers haven't come. In the other I highly doubt I'd trade any of my top few players for multiple picks and I made my team a contender almost overnight a decade ago when I traded 4 1st round picks for Tomlinson. I don't know that I'd trade 4 1sts for Gronk, but it's probably a fair deal.
 
'DoubleG said:
'Shanahanigans said:
'SSOG said:
See, I think the "I'd pay any cost to get a stud" crowd is off its rocker. I believe the psychological term for the phenomenon at work here is "hyperbolic discounting". For instance, in my league, the following players were top 12 picks in my leagues over the past 6 years:2012- Richardson, Martin, Luck, Griffin, Blackmon, Morris2011- Julio, Green, Newton, Cobb, Ridley2010- Dez, Spiller, Mathews, Demaryius, Aaron Hernandez2009- McCoy, Harvin, Nicks, Stafford2008- McFadden, Forte, Stewart, Mendenhall, Rice, CJ2K, Ryan, Desean2007- Peterson, Calvin, Lynch, BoweMost of these guys who people would trade 4-6 rookie picks for today were themselves just rookie picks a few years ago. If you traded a bunch of rookie firsts for Calvin last year, you might have unwittingly given up Julio Jones. Last year's rookie firsts turned into this year's untouchable Richardson or Robert Griffin. Look at those lists. 4 rookie picks practically guarantees you at least one name on those lists, and you're more likely to get two than you are to get zero. With 6 rookie firsts, you're looking at a huge chance to land 3 names on one of those lists. It's easy to say you'd trade Calvin for 6 1sts, but would you trade him for Julio, Cobb, and Ridley? For Spiller, Mathews, and Hernandez? For McCoy and Nicks? Once you start attaching names to those picks, it looks like much less of a bargain. And, sure, with rookie picks it's possible you'll roll snake eyes and walk out with nothing... but with a bunch of picks, it's unlikely. And it's also possible to hit 3, or even 4 of those picks. Imagine walking out of a draft with Julio AND Green. Or Richardson AND Griffin. Or Peterson AND Calvin. Or McFadden, Rice, AND Forte.There's not a player in the league I would trade 6 firsts for. As I said, I have a hard time deciding if the real top of the line guys are worth even 4 rookie firsts.
Click to expand...
The problem with this logic is that so much luck is dependent on where you draft. :goodposting:In any of those drafts you were just as likely to be in a spot where you drafted Knowshon, Meachem, Felix Jones, Crabtree, Best, Ingram, etc. If you can get a guy like Calvin Johnson for 4-6 first round picks I would definitely do it. You only have so many roster spots, so it is always better to package players for the stud. If you don't even have to package proven players, and only draft picks, all the better.
Click to expand...
This is what I am saying. Often it is easier to look back at 12 draft picks and say "See? 5 of the 12 were studs and 2 were solid players"...but what if you used 3 1st rounders on some of the other players - or only got one of the "solid" players? So you traded a guy like Calvin to nab players like Crabtree, Ingram, Moreno and Beanie Wells. Guess what? You're team is headed in the wrong direction - and it can take years to recover from disastrous trades like that. Especially if you spent your time stockpiling picks for one draft.
Click to expand...
Sure, it's a risk. Everything in FF involves risk. The question is whether you take the risk of picks or the player. Without looking, take any random assortment of 1st round picks from one of your leagues. I'll try it here - say you traded Calvin during 2010 for 4 2011 1sts. Those 1sts ended up being #2, 5, 7, and 12 (say the guy who got Calvin won the league). Those picks yielded Julius Jones, Daniel Thomas, Greg Little and Cam Newton. Was it worth it? I'd say so. now, if he didn't grab Cam and took Helu, Brown or Vereen instead... not as much but he still walked away with one stud. Which goes back to what someone else said - if you know you're getting a top 3 pick a deal like this becomes easier to take. Keep in mind your team is probably also more likely to end up with a higher pick.
 
I'd also like to throw out a random thought in general.

Trading large numbers of rookie picks - especially 1st rounders for studs or "semi-studs" drastically increases variance.

What I mean is, typically in dynasty leagues, year to year draft pick slot is often based on how teams did the previous year. If draft picks were never traded, theoretically, the worst team would get the best player avaialble and so on. When you trade studs for picks, you are introducing variance - the picks may yield players worth far more...or far less - than the player you traded the picks for. That said, if you fancy yourself a good FF dynasty player, should you prefer more or less variance?

I am not sure of the answer just throwing out the question.

Certainly, if you are "taking over a bad team" - you want the variance as high as possible...it's the only way to "make up ground" on the good teams quickly. However, if you are a good team, wouldn't it be in your best interest to "maintain the status quo"? Or keep things as non-volatile as possible?

Again, just tossing out the idea.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
'SSOG said:
'Shanahanigans said:
The problem with this logic is that so much luck is dependent on where you draft. In any of those drafts you were just as likely to be in a spot where you drafted Knowshon, Meachem, Felix Jones, Crabtree, Best, Ingram, etc. If you can get a guy like Calvin Johnson for 4-6 first round picks I would definitely do it. You only have so many roster spots, so it is always better to package players for the stud. If you don't even have to package proven players, and only draft picks, all the better.
Click to expand...
With one pick, luck plays a big role. With 4 picks? Not so much. Even the bad drafts produced 4 big names in the first. If we assume that there are 4 big names, and you have 4 of the 12 picks, the odds of not walking away with a single one of them are just 14%. With 6 picks in a good draft, the odds of walking away empty handed are 0.1%.Edit: all these hypotheticals aside, does anyone have any real-world examples? What is the most rookie picks you guys have seen traded in your leagues? What did those picks net?
Click to expand...
2 Seasons ago a guy "bought" the championship by trading his who draft (5 rounds, a 1st the next year and Matt Ryan for Brady. It worked out well because he got what he wanted. This was before Ryan started to emerge. Deal doesn't look all that good now and I think that's the price you pay if you aren't careful.
 
'FUBAR said:
There's also a chance your under-stud gets injured or just fails to perform as expected. 3 years ago Chris Johnson was squarely in the uber-elite category.
Click to expand...
:goodposting: This is why I would argue it is better to target WRs and QBs rather than RBs in a trade like this. The turnover on RBs is super high. One year a RB is the #1 player in FF, and in 3 years or less he is out of the league. In general, a RB, no matter how good he is, is going to have at most 6-8 productive years fantasy wise. Compare this to QBs who may have 14-16 productive years, or WRs who could be looking at 11-13 productive years. It is much safer to trade to trade for one of those positions. Even then, that uber-stud could turn into Carson Palmer or Braylon Edwards.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'SSOG said:
'Shanahanigans said:
The problem with this logic is that so much luck is dependent on where you draft. In any of those drafts you were just as likely to be in a spot where you drafted Knowshon, Meachem, Felix Jones, Crabtree, Best, Ingram, etc. If you can get a guy like Calvin Johnson for 4-6 first round picks I would definitely do it. You only have so many roster spots, so it is always better to package players for the stud. If you don't even have to package proven players, and only draft picks, all the better.
Click to expand...
With one pick, luck plays a big role. With 4 picks? Not so much. Even the bad drafts produced 4 big names in the first. If we assume that there are 4 big names, and you have 4 of the 12 picks, the odds of not walking away with a single one of them are just 14%. With 6 picks in a good draft, the odds of walking away empty handed are 0.1%.Edit: all these hypotheticals aside, does anyone have any real-world examples? What is the most rookie picks you guys have seen traded in your leagues? What did those picks net?
Click to expand...
This would all work a lot better if roster space is not limited. For how long can you wait and see if your 7,8, and 12 picks live up to their potential. Are you really going to have 6 open roster spots? What are you going to do with your 2nd round pick(s), pass because you don't have the space? I would rather trade my higher picks for the studs, wait till the 2nd or 3rd round and fill in my roster with guys who slip in the draft that I like.
 
'Shanahanigans said:
I would trade any amount of firsts to get one of those studs. No matter how good a rookie looks it is still a bit of a crapshoot. Take the stud and win now. It's like cashing in your chips while your ahead, sure maybe you could make more money if you keep playing, but it's smarter to take the safe money and run.
Click to expand...
Yeah. I agree. It is most like playing the odds in Texas Hold'em. After folding on an Ace Two, don't start second guessing yourself on the next hand because you would have had four Aces if you'd stayed through the River.
 
'DoubleG said:
I'd also like to throw out a random thought in general.Trading large numbers of rookie picks - especially 1st rounders for studs or "semi-studs" drastically increases variance.What I mean is, typically in dynasty leagues, year to year draft pick slot is often based on how teams did the previous year. If draft picks were never traded, theoretically, the worst team would get the best player avaialble and so on. When you trade studs for picks, you are introducing variance - the picks may yield players worth far more...or far less - than the player you traded the picks for. That said, if you fancy yourself a good FF dynasty player, should you prefer more or less variance?I am not sure of the answer just throwing out the question.Certainly, if you are "taking over a bad team" - you want the variance as high as possible...it's the only way to "make up ground" on the good teams quickly. However, if you are a good team, wouldn't it be in your best interest to "maintain the status quo"? Or keep things as non-volatile as possible?Again, just tossing out the idea.
Click to expand...
Good points and interesting to think about. As to increasing or decreasing variance, I am not sure that going the mass rookie draft pick route necessarily increases variance (well, maybe upside, but not necessarily downside). It depends a lot on your plan for the picks.Sure, if you are going to draft the actual rookies, then yes, I suppose variance increases (although I am not certain that a rookie necessarily carries more risk than a vet). Actually drafting the rookies gives the highest upside but with it arguably the highest downside. However, if you trade for and carry the mass draft picks for a year and then end up trading them just prior to your draft for a stud vet (not necessarily the best thing, but probably the safest), then I would argue that you have REDUCED your downside and risk relative to holding a vet during the same period and, based on the market price for top vets relative to future rookie picks, have increased your upside (a possible win win). Carrying a real player for a year involves quite a bit of risk due to injury, poor performance, decline or just misevaluation (see Chris Johnson as the poster boy). Carrying future draft picks, on the other hand, carries zero risk due to any of these things (other than perhaps misevaluation on whether the picks would be high or low, but having mass picks reduces that risk anyway). As to whether a good/great team philosophically should stay put or keep taking risks to improve, I usually find that team is either looking to improve (which usually requires taking on some risk) or it is in decline (gradual as it might be). This is built into the draft pick rules where the lesser teams get the better rookie draft picks while the better teams get the lesser rookie picks and decline. Eventually, looking to maintain the status quo in dynasty leagues will lead to the evening of the playing field. It is by delving back into the rookie draft (by trading for multiple draft picks) that a good/great team can continue to improve and maintain its lead over the other teams.
 
'FreeBaGeL said:
A lot of it depends on the teams that those picks are coming from. Almost all of those combos you mentioned at the end came from combinations of multiple top 3 or top 4 picks.In my leagues, 1st round picks from teams that are widely considered to be bad are worth a lot, whereas 1st round picks from teams that are widely considered to be good are worth very little. This is typically a lot easier to separate in dynasty leagues as there can grow a much larger divide between the teams over multiple years. For instance, we have a team rolling out Cutler/Holmes/Amendola/Titus Young/Sproles/Bush/Olsen. That guy's rookie pick is worth a top player to the league. Meanwhile we have another team rolling out Brady/Foster/Mcgahee/Welker/Austin/Wayne/Hernandez (Bennett). That one is worth a lot less.My best success has come in picking out teams that I think are paper good and acquiring their picks for cheaper and hoping things don't work out for them. The problem I've noticed develop the last few years in trading for picks of bad teams is that you have to pay the value of the #1 overall pick when trading with them, even though it may not end up being the #1 overall pick.
Click to expand...
Again, that's great in theory, but I think people radically overrate their ability to predict the future. For instance, there was a team last year that was a real dog of a team in my league. His only good player was Jamaal Charles. After week one, all the vultures started circling trying to get his first, and one team finally succeeded. Of course, that team had Cam Newton, Fred Jackson, CJ Spiller, Reggie Bush, Brandon Marshall, Julio Jones, and Brent Celek. He got some good luck during the season, made the playoffs, and won the whole damn thing on the strength of Julio. Meanwhile, I was second in the league in total points, started the #1 QB, #1 RB, #2 RB, a top 5 WR and TE, and had quality depth throughout. I tried shopping my pick all season, but nobody was interested. I wound up missing the playoffs due to brutal head-to-head luck, and my pick wound up being #4 (aka the Bob Griffin pick). This isn't to say that you can't make broad judgments of team quality, it's just to say that people will really overrate how accurate those judgments really are. Hell, just a week ago I was trying to get a guy's pick because his top two RBs were only Reggie Bush and CJ Spiller. Just one week later, and I've already dramatically reevaluated how valuable that pick might be. "Good picks" are likely less valuable than you think. "Bad picks" are moreso. Hell, maybe the smart play here is just buying the cheap firsts and hoping for a lucky break or two, because every year there's a preseason favorite who misses the playoffs
'wdcrob said:
'SSOG said:
With one pick, luck plays a big role. With 4 picks? Not so much. Even the bad drafts produced 4 big names in the first. If we assume that there are 4 big names, and you have 4 of the 12 picks, the odds of not walking away with a single one of them are just 14%.
Click to expand...
So four picks gives you a 14% chance of getting nothing for your top of the line stud? And a good chance of getting two players who'll be very good in a couple years? No chance for a player like Calvin or Gronk. Maybe the next tier down, but not an uber elite guy likely to play for a decade or more.
Click to expand...
Sure, there's a chance you'll get nothing. There's also a chance you'll get three players who are going in the first two rounds of startups a year later. If you pass on the picks, it's possible your stud destroys his knee, or gets traded, or ages overnight. There are no sure things. There are always a range of possible outcomes. A bad trade can sink your franchise, while a good trade can set it up for years. This is equally true with draft picks and with vets. The guy who traded a big package of players including Roddy White for a stud like Torry Holt would have sunk his franchise just as much. Or a guy who traded Darren McFadden, Percy Harvin, and various other pieces for Chris Johnson. I traded AJ Green for Maurice Jones-Drew after the draft last year because I was gearing up for a run. I encountered a string of bad luck and missed the playoffs, instead. I would have been a hell of a lot better holding on to the pick instead of packaging it to get a stud.
'DoubleG said:
I'd also like to throw out a random thought in general.Trading large numbers of rookie picks - especially 1st rounders for studs or "semi-studs" drastically increases variance.What I mean is, typically in dynasty leagues, year to year draft pick slot is often based on how teams did the previous year. If draft picks were never traded, theoretically, the worst team would get the best player avaialble and so on. When you trade studs for picks, you are introducing variance - the picks may yield players worth far more...or far less - than the player you traded the picks for. That said, if you fancy yourself a good FF dynasty player, should you prefer more or less variance?I am not sure of the answer just throwing out the question.Certainly, if you are "taking over a bad team" - you want the variance as high as possible...it's the only way to "make up ground" on the good teams quickly. However, if you are a good team, wouldn't it be in your best interest to "maintain the status quo"? Or keep things as non-volatile as possible?Again, just tossing out the idea.
Click to expand...
Good team or bad team, variance is almost always a plus in dynasty. If you're terrible, you get a top-3 pick. If you're awesome, you win a championship. The worst place to be in dynasty is the middle of the pack. There are some instances where I'd look to decrease variance, but they're rare- you'd have to be ridiculously dominant. For the most part, I'm very pro-risk. Make them smart, educated risks, sure... but take risks, nonetheless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TartanLion
Name Your Favourite 3rd/4th Round Rookie Flyers
Replies
7
Views
396
darksideofoz
darksideofoz
JohnnyU
Are you a cliff dweller in Dynasty? A Dynasty Locust?
Replies
36
Views
760
spurs44
S
eighsse2
The Dynasty "Next Move" Thread
Replies
37
Views
2K
JohnnyU
JohnnyU

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top