lyon812

Supporting what youre saying, it might be wiser to consider the Facilitator/Car Salesman as a secondary personality axis.  Thus, while people could be considered varying degrees of Scout (talent-focused)/Algorithm (scoring-focused)/Analyst (owner-focused), within each of those classifications are varying levels of Facilitator/Salesman.
 

I'm on board with the idea of separating the knowledge sphere from the trading sphere. But I do think an owner can be perfectly average in the knowledge sphere and still be successful. The "easy" way to do this is the Car Salesman way -- skillfully negotiating trades that are against the other owner's self interest. The other method is the Facilitator's -- skillfully negotiating trades in which the other owner rationally pays above-market value to fill an idiosyncratic need. These trades yield smaller gains, but several such trades each year will turn an average squad into an above-average one.

 

Don't get me wrong; I agree you can have average knowledge but be excellent at leveraging what you have. However, to use another metaphor, examine potential vs. kinetic energy.  That is, we all possess varying degrees of (knowledge/skill/insight); however, the manner in which we leverage that (knowledge/skill/insight) for personal gain is an entirely different matter.  If you're really good at X, how do you make that work for you? Facilitating? Ripping people off? Hoarding players and refusing to trade at all?

The "extra" sphere also breaks down rather neatly. On the far edges, you have the out-and-out cheaters, the colluders, and the commish power-abusers. Out on the other extreme, you have the perfectly benign "extra" players who simply refuse to trade with rivals, or who proactively use waiver picks on players they don't need simply to deny them to competitors (a time-honored and very effective practice), or who refuse to engage in any trade that isn't blatantly in their favor (a reasonable preference). In the middle, you have more ethically grey areas, like veto abuse, adding/dropping players to trigger the waiver timer, position hoarding, and imposing an "ignorance tax".

I've never really thought of the idea of a "facilitator" personality type, and I wouldn't know where he would fit. I've always thought of "willingness to trade" as a personal characteristic such as risk tolerance or trash talk that could exist independently of any profile. It's interesting to instead think of it as a self-contained profile unto itself. I still don't know if I can see it as a stand-alone profile. I know you can achieve success strictly through the proto sphere, ignoring the meta and extra and not engaging in trades. I also know you can be successful strictly in meta (although meta identifies market inefficiencies, which I think leads to a natural desire to trade, and it's hard to exploit psychology without engaging in transactions with your leaguemates), and I've definitely seen people succeed strictly on the strength of the "extra" competition. Can someone succeed strictly as a facilitator without incorporating some analyst, algorithm, scout, or car salesman, though? Can facilitator stand on its own as a success profile, or does it need to be paired with another profile to work? My initial reaction is that a facilitator with no other advantages is just churning, not improving, but I could easily be swayed by persuasive arguments to the contrary.

 
Supporting what you’re saying, it might be wiser to consider the Facilitator/Car Salesman as a secondary personality axis.  Thus, while people could be considered varying degrees of Scout (talent-focused)/Algorithm (scoring-focused)/Analyst (owner-focused), within each of those classifications are varying levels of Facilitator/Salesman.
 
We all laugh at the Salesman’s seeming disconnect from reality.  I don’t think we properly appreciate--in a hobby inherently focused on augmenting your roster and assessing your future needs--the ability to objectively look at another owner’s roster and be willing to propose a mutually beneficial trade.  There are plenty of owners that never, ever grasp this, and will continue to roll out the worst trade offers imaginable, because they’re trying to acquire/stash young talent while giving up little (Scout), exploit league scoring rules by trading useful for non- (Algorithm), or take advantage of other owner’s weaknesses (Analyst).  However, there are just as many Scouts that trade useful pieces to championship teams willing to mortgage future talent, Algorithmics that are willing to make talent-for-production trades that make both teams happy, and Analysts that know when to strike but don’t try to take overt advantage of their fellow owners.
 
Obviously, your sphere concept demonstrates that things can be broken down even further.  However, I don’t think anyone is 100 X and 0 Y and 0 Z.  Most of us are a bit of everything; I might be Scout 50, Algorithm 40, and Analyst 60 with a +70 Facilitator rating—or Proto 50, Meta 70, Extra 30—and my leaguemate might be the opposite.  It’s not simply that we’re both Scouts, even if we fancy that’s the truth.
 
As an aside, there are few things more enjoyable than finding a compatible league mate.  There are some owners I wind up trading with all the time because we always seem to have productive negotiations, and they often work out for both of us.

Perhaps this means a great season for Vernon Davis?  Boldin can't stretch the field, Manningham won't be ready for training camp (if he makes it that far), and Jenkins/Patton are unproven.

 

 

And let's not forget that Crabtree could be placed on IR and still return late in the season..though hard to say how effective he'd be.

Great synopsis of successful ownership styles. I'd say I'm a Facilitator with a minor in Scout, but in my younger days I tried to be a Used Car Salesman.  

 

It was fun for awhile to always be getting one over on people, but I eventually felt it was disrespectful and a waste of everybody's time.  Why not just start from a position of fairness? Making win-win trades is not only more satisfying, but encourages people to trade with you in the future and be more willing to meet in the middle when you can't quite put things together.

 

Now, it's pretty frustrating when I receive a Salesman offer, because it just seems pathetic.

 

I'm actually surprised there aren't more Algorithms out there. I see a fair amount of people who seem to forget the league's scoring rules at times when drafting, especially in IDP.

New round of changes:

 

ARI: Alex Okafor from DE to LB
ARI: Tyrann Mathieu from CB to S
BAL: John Simon from DE to LB
BUF: Alan Branch from DT to DE
BUF: Alex Carrington from DE to DT
BUF: Arthur Moats from DE to LB
BUF: Aaron Williams from CB to S
DAL: Kyle Wilber from LB to DE
DEN: Shaun Phillips from LB to DE
DET: Jason Jones from DT to DE
DET: Ogemdi Nwagbuo from DE to DT
DET: DeQuan Menzie from CB to S
GB : B.J. Raji from DT to DE
GB : Ryan Pickett from DE to DT
GB : Jarrett Bush from CB to S
HOU: Trevardo Williams from DE to LB
HOU: Sam Montgomery from DE to LB
IND: Bjoern Werner from DE to LB
JAX: Denard Robinson from WR to RB
JAX: Tyson Alualu from DT to DE
JAX: Brandon Deaderick from DE to DT
MIA: Jared Odrick from DE to DT
MIA: Vaughn Martin from DE to DT
MIN: Joe Webb from QB to WR
NO : Greg Romeus from LB to DE
NYG: Terrell Thomas from CB to S
NYJ: Sheldon Richardson from DT to DE
NYJ: Quinton Coples from DE to LB
PHI: Bennie Logan from DT to DE
PHI: Clifton Geathers from DE to DT
PIT: Nick Williams from DT to DE
SD : Tourek Williams from DE to LB
SEA: Tony McDaniel from DT to DE
SEA: Michael Bennett from DE to DT
SEA: Ty Powell from DE to LB
SF : Glenn Dorsey from DE to DT
SF : Ian Williams from DE to DT