The Art of the Trade (2 Viewers)

[rockaction]

Except no - the cash is already in the league. The transaction fee is $5 per player regardless.

there is no additional cash involved. Just the same cash that would be in the kitty anyway.

thas in no way shape or form the same as offering a $60 payout outside of league finances, for the transaction. It’s not even vaguely related. 

It's like holding an investment in escrow, really. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

If I'm looking for a specific player, I look at their roster and see what they need. If I don't see a fit that will help him (Team B), then I usually won't bother to make an offer.  I may look to make a trade for a player from another team (Team C) that may Team B though. I would only do that if Team B has interest in doing something like that. However, I'll admit this option is rare because it takes time and work. 

If I'm looking for help at a certain position, I scan the rosters to see who has someone they can trade. I look to see what they need and if I'm a fit for a trade.  I almost always shoot for the 50-50 fair trade value that helps both teams. I hate getting low-balled and usually won't even consider making a deal with a team that low-balls me. It just irks me for some reason.

I see 2 obstacles with even 50-50 offers. 1) You don't know if you both owners value players the same. 2) You don't know if they are even willing to trade that player. Some people are open to trading any player. Others have their favorite players that are untouchable. You can find out the latter. The former could be a problem because even if you think they are wrong, it's going to cost you more to have an acceptable trade. 

It's hard. I do believe in maintaining good relationships, so  I offer fair trades.  That's all I have. Ha.

Overall, i think that’s a solid approach. 

One suggestion to the bolded part - sometimes I won’t see a good fit, but because I want that player I’ll ask via private message or phone call or text msg, “hey, any interest in dealing [player x]? 

It’s not the strongest position in negotiating, but they might come back with an offer for a player they want of yours that might not be someone you would have intuitively thought they wanted. 

I often forget that not everyone is 100% rational about this stuff, so approaching with what you think is a fair offer might not be anything they’re interested in for reasons completely outside of your purview. People are funny - they get man-love for a particular player, or they hate a guy who’s burned them in the past.

And it’s impossble to know that. so sometimes it’s best to just sorta mention you’re interested in one of their players & see what they say. Sometimes they’ll say “not interested in moving him” as I did with someone who texted me about Mar Ingram in week 3. Sometimes they’ll surprise you by looking at your roster and asking for a player you never would have guessed they’d want. 

The best deals I’ve made have gone down like that. Last year it was Davonta Freeman for Mike Evans. I was deep at RB, my leaguemate deep at WR. I was looking for one of his lesser WRs for my 3rd or 4th RB, but he said, “well I’d rather do something like Evans for Freeman”.

You just never know. 

And sometimes the best way to find out is to casually float an idea rather than spam them with dart throw trade offers. 

 

[davearm]

We’ll have to agree to disagree then, because you think apples are avocados, and I think apples are apples.  

In an “apples to apples” transaction, $20 goes into the pot regardless of who pays it. It stays within league finances, and is then available to whomever wins whatever league payouts. Yes, it helped to nudge the deal along, but it is 100% internal. 

There’s more than just “who pays it” involved.

aloa relevant is where the $ goes, and whether the deal is otherwise fair.

you seem to be content in ignoring both of those, which I see as irreconcilable in our disagreement.

Paying money *not* internal to league finances, and exceeding the amount already included seems pretty obviously different. And if the deal is unfair, and external finances are involved it is outright collusion/cheating. 

You don’t recognize those as being different scenarios? You feel they’re irrelevant so long as $ is involved, even if it’s money that was *already* involved? 

So we shall agree to disagree, as it is apparent we can’t see eye to eye on this issue.

"Hey I'll trade you Brady for Kelce"

"No thanks"

"How about Brady and the $10 fee for Kelce"

"OK"

That is a problem for me.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

"Hey I'll trade you Brady for Kelce"

"No thanks"

"How about Brady and the $10 fee for Kelce"

"OK

"

That is a problem for me.

Incorrect depiction of events. Close, and even close I don’t see why it’s an issue as described but you left out a key detail. 

I’ll copy paste for clarity:

"Hey I'll trade you Brady for Kelce where I pay $5 and you pay $5"

"No thanks"

"How about Brady for Kelce and I cover the $10 fee for the trade of both Brady & Kelce that goes into the pot anyway"

"OK”

————————

why would tnat be a be a problem for anyone?  

Neither of my leagues have ever voted down a trade for that reason (and we have explicit rules saying that any financial consideration must be included in trade message for voting)

is it not the same as:

"Hey I'll trade you Brady for Kelce"

"No thanks"

"How about Brady and Will cover your $100 league entry fee"

"OK”.

———————-

nor is it the same as:

"Hey I'll trade you Brady for Kelce"

"No thanks"

"How about Brady and the $10 fee for Kelce & give you $50 to put in your pocket outside of league finances”.

"OK”

——————-

these are all very, very different things. 

The first one I’m fine with. The latter two would be deeply problematic. 

Again - we’ll have to agree to disagree, because I cannot for the life of me understand why you’d have a problem with the 1st scenario. But we’re all entitled to our opinions. 

 

[NYRAGE]

Overall, i think that’s a solid approach. 

One suggestion to the bolded part - sometimes I won’t see a good fit, but because I want that player I’ll ask via private message or phone call or text msg, “hey, any interest in dealing [player x]? 

It’s not the strongest position in negotiating, but they might come back with an offer for a player they want of yours that might not be someone you would have intuitively thought they wanted. 

I often forget that not everyone is 100% rational about this stuff, so approaching with what you think is a fair offer might not be anything they’re interested in for reasons completely outside of your purview. People are funny - they get man-love for a particular player, or they hate a guy who’s burned them in the past.

And it’s impossble to know that. so sometimes it’s best to just sorta mention you’re interested in one of their players & see what they say. Sometimes they’ll say “not interested in moving him” as I did with someone who texted me about Mar Ingram in week 3. Sometimes they’ll surprise you by looking at your roster and asking for a player you never would have guessed they’d want. 

The best deals I’ve made have gone down like that. Last year it was Davonta Freeman for Mike Evans. I was deep at RB, my leaguemate deep at WR. I was looking for one of his lesser WRs for my 3rd or 4th RB, but he said, “well I’d rather do something like Evans for Freeman”.

You just never know. 

And sometimes the best way to find out is to casually float an idea rather than spam them with dart throw trade offers. 

It's true. You never know unless you ask. 

I just wish people would think from the other team's perspective when they make an offer.  Just before I read your thread I was griping to myself about a hockey trade I just received. The guy wanted my defenseman for a forward when I'm stacked at forwards and may have my own weakness at defense. His guy wouldn't even make my team.

Same goes for football.  So many times I get an offer and think why would I even consider this trade even if the offer was somewhat fair?  For example, I may be weak at RB2, but some guy will offer me a trade asking for my RB1 without even a RB back in the offer. He might be offering a WR. Wut? Why would I do that? It just takes a minute to think what would the other team do. The only positive is that now I know he has interest in this guy and who knows maybe a trade can happen in the future (although unlikely based on our rosters).

 

[JoeSteeler]

haven't read all the responses but it makes me   when people get offended by bad offers. It seems like an ego thing.I just deny with the message " Thanks for the offer but will take a lot more to get _________." Or "are you willing to include __________ in a package?"

I am always happy to get offers because it is an opportunity to improve my team. 

 

[JoeSteeler]

A lot of times i will send an offer (on MFL) with my side blank and their side with the player(s) I am interested in. I add the message "Hey other owner, what would you want for _________?" or "any interest in moving ___________?"

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

haven't read all the responses but it makes me   when people get offended by bad offers. It seems like an ego thing.I just deny with the message " Thanks for the offer but will take a lot more to get _________." Or "are you willing to include __________ in a package?"

I am always happy to get offers because it is an opportunity to improve my team. 

It’s not just bad offers. Bad offers can be an opening salvo.

*terrible* offers - absolute crap for value or 3 for 1 deals where the 3 doesn’t even add up to the 1 - those get my dander up.

Nothing to do with ego - it’s about respect for my time. If you wanna make me an offer it doesn’t have to be perfect or even value, but it’s gotta be ballpark enough to get a conversation started. 

And it’s never the 1st one that I get mad about - it’s repeated terrible offers from the same dude, year after year.

this year is the 1st time he hasn’t spammed the league with terrible offers. I think he’s finally taken the hint. 

 

[JoeSteeler]

I have one owner in my league that gets pissed if you send an offer for a player that isn't on his trade block 

 

[Gally]

The first thing is to try and look for weakness at a particular spot on a potential trade partner and see if I can help with that weakness.  If I can then I look to see if they have anything that would help me.  That is the ideal situation to get something done.

Problems arise when owners are not confident in their evaluation ability.  They are afraid to lose a trade and get made fun of or really hurt their team.  It's easier to just sit there an do nothing than risk being on the wrong side of a trade.  The easiest owners to trade with are the ones that are confident in their abilities and know what they want.  Trades happen really quickly in those situations. 

Another problem arises when I inquire about a certain player.  Hey, what do you want for player X?  Even if that owner has never played that guy for the last three weeks he instantly becomes much more expensive.  How come your want that guy?  He must be great or you wouldn't want him so now I want your best player for him.

Still another obstacle is the owner that completely has a different opinion than you on player value.  You would think this should allow for some easy trades because you think someone isn't very good while the other guy thinks he is good.  Simple exchange.  Unfortunately, sometimes in this case your thought to be reasonable offer becomes an insulting l offer (because you value a player much different than the other guy) and talks break down. 

In most of my leagues it is difficult to trade mostly out of the fear of losing the trade by one side or the other.  Trading is the second best thing about FF (with the draft being the best) but unfortunately it doesn't happen often enough. 

 

[mcd]

Another problem arises when I inquire about a certain player.  Hey, what do you want for player X?  Even if that owner has never played that guy for the last three weeks he instantly becomes much more expensive.  How come your want that guy?  He must be great or you wouldn't want him so now I want your best player for him.

I feel this happens regularly also. It's to the point that I will show interest in another player at the same position, wait to see what he wants & then tell him we value player differently, and then shift the focus to the player I really wanted. Something along the lines of:

Me: What'll it take to pry Hopkins away from you?
Them: Player A & B
Me: Yeah, can't afford that but I do need a WR, what about Golladay?

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Other potential barrier to trade:

 Draft value versus present day value. Just because someone was a third round pick does not mean they carry that value today. The whole idea of “buying low” is based on targeting an underperforming player who you think will round out into form.

 Just because someone was the third round pick does not mean they carry that valued today. The whole idea of “buying low“ is based on targeting an underperforming player who you think would round out into form.  Unfortunately, sometimes the team that drafted that player believes that regardless of what they have been doing, they are still worthy of the pick that they spent on them. 

 

[Ratbone]

Other potential barrier to trade:

 Draft value versus present day value. Just because someone was a third round pick does not mean they carry that value today. The whole idea of “buying low” is based on targeting an underperforming player who you think will round out into form.

 Just because someone was the third round pick does not mean they carry that valued today. The whole idea of “buying low“ is based on targeting an underperforming player who you think would round out into form.  Unfortunately, sometimes the team that drafted that player believes that regardless of what they have been doing, they are still worthy of the pick that they spent on them. 

This helps a lot in auction when things don't work out for a player you spent a lot of money on. You can often get back more than he is really worth just because of the original price tag. It's like a sale. Look it is 20% off, I gotta have it. Yeah but it should be 50%. David Johnson is a great example this year. 

 

[thecardiackid]

A lot of times i will send an offer (on MFL) with my side blank and their side with the player(s) I am interested in. I add the message "Hey other owner, what would you want for _________?" or "any interest in moving ___________?"

This.

And much easier in a league w/ friends, etc.  Strangers less, but the same idea.  As a salesguy, open ended ?s are invaluable. 

I'd add after "i'm interested in X player", take a look at my roster and let me know if you see anything that might make sense.  they may insult you, but at least it's on them, and you have their market value.

 

[wlwiles]

It really helps to know the other owners in your league. 

Guy A always overvalues his own players, and won't accept any deal unless you overpay and he is the "obvious winner" to everyone. 

Guy B has no clue how to value players ROS, so the trade evaluator tool (I play mostly on Yahoo) has to be green in his favor or it's a no-go. 

Guy C has to receive the best player in the deal no matter what, or he'll reject every offer sent his way. 

Guy D will only deal an underperforming player, because he's afraid if he trades away Mahomes and he continues his tear he'll be seen as the idiot that traded away Mahomes during his crazy streak. 

Guy E can't ever do a 1 for 1 trade. He won't trade away an RB (even if he's loaded) for a WR (even if he's razor thin) without getting an RB back (that he'll never use). 

Guy F won't trade a player without recouping that draft pick.  He spent a 3rd on Aaron Rodgers (and also landed Mahomes), so no way his WR needy team will accept Sanders (5th round pick) for Rodgers because they aren't even close to the same draft price. 

Etc. Etc. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

It really helps to know the other owners in your league. 

Guy A always overvalues his own players, and won't accept any deal unless you overpay and he is the "obvious winner" to everyone. 

Guy B has no clue how to value players ROS, so the trade evaluator tool (I play mostly on Yahoo) has to be green in his favor or it's a no-go. 

Guy C has to receive the best player in the deal no matter what, or he'll reject every offer sent his way. 

Guy D will only deal an underperforming player, because he's afraid if he trades away Mahomes and he continues his tear he'll be seen as the idiot that traded away Mahomes during his crazy streak. 

Guy E can't ever do a 1 for 1 trade. He won't trade away an RB (even if he's loaded) for a WR (even if he's razor thin) without getting an RB back (that he'll never use). 

Guy F won't trade a player without recouping that draft pick.  He spent a 3rd on Aaron Rodgers (and also landed Mahomes), so no way his WR needy team will accept Sanders (5th round pick) for Rodgers because they aren't even close to the same draft price. 

Etc. Etc. 

This is more “the shart of the trade”.

 

I believe I’ve played with every one of those guys. 

 

[davearm]

Incorrect depiction of events. Close, and even close I don’t see why it’s an issue as described but you left out a key detail. 

I’ll copy paste for clarity:

"Hey I'll trade you Brady for Kelce where I pay $5 and you pay $5"

"No thanks"

"How about Brady for Kelce and I cover the $10 fee for the trade of both Brady & Kelce that goes into the pot anyway"

"OK”

————————

why would tnat be a be a problem for anyone?  

Neither of my leagues have ever voted down a trade for that reason (and we have explicit rules saying that any financial consideration must be included in trade message for voting)

is it not the same as:

"Hey I'll trade you Brady for Kelce"

"No thanks"

"How about Brady and Will cover your $100 league entry fee"

"OK”.

———————-

nor is it the same as:

"Hey I'll trade you Brady for Kelce"

"No thanks"

"How about Brady and the $10 fee for Kelce & give you $50 to put in your pocket outside of league finances”.

"OK”

——————-

these are all very, very different things. 

The first one I’m fine with. The latter two would be deeply problematic. 

Again - we’ll have to agree to disagree, because I cannot for the life of me understand why you’d have a problem with the 1st scenario. But we’re all entitled to our opinions. 

I really have no idea why it'd be OK to cover the other guy's trade fee but not OK to cover his/her league fee.  The argument you've been clinging to is it's all money in the kitty anyway. So that's completely inconsistent.

Anyway, what all of these examples have in common is that they don't stand up on their merit (i.e., the players being exchanged).  Only the injection of cash turns a "no" into a "yes".

A trade that doesn't stand up on its merit is bogus.  If one side is saying yes for a reason other than making his own team better, then the trade is bogus.  That's what we have here in all three cases, as evidenced by the initial "no" response when only the players are included.

 

[davearm]

This.

And much easier in a league w/ friends, etc.  Strangers less, but the same idea.  As a salesguy, open ended ?s are invaluable. 

I'd add after "i'm interested in X player", take a look at my roster and let me know if you see anything that might make sense.  they may insult you, but at least it's on them, and you have their market value.

I've tried this many times with mixed results.  The first problem is, it puts the onus on the other guy to go do homework and research your roster.  Many won't bother.

The other problem is it inevitably results in the other guy asking for a player you don't want to trade, so now you have to talk him into less than what he said he wants.  That can be difficult inertia to overcome, especially since tunnel vision on your off-the-table stud can set in quickly.

 

[davearm]

It really helps to know the other owners in your league. 

Guy A always overvalues his own players, and won't accept any deal unless you overpay and he is the "obvious winner" to everyone. 

Guy B has no clue how to value players ROS, so the trade evaluator tool (I play mostly on Yahoo) has to be green in his favor or it's a no-go. 

Guy C has to receive the best player in the deal no matter what, or he'll reject every offer sent his way. 

Guy D will only deal an underperforming player, because he's afraid if he trades away Mahomes and he continues his tear he'll be seen as the idiot that traded away Mahomes during his crazy streak. 

Guy E can't ever do a 1 for 1 trade. He won't trade away an RB (even if he's loaded) for a WR (even if he's razor thin) without getting an RB back (that he'll never use). 

Guy F won't trade a player without recouping that draft pick.  He spent a 3rd on Aaron Rodgers (and also landed Mahomes), so no way his WR needy team will accept Sanders (5th round pick) for Rodgers because they aren't even close to the same draft price. 

Etc. Etc. 

This is actually a pretty good rule to live by IMO.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I really have no idea why it'd be OK to cover the other guy's trade fee but not OK to cover his/her league fee.  The argument you've been clinging to is it's all money in the kitty anyway. So that's completely inconsistent.

Wrong. It is completely consistent. 

In tthe case of covering the transaction fee, this is the face value of the trade. It’s exactly what the trade costs, regardless of who pays for it.

in paying someone’s $100 league fee, you’re paying $90 additionally to the manager over and beyond the fees for the trade. Obviously. 

And in the other scenario if someone pays someone $50 on the side, that goes directly to the manager & not into the kitty that’s obviously not the same. 

c’mon Dave. This ain’t rocket surgery here dude. 

 

[davearm]

Wrong. It is completely consistent. 

In tthe case of covering the transaction fee, this is the face value of the trade. It’s exactly what the trade costs, regardless of who pays for it.

in paying someone’s $100 league fee, you’re paying $90 additionally to the manager over and beyond the fees for the trade. Obviously. 

And in the other scenario if someone pays someone $50 on the side, that goes directly to the manager & not into the kitty that’s obviously not the same. 

c’mon Dave. This ain’t rocket surgery here dude. 

I'm happy to agree to disagree, but I don't appreciate you questioning my intelligence because my opinion differs from yours.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I'm happy to agree to disagree, but I don't appreciate you questioning my intelligence because my opinion differs from yours.

I’m not questioning your intelligence.

i’m questioning your inability to grasp pretty obvious differences, and attempting to frame them as though they’re the same.

 

[kittenmittens]

It really helps to know the other owners in your league. 

Guy A always overvalues his own players, and won't accept any deal unless you overpay and he is the "obvious winner" to everyone. 

Guy B has no clue how to value players ROS, so the trade evaluator tool (I play mostly on Yahoo) has to be green in his favor or it's a no-go. 

Guy C has to receive the best player in the deal no matter what, or he'll reject every offer sent his way. 

Guy D will only deal an underperforming player, because he's afraid if he trades away Mahomes and he continues his tear he'll be seen as the idiot that traded away Mahomes during his crazy streak. 

Guy E can't ever do a 1 for 1 trade. He won't trade away an RB (even if he's loaded) for a WR (even if he's razor thin) without getting an RB back (that he'll never use). 

Guy F won't trade a player without recouping that draft pick.  He spent a 3rd on Aaron Rodgers (and also landed Mahomes), so no way his WR needy team will accept Sanders (5th round pick) for Rodgers because they aren't even close to the same draft price. 

Etc. Etc. 

I have too many Guy As in most of my dynasty leagues.  Any trade you can actually make involves a pretty hefty over payment.  Maybe some of them are a variant of Guy A in which sometimes they won't even accept a lopsided deal that is in their favor and won't even respond with any feedback.

Also Guy G - variant of Guy F?  He won't trade for any player that once was picked up off the waiver.  Adam Theilen?  Doug Baldwin?  No way, those guys suck since they were picked up off waivers at one point many years ago.

 

[gsmayes]

Cash shouldn't give you an advantage in fantasy football. I wouldn't play in a league with transaction fees. Advantage should be gained through the application of knowledge and strategy. It's the difference between fantasy football being gambling or a social activity.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Cash shouldn't give you an advantage in fantasy football. I wouldn't play in a league with transaction fees. Advantage should be gained through the application of knowledge and strategy. 

If transaction fees are reasonable, this is kind of a silly argument.

I just looked and the most anyone owed last year is $128 in my league with $4 transactions. 

This is a league full of working adults, and no one feels it’s an unreasonable advantage for any team. No one in the league is going to spend their way to victory, which is your implication. 

And the team that spent that much last year did so because of a heap of injuries - and he missed the playoffs. It’s an IDP league, and it is what it is. 

There’s no correlation between transaction fees and skill level/knowledge. That’s a bizarre if/or to present.

The flip side of this is that some teams make a lot of transaction & some make few. Some take gambles on players, some don’t. Teams that don’t spend much & win will win that much more and have that much better bragging rights. 

Having to pay for that speculative add might make you think twice about it. There’s a skill there as well. 

You can choose to play in any format you like, but you’re insulting those who play in transaction fee leagues by saying there’s no skill....That’s just ridiculous. One could argue that the league that allows endless free add/drops is the one with less skill. 

 

[Jayded]

I know some like everything official, but I prefer my legwork up front and offline. Some guys I know covet teams, others players, others are unknown. 

I would do my due diligence up front and approach with a fair offer. If it got turned down, I usually would be transparent about the player(s) I’m targeting and ask what it’d take if the first answer was no. 

This will usually tell me if it’s at all worth continuing pursuing and tells them I’m fair and will openly communicate. 

The trader who bothers me most is the guy clearly trying to sell the same guy over and over. “My X for your Y.” “No.” “My X for your Z.” As noted above there is more communication, but repeatedly saying no to the same guy for the same reasons gets tiring because sometimes I just don’t want the player. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

The trader who bothers me most is the guy clearly trying to sell the same guy over and over. “My X for your Y.” “No.” “My X for your Z.” As noted above there is more communication, but repeatedly saying no to the same guy for the same reasons gets tiring because sometimes I just don’t want the player. 

Yeah, I mentioned something like that as well - it’s why I’d rather ask someone if they’re interested in a trade, and see who they target - because you don’t know who they’re interested in. And if you offer them.a fair deal, but they don’t want Player X, you might risk doing this exact thing.

 

[wlwiles]

It really helps to know the other owners in your league. 

Guy A always overvalues his own players, and won't accept any deal unless you overpay and he is the "obvious winner" to everyone. 

Guy B has no clue how to value players ROS, so the trade evaluator tool (I play mostly on Yahoo) has to be green in his favor or it's a no-go. 

Guy C has to receive the best player in the deal no matter what, or he'll reject every offer sent his way. 

Guy D will only deal an underperforming player, because he's afraid if he trades away Mahomes and he continues his tear he'll be seen as the idiot that traded away Mahomes during his crazy streak. 

Guy E can't ever do a 1 for 1 trade. He won't trade away an RB (even if he's loaded) for a WR (even if he's razor thin) without getting an RB back (that he'll never use). 

Guy F won't trade a player without recouping that draft pick.  He spent a 3rd on Aaron Rodgers (and also landed Mahomes), so no way his WR needy team will accept Sanders (5th round pick) for Rodgers because they aren't even close to the same draft price. 

Etc. Etc. 

Quoting to add - I'm not saying any of these guys are wrong and I'm right, or that one way is better than another...just that it helps if you can identify who is who in your league so you know how to approach them. 

Guy A - I'm going to this guy when I'm loaded, and don't mind overpaying a little to get the one piece I'm missing to round out my team
Guy B - Sell him the falling star - give him players who are continually projected high (Fitzgerald?) that you've lost confidence in.  Give up name brands that are no longer studs. 
Guy C - I go to this guy if I'm injury ravaged, and need to sell 1 stud for 2 pieces. 
Guy D - Go to him to buy low, but don't expect him to sell high because he's afraid of getting off the train too early. 
Guy E - If he's weak where you're strong, simple 2 for 2 swap, you upgrade X, he upgrades Y
Guy F - Target guys like Boyd/Ridley/Carson.  Don't go after his studs, the price will be too high.  Go after his waiver pickups.  Offer him your mid-rounders.

There's more types I'm sure, these are just a few I thought of in some of my leagues. 

 

[Stuart Ullman]

Also, never tell the team your trading with that his player sucks for reasons XYZ and why your player rules.

If his player sucks, why are you trying the trade for him? He's going to take it as an insult and view you as intellectually dishonest.

He knows you're trying to hustle him.

 

[Stuart Ullman]

Oh, by the way, you have to trade TALENT to get TALENT.

 

[Stuart Ullman]

Know the owners in your league. If a guy hasn't set his lineup by Saturday morning, he probably isn't going to look at your trade.

I send trades early and often to get a feel from the league. You get a good feel for who's reasonable vs the guy who thinks every player on his team is a worth 2x what they really are.

Identify that away. You learn who's going to waste your time and who's not. 

 

[Stuart Ullman]

Trading is contagious. When you complete a trade with someone else, I swear the rest of the league gets trade happy.

Send out offers immediately after an accepted trade. Everyone wants in on the action and to find a shiny new toy.

 

[Stuart Ullman]

Don't be afraid to trade for guys recently picked up off the waiver wire. Think the opposite, that the opposing team might not value that player very high for the same reason. What do you care if the player was available for free 2 weeks ago? Is he an upgrade to your team or not?

Philip Lindsay would have been a lot easier to trade for Week 2 than he is now in Week 8.

The waiver wire stigma works both ways.

 

[Stuart Ullman]

Before you cut a player, try throwing him in trade package. Derrick Henry is a good example of this.

It warms the other person up when you "overpay" but in reality, you were going to cut that guy anyway so it makes no difference to you.

 

[Snorkelson]

In dynasty I look for teams with holes and try to work with them. Be the first to make an offer when a player goes down. If roster  size permits be the guy that carries a few qbs and move one during bye weeks when someone’s backup is injured. I always try to get a throw in or turn my 4th into a 3rd, any little thing that gives a little more value that the other guy won’t balk at. If I’m trying to sell a guy I may send several offers around the league and note that “I’m throwing out some ____ offers, feel free to shoot something back if you’re interested.”  I make more trades than average in my leagues I think. 

I dont understand the people who get angry when you don’t send them a counter offer or can’t seem to grasp the idea that player x isn’t available. They badger you to make an offer, they want so and so. You say “I’m probably keeping him unless I get blown away.” They press for an offer. So I  make an offer that is pretty boldly in my favor and they’re like “oh whatever! That’s ridiculous! I’d give a and b, but come on!” Sorry, this is a true story, and now I’m just venting. 

 

[habsfan]

In my main league you definitely “play the man and not the game”. One owner is notorious for offering or counter offering a player on his roster that when rejected, he waives almost immediately. Not a good look. He’s done this to me and another owner a number of times yet makes very reasonable trades with others where he gives value for value. I have concluded our dynamic has nothing to do with evaluation skills and everything to do with beating or not getting beat.

On the money thing my view is simplistic: if you don’t want money in your league (outside of fixed entry fees) then don’t have money in your league. As soon as you bring variable cash into your league’s operation, you’ve “broken the seal” and cash for players is a potential consequence of what you’ve invited in.

 

[TheWinz]

The reason trading isn't more commonplace is quite simple - current owners always place a higher value on a player versus the owner trying to acquire him.  A perfect example of this is James Conner.  From week 1, the Conner owner has valued him as a guy who will remain a RB1 all season.  Any owner trying to trade for him will value him as a placeholder until Bell returns, as if Bell is dinged up or something.  Another example is David Johnson.  The current owner knows DJ has been consistent, and sees better days ahead.  Any acquiring owner acts like he's been a dud, a la Kenyan Drake.  The fact is, DJ is still a top 10 RB in just about every format, and the current owner sees this as DJ's floor.  Acquiring owners act like RB10 is his ceiling.

I'll pose a question - who holds more value from now until the end of the season - Dalvin Cook or Latavius Murray?  Cook owners will likely vote for Cook, while Murray owners will vote for Murray.  Anyone owning both just wants one of them to be the featured RB every game.  And if you own neither, your value for both players depends on your current RB situation.  If you are weak, you value Murray, and if you are stacked, Cook seems like a guy to stash.  My point is, based on our own current situations, we all value players differently.  This is what makes trading so hard in many leagues.

This year I'm in only 1 redraft league.  I have both received and offered trades, but none were close IMO.  By season's end, this league will have become a best ball league with a waiver wire option.

 

[wlwiles]

Also, never tell the team your trading with that his player sucks for reasons XYZ and why your player rules.

If his player sucks, why are you trying the trade for him? He's going to take it as an insult and view you as intellectually dishonest.

He knows you're trying to hustle him.

100% agree with the bolded part. 

I find that in these scenarios where you're trying to buy low on a player, there's no easy way to approach it other than just straight honesty.  You can't try to act like his player is bad, bc why would you want him?  Just flat out say "I think he's underperforming and will do better and if you don't agree, I'm glad to take him off your hands"

 

[wlwiles]

Before you cut a player, try throwing him in trade package. Derrick Henry is a good example of this.

It warms the other person up when you "overpay" but in reality, you were going to cut that guy anyway so it makes no difference to you.

I sort of agree with your premise (add in a sweetener, a player you don't care about), but be aware that when you try to add these throw in players in enough offers, and when the offers don't pan out and you end up cutting them soon after, pretty soon you're seen as That Guy Who Only Trades Players He Wants To Drop.  There's a guy in my fantasy baseball league who does this all the time, and the only players he gets offered in return are guys that other owners would drop if his player were on the wire.  

 

[Gally]

In my main league you definitely “play the man and not the game”. One owner is notorious for offering or counter offering a player on his roster that when rejected, he waives almost immediately. Not a good look. He’s done this to me and another owner a number of times yet makes very reasonable trades with others where he gives value for value. I have concluded our dynamic has nothing to do with evaluation skills and everything to do with beating or not getting beat.

On the money thing my view is simplistic: if you don’t want money in your league (outside of fixed entry fees) then don’t have money in your league. As soon as you bring variable cash into your league’s operation, you’ve “broken the seal” and cash for players is a potential consequence of what you’ve invited in.

I totally disagree with this.  There is a huge difference between having a transaction fee to help curb roster churning and making the step of now offering cash to other teams to consummate trades.  These are drastically different situations and a transaction fee is not a gate way drug to approaching people to sell their players.

 

[Gally]

Cash shouldn't give you an advantage in fantasy football. I wouldn't play in a league with transaction fees. Advantage should be gained through the application of knowledge and strategy. It's the difference between fantasy football being gambling or a social activity.

A small transaction fee for free agents is a very simple way to curb roster churning.  It also builds up the winnings.  It does not take away any skill, research, or strategy and usually leads to more skill and research because you want to be sure you really think a player is worth it before forking out real cash.  As long as the fees are not substantial that will prohibit any of the owners because it will put them in financial peril then I see no issue with it. 

I do not think fees for trades are beneficial as that only adds another obstacle to actually completing trades.  I want to promote trades not add obstacles to them so I have never been able to see the purpose of a fee to complete a trade.  As opposed to a fee for picking up a waiver wire player to help prohibit roster churning.

Our fees are $5 for waiver wire additions and $10 for instant claim adds that happen after the waivers close.  This system has worked out extremely well and most teams spend between $20-$80 for the season on free agents (franchise fee is $200).  However, there are some teams that spend $0 and one guy that has maxed out one year at $375 (Nobody can quite understand what he is thinking).  He is up over $200 right now.  He is 3-4 and reeling so his method doesn't really gain him any advantage but does help increase the pot for the winner...hahah

 

[Gally]

I really have no idea why it'd be OK to cover the other guy's trade fee but not OK to cover his/her league fee.  The argument you've been clinging to is it's all money in the kitty anyway. So that's completely inconsistent.

Anyway, what all of these examples have in common is that they don't stand up on their merit (i.e., the players being exchanged).  Only the injection of cash turns a "no" into a "yes".

A trade that doesn't stand up on its merit is bogus.  If one side is saying yes for a reason other than making his own team better, then the trade is bogus.  That's what we have here in all three cases, as evidenced by the initial "no" response when only the players are included.

The trades do stand up on their merit.  Nobody would bat an eye if the trades were accepted without the transaction fee.  It is not like the trade is Gurley for Barber and the only way the guy makes the trade is if  you pay him cash. 

This would be similar to having the rules state that the owner that sends the trade offer pays the fee of the trade because he initiated it. It has really nothing to do with the trade.  This is completely different than paying someone's complete franchise fee so they are playing for free for the year.  

The real question is why have transaction fees for completing trades?  It just adds obstacles in getting trades done and I really don't see any benefit to having them.  I have never been given a reason for this type of transaction fee that makes sense.

 

[Lionsfan011]

However there is one owner in one of my leagues that peppers me with a low ball offer every week. I countered one of them to something that was fair for both of us and got rejected and I moved on, no biggie. He comes back the next week with the same low ball offer from the previous week. I declined a couple more of them over the next couple weeks but at this point I don't want to acknowledge his weekly junk offers anymore. I intentionally don't respond to them now and let him revoke them. 

Lol and this guy strikes again for the 2nd time this week. My Rodgers for his Winston/Clement. Earlier in the week it was my Rodgers/White for his Cousins/Richard.

 

[davearm]

The trades do stand up on their merit.  Nobody would bat an eye if the trades were accepted without the transaction fee.  It is not like the trade is Gurley for Barber and the only way the guy makes the trade is if  you pay him cash. 

This would be similar to having the rules state that the owner that sends the trade offer pays the fee of the trade because he initiated it. It has really nothing to do with the trade.  This is completely different than paying someone's complete franchise fee so they are playing for free for the year.  

The real question is why have transaction fees for completing trades?  It just adds obstacles in getting trades done and I really don't see any benefit to having them.  I have never been given a reason for this type of transaction fee that makes sense.

No, they don't stand on their merit.  When only players were included, one owner said no.

 

[Gally]

No, they don't stand on their merit.  When only players were included, one owner said no.

Just because an owner said no doesn't mean the players involved don't stand on their own merit for the trade to be even.  That is really what the true concern is.  Is the trade collusion or is additional funds going directly into someone's pocket strictly to make an unfair deal happen? 

Paying the transaction fee does neither of these things.  I understand your hard line stance but there is no impropriety taking place by having one team cover the trade fee. 

 

[davearm]

Just because an owner said no doesn't mean the players involved don't stand on their own merit for the trade to be even.  That is really what the true concern is.  Is the trade collusion or is additional funds going directly into someone's pocket strictly to make an unfair deal happen? 

Paying the transaction fee does neither of these things.  I understand your hard line stance but there is no impropriety taking place by having one team cover the trade fee. 

You're not understanding.

One side said "no" to the trade when only players were included.  Therefore he/she didn't like it on its merits.  Some other owner may have said yes, but that's irrelevant.  THIS owner said no.

I'm not suggesting something sinister or underhanded is going on.

 

[jomar]

first thing I like to do is identify what the strengths and weaknesses of my team are.  on one team, I had 5 startable RBs where we can start 1-3.  so I'm looking to move a RB.  I only have 2 wrs I can count on so I know I'm looking for a WR.

Then I look at the other rosters to see who might be in the market for a RB.  Once I find a team, I look to see what kind of wrs they have to offer in return.  

Assuming I find a good fit, I will send an offer that, if I was in the other owners shoes, I'd certainly consider.  a little back and forth might be necessary from here but if you have 2 interested parties each with a corresponding strength and weakness, a good chance the deal gets done.  if the other owner doesn't have the need, then I realize I will need to entice him with a stronger offer than a team in need.  

 

[matuski]

I feel it’s disrespectful,

"I feel" is a non starter for me.  Emotional fantasy owners are rarely productive trade partners.

@Hot Sauce Guy .. not trying to single you out here, there are a handful of posters going this route here.  Not uncommon, I just can't relate.

 

[matuski]

If your feelings get hurt over a trade offer I'd posit that you have likely passed on what may have been opportunities.

Any chance to communicate with or understand how another owner values their players and yours is an opportunity imo.  A trade doesn't have to happen for you to benefit from the negotiation.

 

[Flying Elvis]

The most important thing, to me, is simple: engage in a respectful communication. Discussing what each teams needs are, what players they like, and how they value a player (top 5 dynasty WR; RB4; career-twilight-player; etc.) goes a long way towards creating a strong trade partnership, which will make trades become more frequent and that makes leagues more fun. 

Ignoring a trade is a d-bag move (assuming it's not an idiotic low-ball) as is offering something that is an idiotic low-ball. I still will respond with a "not enough value but thanks for the offer" unless it's a chronic low-baller. Make a reasonable offer and, if you think someone has made an unreasonable offer, explain why. More often than not, you'll find that the gap in trade value is entirely because owners will have gaps in the values placed on any given player. Shocker, right? 

Personally, I've never proposed a trade I thought was a low-ball offer. I have also never proposed a trade that I thought would be snap-accepted. If I can get the player I want with my 1st & WR5, why the hell would I do it with my 1st & WR3, instead? Most people want to improve the deal for them so starting with a max offer doesn't seem wise to me. I have had trade proposals completely ignored, though, so I can only assume there are owners who feel like I have offered low-ball junk. Had they replied... at all, perhaps we could have hashed out where and why the deal looks bad.

Just this season I had a great discussion with an owner that ended with me saying "thanks anyway, but we clearly have different values on this player" and then we went on to explain our value on said player, and both walked away understanding the other guy's valuation. That does far more for our next volley of offers than simply rejecting (or ignoring) an offer could ever do. 

For reference, I am generally top 3 in "trades per year" in my leagues.