What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Dynasty strategy - depth or studs? (1 Viewer)

matttyl

Footballguy
So I've been in a 10 team dynasty league for over a decade now, and I think I've built up a pretty good team.  Being a 10 teamer, start 1 rb, 2 wr, 1 e, and 2 flex - looking at my week 1 starting lineup, I still have quite a bit of depth on my bench (Ingram, Watkins, K White, Kelce....). That comes in handy with injuries and bye weeks and such, though does nothing for me when they are bench in favor of someone else. 

That got me thinking - in these "smaller leagues" (10 or fewer teams), is it more important to have top end studs rather than depth?  In 12+ team leagues, the talent is spread around more, so having too much depth isn't as much of an issue.  Having that stud, though, makes it really tough when that stud goes down with an injury, as you likely gave up a lot of your depth in order to acquire him.

So, which do you tend to lean toward in 10 team leagues - depth or top end talent?

 
That's the way I'm leaning myself.  10 teams, start 6 total WRs, RBs and TEs each week, for a total of 60.  With 32 NFL teams, there is plenty of talent to spread out over that small of a space.  I may have to start looking into 2 for 1 or 3 for 2 type deals. 

 
10 team, no doubt studs. Think depth stars getting more important when you hit 14 teams and up.
I agree, although it is more about # of starting positions. If you play in a 12 team where you only start 2WR/2RB then studs. But if it is a 3WR/2RB/2flex then I'd angle for depth.

 
Its about whats left for viable players that are not rostered.  If the league is shallow and there are startable folks on the WW then studs, if there is nothing but 3-4 point per game guys out there then depth.  You guys were getting to the same thing but whats available is the real issue.

 
Its about whats left for viable players that are not rostered.  If the league is shallow and there are startable folks on the WW then studs, if there is nothing but 3-4 point per game guys out there then depth.  You guys were getting to the same thing but whats available is the real issue.
We've got deep rosters (31 man rosters, 1 IR, but we're IDP as well).  Replacement level guys are pretty easy to come by, though, with trades. 

 
I just listened to a Rotoviz Dynasty Tradecast podcast about the characteristics of bad trading.  It claimed that owners who always trade their draft picks are "bad traders."  I totally disagree with this.  Like others in this thread, I want STUDS who are going to be top assets for years to come.  I'm in two dynasty leagues and it just occurred to me that I have never, ever drafted anyone in the first round.  I've always traded that pick, and it's working out very well for me.  I am currently the defending champion in both leagues, and my strategy is to consolidate my higher value players into studs wherever I can.  

CSB section:

These are both 12 Team PPR dynasty leagues with 25-30 man rosters.

Team A (start 1QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 FLEX, 1 TE) has Russell Wilson, Devonta Freeman, Tevin Coleman, Rawls, Julio Jones, AJ Green, Antionio Brown, and Rob Gronkowski

Team B (start 1 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, 2 FLEX, 1 TE) has Jameis Winston, David Johnson, Mike Evans, Julio Jones, Sammy Watkins, Amari Cooper, Tyrell Williams

Team A is a few years ahead of Team B

I just traded Jay Ajayi and Cam Meredith plus 3 first round picks off of Team B so my RB2 slot is weak, but I got 22 year old Amari Cooper.  I can always find a PPR RB2 out of nowhere in season.  If I only need to fill a single RB and/or FLEX slot going into the year I can be pretty confident that I'll either find a breakout off waivers (having more roster space available gives me an advantage in that I can be earlier than my league mates on pickups) or speculate on Dynasty UDFAs (not drafted in Dynasty Draft) that I've had tons of past success with.  Every year there are surprise rookies and surprise veterans that end up being as valuable or more valuable than the late round first you packaged during the draft.

My strategy is to absolutely load up on studs and then use those extra roster spaces to speculate on high talent guys who could break through.  When those high talent low draft round or waiver wire guys do break through (Crowell, Rawls, Tyrell Williams, Cam Meredith, Rob Kelley, Dion Lewis to name a few recent ones) I often package them up with draft picks or other players to get more studs, then rinse and repeat with the excess roster spots I cleared by packaging players.  Draft picks are too hit or miss, and your opponents always overvalue them come draft time.  I like to trade for sure things that I can build around rather than chance it in the 1st round of the rookie draft.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Studs.

In dynasty especially, if you want to win your team has to be substantially better than the best redraft team - in any given year there are 2-3 teams that have accumulated serious talent so if you want to win, you have to have the horses to do so.

 
I think it depends on the size of the league.  I have been in a 16-team IDP/dynasty for 15 years now, and for the past 3-4 years I have been operating on a "super thin" basis.  Great starters and hardly any depth whatsoever.  Of course, if any of my core gets seriously hurt, I'm in serious trouble.  If I were in a 10 or 12 team league I would feel better about being able to grab someone off waivers that could put up 60-70% of what I was accustomed to getting... and was stacked everywhere else and would still be in a winning position on a weekly basis.

You need to get pretty lucky in the rookie draft.  Gotta over-prepare and make sure your late dart throws aren't "blind" dart throws.  

 
I just listened to a Rotoviz Dynasty Tradecast podcast about the characteristics of bad trading.  It claimed that owners who always trade their draft picks are "bad traders."  I totally disagree with this.  Like others in this thread, I want STUDS who are going to be top assets for years to come.  I'm in two dynasty leagues and it just occurred to me that I have never, ever drafted anyone in the first round.  I've always traded that pick, and it's working out very well for me.  I am currently the defending champion in both leagues, and my strategy is to consolidate my higher value players into studs wherever I can.  

CSB section:

These are both 12 Team PPR dynasty leagues with 25-30 man rosters.

Team A (start 1QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 FLEX, 1 TE) has Russell Wilson, Devonta Freeman, Tevin Coleman, Rawls, Julio Jones, AJ Green, Antionio Brown, and Rob Gronkowski

Team B (start 1 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, 2 FLEX, 1 TE) has Jameis Winston, David Johnson, Mike Evans, Julio Jones, Sammy Watkins, Amari Cooper, Tyrell Williams

Team A is a few years ahead of Team B

I just traded Jay Ajayi and Cam Meredith plus 3 first round picks off of Team B so my RB2 slot is weak, but I got 22 year old Amari Cooper.  I can always find a PPR RB2 out of nowhere in season.  If I only need to fill a single RB and/or FLEX slot going into the year I can be pretty confident that I'll either find a breakout off waivers (having more roster space available gives me an advantage in that I can be earlier than my league mates on pickups) or speculate on Dynasty UDFAs (not drafted in Dynasty Draft) that I've had tons of past success with.  Every year there are surprise rookies and surprise veterans that end up being as valuable or more valuable than the late round first you packaged during the draft.

My strategy is to absolutely load up on studs and then use those extra roster spaces to speculate on high talent guys who could break through.  When those high talent low draft round or waiver wire guys do break through (Crowell, Rawls, Tyrell Williams, Cam Meredith, Rob Kelley, Dion Lewis to name a few recent ones) I often package them up with draft picks or other players to get more studs, then rinse and repeat with the excess roster spots I cleared by packaging players.  Draft picks are too hit or miss, and your opponents always overvalue them come draft time.  I like to trade for sure things that I can build around rather than chance it in the 1st round of the rookie draft.
I think any blanket rule is wrong.   In general I agree with trading your 1st when others think they're getting a can't miss prospect and pay accordingly - say you can get a player you like along the lines of Davante  Adams, for a mid to late 1st, that's probably worth doing.  But, if you never use a rookie pick you'll probably end up getting old before too long.  I try to balance it by acquiring late rookie picks cheaply and trading earlier picks for good players.  Depends on your league though, if later picks are expensive or you don't have room on your roster to actually keep the player, my strategy isn't going to work. 

 
I just listened to a Rotoviz Dynasty Tradecast podcast about the characteristics of bad trading.  It claimed that owners who always trade their draft picks are "bad traders."  I totally disagree with this.  Like others in this thread, I want STUDS who are going to be top assets for years to come.  I'm in two dynasty leagues and it just occurred to me that I have never, ever drafted anyone in the first round.  I've always traded that pick, and it's working out very well for me.  I am currently the defending champion in both leagues, and my strategy is to consolidate my higher value players into studs wherever I can.  

CSB section:

These are both 12 Team PPR dynasty leagues with 25-30 man rosters.

Team A (start 1QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 FLEX, 1 TE) has Russell Wilson, Devonta Freeman, Tevin Coleman, Rawls, Julio Jones, AJ Green, Antionio Brown, and Rob Gronkowski

Team B (start 1 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, 2 FLEX, 1 TE) has Jameis Winston, David Johnson, Mike Evans, Julio Jones, Sammy Watkins, Amari Cooper, Tyrell Williams

Team A is a few years ahead of Team B

I just traded Jay Ajayi and Cam Meredith plus 3 first round picks off of Team B so my RB2 slot is weak, but I got 22 year old Amari Cooper.  I can always find a PPR RB2 out of nowhere in season.  If I only need to fill a single RB and/or FLEX slot going into the year I can be pretty confident that I'll either find a breakout off waivers (having more roster space available gives me an advantage in that I can be earlier than my league mates on pickups) or speculate on Dynasty UDFAs (not drafted in Dynasty Draft) that I've had tons of past success with.  Every year there are surprise rookies and surprise veterans that end up being as valuable or more valuable than the late round first you packaged during the draft.

My strategy is to absolutely load up on studs and then use those extra roster spaces to speculate on high talent guys who could break through.  When those high talent low draft round or waiver wire guys do break through (Crowell, Rawls, Tyrell Williams, Cam Meredith, Rob Kelley, Dion Lewis to name a few recent ones) I often package them up with draft picks or other players to get more studs, then rinse and repeat with the excess roster spots I cleared by packaging players.  Draft picks are too hit or miss, and your opponents always overvalue them come draft time.  I like to trade for sure things that I can build around rather than chance it in the 1st round of the rookie draft.  So I think 
I'll say I've hardly ever drafted with my first round pick.  But I've tried hard to work the angle of acquiring future year firsts from teams I think will be bad.  Whether that is their roster is aging or I just don't think they can improve enough to make the pick low.  That even includes pick swaps of first rounders as part of package deals.  I was runner up last year in my league but have picks 1.03, 1.04, and 1.07 this year and three 1st for 2018 (one is still mine at present).  This strategy has yielded Julio, Beckham, Gurley, Gordon, Hopkins, and Martin over the years.  So I think drafting can yield a big reward.  

But I do agree in general - I'd much rather have the stud than a given 1st.  I've never traded away an in-their-prime stud for picks.  I traded two 1sts years back for DT and got to ride him through the Manning years.  

Rambling answer for basically picks  your spots and maximize the picks to get ultimately the (believed) BPA, rookie or vet.

 
There just cant be an ultimate, end all be all strategy that works for every league size, roster size, format, etc. Its too dependent on so many variables.

In general, I would lean toward studs vs depth.

A situation where I wouldn't automatically be looking to move a high upside young guy for a current stud would be, if it hurt more than it helped. In the sense that it might help my team stay middling. Another would be if my starters made me week to week contenders, but the bottom of my roster was very high upside younger guys. If i have evans, julio and dez in a start 3 wr league, im not out there shopping corey coleman , who might be my wr 6 to upgrade my wr 4 spot, when in a year or two he could be a wr 1 or 2.

A situation where i would entertain moving some youth for an established guy would be to keep an already competitive team strong. Id ideally be in a spot where my roster was still going to be solid for 2-3 more seasons, so i could move my next years 1, or a couple early picks for some solid production guys who have even higher upside.

Just depends on your roster for me in most situations.

 
Studs matter more than depth.

But high-upside young guys are primarily "potential studs", not depth. Guys like Golden Tate and Eric Decker are strong depth. Guys like John Ross and Josh Doctson are potential studs.

 
Yeah, the ideal studs to target are those guys who are already studs but still young.  The value provided by 10 years of PPR WR1 type guys is what you build your foundation on.

 
kittenmittens said:
I just listened to a Rotoviz Dynasty Tradecast podcast about the characteristics of bad trading.  It claimed that owners who always trade their draft picks are "bad traders."
Link?

Seems like a strange comment to make as a blanket statement without context.

I know some owners do not spend much time evaluating rookie players and if they are getting fair value for their picks (or even premium value if they time it right) then I don't see why trading them away for proven players is bad. At all.

The rookie picks can be the cheapest way to acquire an ascending player before their value is established. This potential is very much priced into the cost of the pick. In fact looking at some of the start up ADPs for the 2017 rookies, those are some pretty high prices for the top rookies. So you are not really getting a discount on an ascending player. Instead teams are taking on bust risk (which all rookies have) and investing a lot to get them. 

Given these market conditions (currently) I really have to ask why wouldn't you trade away your draft picks at the peak of their value?

Now on the flip side of this, in leagues where roster sizes are small, trading for extra draft picks is a way of adding roster spots to your team in the form of draft picks. You can build the overall value of your team that you otherwise would not be able to. 

The market has seasonal fluctuations in terms of the value of rookie picks as well as veteran players. By being aware of this timing, there should be times where you are trading rookie picks for players (like now) and other times you should be trading players for picks (during the regular season).

I wonder if you are being fair to the folks on the podcast? Because that is just a categorically false claim without context.

 
Always more important to have star players, IMO. The number of guys who can score you 18-20 ppg is dwarfed by the number who can get you 10-12. I think in any FF league you should try to get as many ppg monsters as you can and then worry about filling out the depth later.

 
-OZ- said:
I think any blanket rule is wrong.   In general I agree with trading your 1st when others think they're getting a can't miss prospect and pay accordingly - say you can get a player you like along the lines of Davante  Adams, for a mid to late 1st, that's probably worth doing.  But, if you never use a rookie pick you'll probably end up getting old before too long.  I try to balance it by acquiring late rookie picks cheaply and trading earlier picks for good players.  Depends on your league though, if later picks are expensive or you don't have room on your roster to actually keep the player, my strategy isn't going to work. 
Isn't that a blanket rule tho?

;)

 
You've got to have both...at the very least, you have to have the depth TO get the studs in deals like these.

 
There's a reason there is a saying "depth wins championships". 

No wait, that doesn't sound quite right. I think I may be mixing it up with some other saying. 

 
I love how people love to minimize the risk involved without having any depth. The discussion here is what is better studs or depth. And people saying studs as if you cant have 10 studs on a team even in 10 team leagues is just an all out alternative fact. 

I start 7 position players with a k and D in a 10 team league where I have short benches of 16. 150 total players are rostered in that league. If you think there are 150 studs, you are kidding yourself. 

You need studs to win no doubt, but you are not winning without that much needed depth come the late weeks of the season when injuries and byes for your studs start stacking up. People love to pretend they can have all studs, not possible and some of these answers are just not at all helpful to the question asked. 

Of course I want studs, who wouldnt? But the answers here are based off something just not realistic.

 
Link?

Seems like a strange comment to make as a blanket statement without context.

I know some owners do not spend much time evaluating rookie players and if they are getting fair value for their picks (or even premium value if they time it right) then I don't see why trading them away for proven players is bad. At all.

The rookie picks can be the cheapest way to acquire an ascending player before their value is established. This potential is very much priced into the cost of the pick. In fact looking at some of the start up ADPs for the 2017 rookies, those are some pretty high prices for the top rookies. So you are not really getting a discount on an ascending player. Instead teams are taking on bust risk (which all rookies have) and investing a lot to get them. 

Given these market conditions (currently) I really have to ask why wouldn't you trade away your draft picks at the peak of their value?

Now on the flip side of this, in leagues where roster sizes are small, trading for extra draft picks is a way of adding roster spots to your team in the form of draft picks. You can build the overall value of your team that you otherwise would not be able to. 

The market has seasonal fluctuations in terms of the value of rookie picks as well as veteran players. By being aware of this timing, there should be times where you are trading rookie picks for players (like now) and other times you should be trading players for picks (during the regular season).

I wonder if you are being fair to the folks on the podcast? Because that is just a categorically false claim without context.
My recollection from listening to that same podcast a week or so ago is that they were talking more about when you trade away your picks rather than just the fact that you trade them away.   Rookie picks typically go way up in value the closer you get to the draft as the rookie hype reaches a fever pitch.   So, for example, if you look at a team today and see that they have already traded away all their 2018 picks and some of their 2019 picks that's a pretty good indicator that they are bad traders.   They are not getting peak value for those picks.  

 
I love how people love to minimize the risk involved without having any depth. The discussion here is what is better studs or depth. And people saying studs as if you cant have 10 studs on a team even in 10 team leagues is just an all out alternative fact. 

I start 7 position players with a k and D in a 10 team league where I have short benches of 16. 150 total players are rostered in that league. If you think there are 150 studs, you are kidding yourself. 

You need studs to win no doubt, but you are not winning without that much needed depth come the late weeks of the season when injuries and byes for your studs start stacking up. People love to pretend they can have all studs, not possible and some of these answers are just not at all helpful to the question asked. 

Of course I want studs, who wouldnt? But the answers here are based off something just not realistic.
This is dynasty we are talking about, right?  In dynasty you are not constrained by the limits of a snake draft or auction dollars.  You get new valuable assets every year.  You can spend those trying to acquire nice solid depth, or trying to find the next stud.

In my main dynasty that starts 2wr/2rb/1flex last year I was rolling out David Johnson, LeVeon Bell, Antonio Brown, Mike Evans, and DeMarco Murray as my core.  I had mostly jack and #### behind them but rolled to a championship and nearly a league record in points.  I didn't acquire most of those guys through some awesome trade, mostly drafted them or someone else that was easily tradeable (like Demaryius Thomas) with mid/late 1st round draft picks that I could have just as easily swapped for a nice reliable WR2 or RB3 type and most people would have patted me on the back saying "nice trade".

And that's the thing of it to me.  I'm not looking to spend those resources going out and getting the Emmanuel Sanders or Mark Ingrams of the world who are great at making sure you don't finish last but poor at really helping you finish 1st.  I see to many trades in the AC forum where people are turning away from a trade that lands them a true stud because "that would leave you really thin at WR" or "you'd be really weak at RB3 then".  Who cares?  That stuff will take care of itself later.  You can usually find a nice RB28 or WR24 when you need it.  But people get stuck in this offseason obsession of having a nice symmetrical roster that they think is going to stay steady through the year.  It's a losing obsession.

Bottom line, I'd rather have a championship quality team that is a few bad breaks away from being a doormat than have a 6th place quality team that is a few bad breaks away from still being a 6th place quality team.  The Golden Tates and Lamar Millers sitting out there are nice to have, but I wouldn't give up anything of real value to get them right now, in spite of the perceived "hole" in my roster that will look totally different once the season gets rolling anyway.

 
My recollection from listening to that same podcast a week or so ago is that they were talking more about when you trade away your picks rather than just the fact that you trade them away.   Rookie picks typically go way up in value the closer you get to the draft as the rookie hype reaches a fever pitch.   So, for example, if you look at a team today and see that they have already traded away all their 2018 picks and some of their 2019 picks that's a pretty good indicator that they are bad traders.   They are not getting peak value for those picks.  
I think this would depend on what they got in return for the picks?

If I get a deal I like in February I am not going to wait for a better deal I am going to take it. 

Trying to time trades perfectly is going to leave you holding the bag as often as getting a better deal. You need to strike when the fire is hot. If you wait your trade partner might just make a deal with someone else.

What they are saying is good information. That does happen. You might be able to sell the picks for more by waiting. That doesn't mean it was a bad trade or that the owners are bad traders though. Depends on what you got for the picks.

 
We all would prefer to have studs on our team as opposed to depth players, that goes without saying.

I think the real question here is how you utilize your roster space in the short term. There are several ways to go on this and which approach is best depends on your dynasty strategy, with no right or wrong philosophy, IMO.

You have your current core starting lineup. In addition, you also have a few players you are stashing with the high hope they will be studs. Beyond that, do you invest in other developmental players that are potential studs if they pan out, or go with depth players with a higher floor/lower ceiling that you help you win this year?

I prefer the depth that will help me win now. I have won three championships in the last five years with rather mediocre teams because I had depth beyond a stud player or two. When it came down to crunch time in the playoffs, the teams I faced had injury issues or their star players underperformed while my unheralded squads gave me solid production each week to pull off a victory.

Not saying my approach is the best way to go - but it has worked better for me than those who are always saying, Wait until next year!

 
The smaller the league, the greater the value of stud players. 

For 10 and 12 teamers, I think stud players matter more.

When you hit 14, 16 and above- I prefer depth. Slim waiver wire pickings kill you when you have injuries.

Most 10 and 12 team leagues (and, of course, roster size and starting lineup parameters matter) are deep enough to obtain reasonable quality depth in the event of injury. As you get up there in size, the quality of player available on waivers drops significantly.

All of this having been said- everyone would always prefer to have studs over depth. The distinction here, I think, is that a lack of depth really kills you in bigger leagues when an injury hits. 

It is a very different proposition in a 10 team, 16 player roster size than your 16 team, 20 player roster size. 

 
Really depends on the format though.  I lean towards studs, particularly in smaller, 10 team leagues.  In larger leagues/starting line-ups, it can get closer.

 
squistion said:
We all would prefer to have studs on our team as opposed to depth players, that goes without saying.

I think the real question here is how you utilize your roster space in the short term. There are several ways to go on this and which approach is best depends on your dynasty strategy, with no right or wrong philosophy, IMO.

You have your current core starting lineup. In addition, you also have a few players you are stashing with the high hope they will be studs. Beyond that, do you invest in other developmental players that are potential studs if they pan out, or go with depth players with a higher floor/lower ceiling that you help you win this year?

I prefer the depth that will help me win now. I have won three championships in the last five years with rather mediocre teams because I had depth beyond a stud player or two. When it came down to crunch time in the playoffs, the teams I faced had injury issues or their star players underperformed while my unheralded squads gave me solid production each week to pull off a victory.

Not saying my approach is the best way to go - but it has worked better for me than those who are always saying, Wait until next year!
I think the central difference is what trades you make. Are you devoting your prime resources to acquiring studs and top prospects, or are you devoting them to acquiring solid depth?

If you have a hole at RB2, do you trade away your 1st round rookie draft pick for a solid low-upside vet or do you scramble to fill the hole on the cheap (with guys like Gore, Woodhead, T West, Sproles, etc.)? If you have a solid vet as your RB2, are you willing to trade him away for a rookie 1st and then scramble to fill the hole on the cheap, or do you sit tight so as to not interfere with your solid starting lineup?

You're not going to be able to fill your roster with studs and top prospects - the bottom half of your roster is going to include a lot of players who are either mediocre prospects (of the sort that you could get in the 3rd round of a rookie draft) or mediocre win-now players. Using a few of those roster spots to give you adequate depth at every position seems like a relatively cheap way to add depth.

 
Ack88 said:
The smaller the league, the greater the value of stud players. 

For 10 and 12 teamers, I think stud players matter more.

When you hit 14, 16 and above- I prefer depth. Slim waiver wire pickings kill you when you have injuries.

Most 10 and 12 team leagues (and, of course, roster size and starting lineup parameters matter) are deep enough to obtain reasonable quality depth in the event of injury. As you get up there in size, the quality of player available on waivers drops significantly.

All of this having been said- everyone would always prefer to have studs over depth. The distinction here, I think, is that a lack of depth really kills you in bigger leagues when an injury hits. 

It is a very different proposition in a 10 team, 16 player roster size than your 16 team, 20 player roster size. 
Agreed completely.  Fwiw I've played in 16 and 32 team leagues for the past few and got used to the values and best way (imo) to prepare for auctions in those formats.  I participated in a free 12 team auction last month and failed to consider the differences.  Now that team is deep with quality players I like but without the studs or players I feel comfortable dropping for a waiver pickup.  Pretty much the worst situation to be in. I'll keep at it of course but I screwed myself at the start with a team I don't really like. 

 
Here is a discussion I participated in recently where I thought keeping the draft picks (for depth) was better than consolidating the value of 3 valuable assets into one.

Give: Paul Perkins/Corey Coleman/2018 1st

Get: 1.02
From this example in a vacuum you may prefer the 2nd overall pick or the "stud" and in a vacuum maybe I would as well (my target would be Dalvin Cook or McCaffrey unless Corey Davis was there) but I think the overall value is on the Perkins/Coleman/20181st side of the deal.

Looking at the roster in question, I recommended keeping the players and future pick. Why? Because I don't think the team had enough depth for it to be a better lineup with pick 1.02 than it would be keeping the players. I value Coleman as a potential stud. On the flip side of this, if the roster in question was stronger than it currently was, then I would likely take pick 1.02 for this as I could afford to overpay for the stud pick.

What myself and BassNBrew both suggested is that if you are going to pay this price in a consolidation move, to go after a proven player instead of a rookie. That it is a high price and to target a top WR such as MIke Evans for that price instead. Or just keep what you have.

So this is an example of where I would take depth over studs. At the same time with a deeper roster I would be ok with trading the depth for a stud.

To me it is always a dance between these two things. You need to build depth of potential studs before you can afford to overpay with depth for a stud. It isn't really an either or situation. It depends on the current make up of your roster as well. If you keep building quality depth you will find yourself in a situation where you can overpay for a stud and still have enough depth remaining after the deal to be competitive.

When your team is full of high quality depth players, that is when you should be looking for consolidation moves like this, so you can free up some roster spots to add more depth players. If your team is pretty bare bones besides one stud then I think you should move that player for quality depth and future assets. It really depends on where your teams roster is at the time of the deal as far as which is the best way to go.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I built my brand off dealing studs for the next big thing. I was always comfortable not getting the best player in a deal. Much of the time I came out ahead. Sometimes you end dealing Calvin for Nicks and Stone Cold Miles Austin though. 

A lot for me depends on bench size. Most of my leagues used to be 24-player rosters that expand in the offseason, happy to take on the additional bench spots and do 1 for 2's. 

Much different strategy than say FFPC where you have to cut to 13 in February! It took me several years to get that. 

 
My recollection from listening to that same podcast a week or so ago is that they were talking more about when you trade away your picks rather than just the fact that you trade them away.   Rookie picks typically go way up in value the closer you get to the draft as the rookie hype reaches a fever pitch.   So, for example, if you look at a team today and see that they have already traded away all their 2018 picks and some of their 2019 picks that's a pretty good indicator that they are bad traders.   They are not getting peak value for those picks.  
I think you're right. They were talking about owners who get their picks and then immediately trade them as the worst offenders, and to get to know those guys and trade for their picks.  I kind of do the opposite and look for those "pick mongers" who try to collect 12 first rounders each year and try to get proven, useful, sometimes youngish players from them in exchange for the dart throw first round draft picks.  I'll throw cheaper darts in the later rounds...

If I am very confident before the season that my team is clearly going to make the playoffs I like to trade my picks pretty early.  Other owners seem to pay more for picks preseason, before your team has a good record already and is cruising to the playoffs.  I do try to trade the picks for proven studs, hopefully younger studs if I have other assets to throw in.  It also opens up roster spots to grab the next Tyrell Williams or Cameron Meredith off waivers and then flip them plus a draft pick for a stud again the next year...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here is a discussion I participated in recently where I thought keeping the draft picks (for depth) was better than consolidating the value of 3 valuable assets into one.

From this example in a vacuum you may prefer the 2nd overall pick or the "stud" and in a vacuum maybe I would as well (my target would be Dalvin Cook or McCaffrey unless Corey Davis was there) but I think the overall value is on the Perkins/Coleman/20181st side of the deal.

Looking at the roster in question, I recommended keeping the players and future pick. Why? Because I don't think the team had enough depth for it to be a better lineup with pick 1.02 than it would be keeping the players. I value Coleman as a potential stud. On the flip side of this, if the roster in question was stronger than it currently was, then I would likely take pick 1.02 for this as I could afford to overpay for the stud pick.

What myself and BassNBrew both suggested is that if you are going to pay this price in a consolidation move, to go after a proven player instead of a rookie. That it is a high price and to target a top WR such as MIke Evans for that price instead. Or just keep what you have.

So this is an example of where I would take depth over studs. At the same time with a deeper roster I would be ok with trading the depth for a stud.

To me it is always a dance between these two things. You need to build depth of potential studs before you can afford to overpay with depth for a stud. It isn't really an either or situation. It depends on the current make up of your roster as well. If you keep building quality depth you will find yourself in a situation where you can overpay for a stud and still have enough depth remaining after the deal to be competitive.

When your team is full of high quality depth players, that is when you should be looking for consolidation moves like this, so you can free up some roster spots to add more depth players. If your team is pretty bare bones besides one stud then I think you should move that player for quality depth and future assets. It really depends on where your teams roster is at the time of the deal as far as which is the best way to go.
1.02 by a mile.

 
I go for studs, but try to get younger studs.  It raises the risk by a lot if any of your players get hurt or suspended, but you have the best chance of winning.

 
4 main ways to get depth, with minimal sacrifice from your pursuit of studs:

1. Play the waiver wire. Try to find this year's Terrelle Pryor, Cameron Brate, James White, etc. And, late in the season, try to find next year's. I do this all the time as I churn the bottom of my roster, and it's one of my main sources of depth.

2. Trade away mid-to-late round picks and mediocre prospects. Acquire stopgap vets like Woodhead & Wallace. Or, if your league includes vets in the rookie draft, use those mid-to-late round picks to draft vets (like Bilal Powell last year). When I notice that a lack of depth might be a problem for an otherwise strong roster, this is the approach that it's easiest to call on in my time of need.

3. Get throw-ins in your trades. See if they'll include someone like Fleener as a piece in your bigger deal. I do this less than the other options, since it does trade off more directly against finding studs (since there are other things to aim for when trying to get good value out of a trade).

4. Use your high-upside potential studs who haven't panned out (yet). If you keep going after potential studs like DeVante Parker or Ameer Abdullah, you'll often have a couple of them on your roster who are just providing adequate depth. This happens by default as a side effect of trying to add players who will become studs. "Aim for the moon; even if you miss you'll land among the stars" (that's how NASA does it).

You also could count as a fifth way: make trades that are lateral moves, where you trade one depth player for another (possibly as part of a larger deal). I'm hesitant to include this in the count since it isn't increasing your depth, just switching which players it consists of (though it can also rearrange your depth between positions, which is helpful if you're thin at one position and deep at another). But a fair number of the depth players on my roster did come through this sort of trade.

These can all be contrasted with the kinds of moves where you're getting depth by giving up studs (or potential studs): trading a stud for multiple solid players, trading a 1st round pick (or top prospect) for a solid player, trading away a risky / injury-prone / older stud for a safer solid midcareer player. I almost never make these sort of moves because acquiring studs is the priority.

There is also the fallback plug-and-play option of adding the best option available that week on the waiver wire and putting him straight into your lineup, but I rarely find that necessary.

 
4 main ways to get depth, with minimal sacrifice from your pursuit of studs:

1. Play the waiver wire. Try to find this year's Terrelle Pryor, Cameron Brate, James White, etc. And, late in the season, try to find next year's. I do this all the time as I churn the bottom of my roster, and it's one of my main sources of depth.

2. Trade away mid-to-late round picks and mediocre prospects. Acquire stopgap vets like Woodhead & Wallace. Or, if your league includes vets in the rookie draft, use those mid-to-late round picks to draft vets (like Bilal Powell last year). When I notice that a lack of depth might be a problem for an otherwise strong roster, this is the approach that it's easiest to call on in my time of need.

3. Get throw-ins in your trades. See if they'll include someone like Fleener as a piece in your bigger deal. I do this less than the other options, since it does trade off more directly against finding studs (since there are other things to aim for when trying to get good value out of a trade).

4. Use your high-upside potential studs who haven't panned out (yet). If you keep going after potential studs like DeVante Parker or Ameer Abdullah, you'll often have a couple of them on your roster who are just providing adequate depth. This happens by default as a side effect of trying to add players who will become studs. "Aim for the moon; even if you miss you'll land among the stars" (that's how NASA does it).

You also could count as a fifth way: make trades that are lateral moves, where you trade one depth player for another (possibly as part of a larger deal). I'm hesitant to include this in the count since it isn't increasing your depth, just switching which players it consists of (though it can also rearrange your depth between positions, which is helpful if you're thin at one position and deep at another). But a fair number of the depth players on my roster did come through this sort of trade.

These can all be contrasted with the kinds of moves where you're getting depth by giving up studs (or potential studs): trading a stud for multiple solid players, trading a 1st round pick (or top prospect) for a solid player, trading away a risky / injury-prone / older stud for a safer solid midcareer player. I almost never make these sort of moves because acquiring studs is the priority.

There is also the fallback plug-and-play option of adding the best option available that week on the waiver wire and putting him straight into your lineup, but I rarely find that necessary.
Good stuff but I think your #2 is really two distinct steps.  

I'll often use my late picks to draft boom/bust players.  Most often those guys don't pan out but you do get a few here and there.  This year guys like Josh Malone, Zamora, McNichols, Leggett and Bucky Hodges come cheap (at least in my league). I'll take my chances on those guys and the picks don't cost much to acquire nor would you get much by trading them (again, league specific). 

But at the same time I'll absolutely go after cheap guys like wallace and woodhead - these are the guys you can get thrown in rather easily. So I guess that's included in your #3. 

 
My 2 cents- Dynasty to me (12 team, 20 rosters) equates to draft with expertise and hang on to your pick over seasons- not always be a trader.  IMO traders who always succeed are playing in a league with weak owners who get the worst end of a deal.  If you cant draft like an expert then of course you will be a trader with someone who will make a bad early round choice. In my world dynasty mimics the NFL teams that build through the draft.

 
4 main ways to get depth, with minimal sacrifice from your pursuit of studs:

1. Play the waiver wire. Try to find this year's Terrelle Pryor, Cameron Brate, James White, etc. And, late in the season, try to find next year's. I do this all the time as I churn the bottom of my roster, and it's one of my main sources of depth.

2. Trade away mid-to-late round picks and mediocre prospects. Acquire stopgap vets like Woodhead & Wallace. Or, if your league includes vets in the rookie draft, use those mid-to-late round picks to draft vets (like Bilal Powell last year). When I notice that a lack of depth might be a problem for an otherwise strong roster, this is the approach that it's easiest to call on in my time of need.

3. Get throw-ins in your trades. See if they'll include someone like Fleener as a piece in your bigger deal. I do this less than the other options, since it does trade off more directly against finding studs (since there are other things to aim for when trying to get good value out of a trade).

4. Use your high-upside potential studs who haven't panned out (yet). If you keep going after potential studs like DeVante Parker or Ameer Abdullah, you'll often have a couple of them on your roster who are just providing adequate depth. This happens by default as a side effect of trying to add players who will become studs. "Aim for the moon; even if you miss you'll land among the stars" (that's how NASA does it).

You also could count as a fifth way: make trades that are lateral moves, where you trade one depth player for another (possibly as part of a larger deal). I'm hesitant to include this in the count since it isn't increasing your depth, just switching which players it consists of (though it can also rearrange your depth between positions, which is helpful if you're thin at one position and deep at another). But a fair number of the depth players on my roster did come through this sort of trade.

These can all be contrasted with the kinds of moves where you're getting depth by giving up studs (or potential studs): trading a stud for multiple solid players, trading a 1st round pick (or top prospect) for a solid player, trading away a risky / injury-prone / older stud for a safer solid midcareer player. I almost never make these sort of moves because acquiring studs is the priority.

There is also the fallback plug-and-play option of adding the best option available that week on the waiver wire and putting him straight into your lineup, but I rarely find that necessary.
:goodposting:  

This is one of the best posts I have read in this forum for a while.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top