1.01 Trade Strategy (1 Viewer)

[Grond]

A few leagues have an open-ended pick window for 1.01 - meaning 1.01 is on the clock when the draft order is decided, weeks or months before the draft, until the pick deadline.

For leagues of this type, I'm curious what opinions are about trading away 1.01 - do you think it's better to trade the pick itself or to pick and try to trade the player?

Especially in a homer league, I think picking the favorite and trying to deal the player is a better option than the ambiguity if the player may be there at 1.02. It might take some of the trade power away from 1.02 with owners realizing there would be no chance of the player possibly falling to 1.02 - if they want him, deal with 1.01 or not at all.

This year is a not good example, depending on team needs and scoring/roster requirements, Cal Johnson & Peterson could arguably both be worthy of 1.01.

Last year was a prime example - taking Reggie Bush and trying to trade him rather than the pick.

Opinions?

 

[MelvinTScupper]

this year, using the 1.01 and getting the massive WR value at the 2.12-3.01 turn seems pretty damn good. If you can get something for 1.01 that gains an additional pick in the 1st or 2nd round ON TOP of another 1st rounder, maybe.

Otherwise, I keep the pick.

 

[-OZ-]

this year, using the 1.01 and getting the massive WR value at the 2.12-3.01 turn seems pretty damn good. If you can get something for 1.01 that gains an additional pick in the 1st or 2nd round ON TOP of another 1st rounder, maybe.Otherwise, I keep the pick.

I'm missing this "massive WR value", as he's talking about a rookie draft.FWIW, I'd take Peterson, and call it a day. Later on, you can try to trade him as he's lighting up the NFL.

 

[FFdork]

Timely thread as I sit here agonizing over the 1.1 I just traded for...

 

[ravnzfan]

this year, using the 1.01 and getting the massive WR value at the 2.12-3.01 turn seems pretty damn good.

OP was refering to a "rookie draft", as opposed to a "redraft draft"....oh, that hurt

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

A few leagues have an open-ended pick window for 1.01 - meaning 1.01 is on the clock when the draft order is decided, weeks or months before the draft, until the pick deadline. For leagues of this type, I'm curious what opinions are about trading away 1.01 - do you think it's better to trade the pick itself or to pick and try to trade the player?Especially in a homer league, I think picking the favorite and trying to deal the player is a better option than the ambiguity if the player may be there at 1.02. It might take some of the trade power away from 1.02 with owners realizing there would be no chance of the player possibly falling to 1.02 - if they want him, deal with 1.01 or not at all.This year is a not good example, depending on team needs and scoring/roster requirements, Cal Johnson & Peterson could arguably both be worthy of 1.01. Last year was a prime example - taking Reggie Bush and trying to trade him rather than the pick.Opinions?

Limiting the number of options is a bad idea.With you shopping "1.01", anyone who views any player worthy of being the #1 pick is in the buyer pool.If you take a player - ADP, CJ2, or another - you eliminate anyone who would have had another player worthy of 1.01.Now those players are buyers for 1.02 - since they can still get their #1 player on their boards.

 

[Penguin]

A few leagues have an open-ended pick window for 1.01 - meaning 1.01 is on the clock when the draft order is decided, weeks or months before the draft, until the pick deadline. For leagues of this type, I'm curious what opinions are about trading away 1.01 - do you think it's better to trade the pick itself or to pick and try to trade the player?Especially in a homer league, I think picking the favorite and trying to deal the player is a better option than the ambiguity if the player may be there at 1.02. It might take some of the trade power away from 1.02 with owners realizing there would be no chance of the player possibly falling to 1.02 - if they want him, deal with 1.01 or not at all.This year is a not good example, depending on team needs and scoring/roster requirements, Cal Johnson & Peterson could arguably both be worthy of 1.01. Last year was a prime example - taking Reggie Bush and trying to trade him rather than the pick.Opinions?

Limiting the number of options is a bad idea.With you shopping "1.01", anyone who views any player worthy of being the #1 pick is in the buyer pool.If you take a player - ADP, CJ2, or another - you eliminate anyone who would have had another player worthy of 1.01.Now those players are buyers for 1.02 - since they can still get their #1 player on their boards.

I agree with this thinking. Not only are they now buyer's for the #2 pick, they may be able to get the #2 pick at a discount if the owner of the pick wanted the player you took at 1.01

 

[MelvinTScupper]

this year, using the 1.01 and getting the massive WR value at the 2.12-3.01 turn seems pretty damn good.

OP was refering to a "rookie draft", as opposed to a "redraft draft"....oh, that hurt

Whoops.Well, in that case, how can you trade away the 1 pick, when there are only 3 good picks? You think you'd get a lot of value from the guy holding 1.02 or 1.03? If you can, sure.

 

[SSOG]

Limiting the number of options is a bad idea.With you shopping "1.01", anyone who views any player worthy of being the #1 pick is in the buyer pool.If you take a player - ADP, CJ2, or another - you eliminate anyone who would have had another player worthy of 1.01.Now those players are buyers for 1.02 - since they can still get their #1 player on their boards.

Normally I'd agree, but not always. A lot of times some players just have "name brand value", and some owners prefer trading for names than possibilities. It's like in Real Estate- if you want to put the house on the market and the carpeting needs to be changed, the logical thing would be to sell the house and let the new owners pick whatever carpet they want... but in reality, the way to get the best value is to change the carpet and let the new owners change it again if they want something different. In redraft, I think I could often get more for "LaDanian Tomlinson" than I could for "Pick 1.01".Also, another example of when it's good to make the pick and trade the player is if it's a player that someone thinks might fall. Let's say you're in a league with Calvin Johnson's mom. You know she'll pay anything to land her son, but she thinks that he'll still be available at 1.02, so she won't pay as much for pick 1.01 (since she would be just as happy with 1.02). If you pick Calvin Johnson, then suddenly you FORCE her to deal with you (rather than playing two sides against each other to get the best value). Basically, you get a monopoly on what she wants, and you can essentially set your price. The big problem with something like this is that you better make absolutely sure that you have the right read on the situation before you pick someone you aren't 100% happy with owning if negotiations go south.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Limiting the number of options is a bad idea.With you shopping "1.01", anyone who views any player worthy of being the #1 pick is in the buyer pool.If you take a player - ADP, CJ2, or another - you eliminate anyone who would have had another player worthy of 1.01.Now those players are buyers for 1.02 - since they can still get their #1 player on their boards.

Normally I'd agree, but not always. A lot of times some players just have "name brand value", and some owners prefer trading for names than possibilities. It's like in Real Estate- if you want to put the house on the market and the carpeting needs to be changed, the logical thing would be to sell the house and let the new owners pick whatever carpet they want... but in reality, the way to get the best value is to change the carpet and let the new owners change it again if they want something different. In redraft, I think I could often get more for "LaDanian Tomlinson" than I could for "Pick 1.01".Also, another example of when it's good to make the pick and trade the player is if it's a player that someone thinks might fall. Let's say you're in a league with Calvin Johnson's mom. You know she'll pay anything to land her son, but she thinks that he'll still be available at 1.02, so she won't pay as much for pick 1.01 (since she would be just as happy with 1.02). If you pick Calvin Johnson, then suddenly you FORCE her to deal with you (rather than playing two sides against each other to get the best value). Basically, you get a monopoly on what she wants, and you can essentially set your price. The big problem with something like this is that you better make absolutely sure that you have the right read on the situation before you pick someone you aren't 100% happy with owning if negotiations go south.

SSOG,I agree with your point here, but the OP was asking a general question - no specifics of having someone in your league with Calvin man-love.To further your analogy, some people like neutral carpets (and 90% or so of homebuyers would agree) - but when you are only talking to 11-15 possible buyers, some of which may hate neutral carpet and would rather have the $ to buy their own - leaving them the option may make sense.Bottom line - 90% of the time I believe you trade the pick, not the name. The name can be inferred (like in 06 = Reggie Bush). In that rare 10% of the time when you have someone who will do ANYTHING to have that player yet won't pay the price for 1.01, forcing the issue via selection of that player may be the option of choice - but you better be prepared to live with that choice if the deal falls through.

 

[crnerblitz]

Limiting the number of options is a bad idea.With you shopping "1.01", anyone who views any player worthy of being the #1 pick is in the buyer pool.If you take a player - ADP, CJ2, or another - you eliminate anyone who would have had another player worthy of 1.01.Now those players are buyers for 1.02 - since they can still get their #1 player on their boards.

Normally I'd agree, but not always. A lot of times some players just have "name brand value", and some owners prefer trading for names than possibilities. It's like in Real Estate- if you want to put the house on the market and the carpeting needs to be changed, the logical thing would be to sell the house and let the new owners pick whatever carpet they want... but in reality, the way to get the best value is to change the carpet and let the new owners change it again if they want something different. In redraft, I think I could often get more for "LaDanian Tomlinson" than I could for "Pick 1.01".Also, another example of when it's good to make the pick and trade the player is if it's a player that someone thinks might fall. Let's say you're in a league with Calvin Johnson's mom. You know she'll pay anything to land her son, but she thinks that he'll still be available at 1.02, so she won't pay as much for pick 1.01 (since she would be just as happy with 1.02). If you pick Calvin Johnson, then suddenly you FORCE her to deal with you (rather than playing two sides against each other to get the best value). Basically, you get a monopoly on what she wants, and you can essentially set your price. The big problem with something like this is that you better make absolutely sure that you have the right read on the situation before you pick someone you aren't 100% happy with owning if negotiations go south.

NOT But GREAT posting!I've only ever had the chance to use this move on two occasions in the last decade but it is if you can pull it off.Word on the steet is that Calvin Johnson's Mom covets AD, so proceed with caution there.

 

[Grond]

Limiting the number of options is a bad idea.With you shopping "1.01", anyone who views any player worthy of being the #1 pick is in the buyer pool.If you take a player - ADP, CJ2, or another - you eliminate anyone who would have had another player worthy of 1.01.Now those players are buyers for 1.02 - since they can still get their #1 player on their boards.

Normally I'd agree, but not always. A lot of times some players just have "name brand value", and some owners prefer trading for names than possibilities. It's like in Real Estate- if you want to put the house on the market and the carpeting needs to be changed, the logical thing would be to sell the house and let the new owners pick whatever carpet they want... but in reality, the way to get the best value is to change the carpet and let the new owners change it again if they want something different. In redraft, I think I could often get more for "LaDanian Tomlinson" than I could for "Pick 1.01".Also, another example of when it's good to make the pick and trade the player is if it's a player that someone thinks might fall. Let's say you're in a league with Calvin Johnson's mom. You know she'll pay anything to land her son, but she thinks that he'll still be available at 1.02, so she won't pay as much for pick 1.01 (since she would be just as happy with 1.02). If you pick Calvin Johnson, then suddenly you FORCE her to deal with you (rather than playing two sides against each other to get the best value). Basically, you get a monopoly on what she wants, and you can essentially set your price. The big problem with something like this is that you better make absolutely sure that you have the right read on the situation before you pick someone you aren't 100% happy with owning if negotiations go south.

Exactly what I was thinking. It's tricky; reading the competition is key and being satisfied with having the player if you can't pull off a trade. Like being short WR help and deep depth at RB, picking Peterson could backfire - if they perceive you're doing it to get the most bang for your buck and Peterson won't help your team perceptibly.