2013 Off Season Dynasty Trade Thread (for completed trades) (2 Viewers)

[Concept Coop]

Just recently completed:

12team IDP, 1.5 PPR for TE

Team A trades:

Randall Cobb

Gio Bernard

Jason Pierre-Paul

Jermichael Finley

Team B trades:

Jimmy Graham

Lamar Miller

Daniel Thomas

Quinton Patton

Without the IDP scoring specs, I'm inclined to say this is a big win for the guy getting the best player in the deal (Graham).

 

[kutta]

Just recently completed:

12team IDP, 1.5 PPR for TE

Team A trades:

Randall Cobb

Gio Bernard

Jason Pierre-Paul

Jermichael Finley

Team B trades:

Jimmy Graham

Lamar Miller

Daniel Thomas

Quinton Patton

Without the IDP scoring specs, I'm inclined to say this is a big win for the guy getting the best player in the deal (Graham).

I agree. And Lamar Miller could turn out to be the 2nd best player in the deal.

 

[ghostguy123]

No. I don't think anyone would say thats a fair trade. It wouldn't make sense to deal Rodgers for Woodhead and that should NEVER happen. Even if you had Brees It still wouldn't be fair nor make sense...

But if I am the team dealing ROdgers for Woodhead, getting Woodhead helps my team, so if I think it's fair, it makes it fair, right?? SInce I am the party involved in the trade, according to some on here, YOUR opinion as an outsider means nothing, correct?

Some HORRID trades make sense to idiot owners sometimes. Yet by most peoples definitions of "fair", these trades would be considered fair.

I am just not sure how horribly stupid can ever equate to "fair".

One can define fair as proper under the rules. One can also define fair as good or close to equal value. I tend to think of the former. Bad trades can be fair under the first definition.

Well, I generally see the term "fair" thrown out there when one side is clearly more valuable. Just seems to work out that way for some reason, so yes, I suppose I equate the word "fair" in terms of dynasty trades to a deal that is bad for one side..........................but somehow is "fair".

Again, I can't see that term "fair" as meaning anything other than the deal is close enough to not get overturned. In which case, the word has no use since almost no trades in any league ever get overturned.

When someone rips someone off, amazingly, they always seem to use the word "fair" to describe their deal.

 

[JonB86]

FFPC Dynasty startup:

Team A

1.2

14.11

20.11

2014 3rd

Team B

3.11

4.2

12.2

2014 1st

Which side do you like?

This givea the team receiving 3.11 and 4.2 superb depth as you would have 2/3/3/4/4 instead of 1/2/3/4 and the 1st for next year is nice but it is very tough to not have a go to STUD from Round 1, I'd like to hear who gets taken with the picks and see how the deal worked out for both guys!

 

[FUBAR]

FFPC Dynasty startup:

Team A

1.2

14.11

20.11

2014 3rd

Team B

3.11

4.2

12.2

2014 1st

Which side do you like?

This givea the team receiving 3.11 and 4.2 superb depth as you would have 2/3/3/4/4 instead of 1/2/3/4 and the 1st for next year is nice but it is very tough to not have a go to STUD from Round 1, I'd like to hear who gets taken with the picks and see how the deal worked out for both guys!

The team trading away his 3/4 is takinga huge risk which could pay off. Assume he's going into the draft planning to build a young team instead of contending from day one. Should work if his early picks don't bust, but it's tough. Assuming that is his strategy, a good scenario not completely unlikely would be Justin blackmon and David Wilson falling there. not sure i would take those two over Martin, but it's arguable and he gets an additional 1st.

Don't think i would do it, but it could work

 

[ghostguy123]

FFPC Dynasty startup:

Team A

1.2

14.11

20.11

2014 3rd

Team B

3.11

4.2

12.2

2014 1st

Which side do you like?

This givea the team receiving 3.11 and 4.2 superb depth as you would have 2/3/3/4/4 instead of 1/2/3/4 and the 1st for next year is nice but it is very tough to not have a go to STUD from Round 1, I'd like to hear who gets taken with the picks and see how the deal worked out for both guys!

I like the side getting 3.11 and 4.02 if they look into dealing both 2014 1sts for a pick. I see two future 1sts get a pick in like round 4, sometimes even round 3. If you are going to deal a top pick and look to compete now, I think thats the way to go, and its very doable

 

[xtreme11]

10 team PPR

Gave 1.01 for Vincent Jackson and TY Hilton

Did not need a WR and never have been a fan of VJax but I accepted because I though this was very good value

Then Traded VJax for the 1.02

I need a rb and really like Gio and believe the 1.01 will go with Tavon so with all said and done I moved back 1 spot, net Hilton and get the guy I wanted all along in Gio.

 

[ghostguy123]

10 team PPR

Gave 1.01 for Vincent Jackson and TY Hilton

Did not need a WR and never have been a fan of VJax but I accepted because I though this was very good value

Then Traded VJax for the 1.02

I need a rb and really like Gio and believe the 1.01 will go with Tavon so with all said and done I moved back 1 spot, net Hilton and get the guy I wanted all along in Gio.

Score one for you for the dummy not shopping around at all. This is the exact reason why I disagree with people saying don't make a trade if your intent is to try and make a follow up trade. When you get handed value, take it.

This year especially, I see no diffrence between picks 1and 2.

Hilton for free

 

[Winning IS Everything]

10 team PPR

Gave 1.01 for Vincent Jackson and TY Hilton

Did not need a WR and never have been a fan of VJax but I accepted because I though this was very good value

Then Traded VJax for the 1.02

I need a rb and really like Gio and believe the 1.01 will go with Tavon so with all said and done I moved back 1 spot, net Hilton and get the guy I wanted all along in Gio.

I like those deals for you. Gio is not going #1 in most leagues, so you managed to move back one spot and get a great prospect at WR and you will still get Gio.

 

[Concept Coop]

FFPC Dynasty startup:

Team A

1.2

14.11

20.11

2014 3rd

Team B

3.11

4.2

12.2

2014 1st

Which side do you like?

This givea the team receiving 3.11 and 4.2 superb depth as you would have 2/3/3/4/4 instead of 1/2/3/4 and the 1st for next year is nice but it is very tough to not have a go to STUD from Round 1, I'd like to hear who gets taken with the picks and see how the deal worked out for both guys!

Very cheap for the 1.02. You should be able to get a 2/3 como, rather than late 3/early 4+.

 

[ghostguy123]

Very cheap for the 1.02. You should be able to get a 2/3 como, rather than late 3/early 4+.

A 2 and a 3 along with a future first would be tough. I think the pick 38 and a future first could move him into the 2nd if he wanted

 

[Concept Coop]

Very cheap for the 1.02. You should be able to get a 2/3 como, rather than late 3/early 4+.
A 2 and a 3 along with a future first would be tough. I think the pick 38 and a future first could move him into the 2nd if he wanted

In most of my drafts, the guy moving a top 3 pick gets a 2/3. I don't think I have seen a top 3 pick moved for this little, myself. Not that it doesn't happen, just hasn't in my drafts.

The late 3/4 range isn't enough for me to pass up one of the top 2 guys, hopefully Calvin. In that range you're picking between, for the most part, unproven potential, older production, or risk/limited upside. Is Ridley/V.Jackson/random 1st enough for Calvin or Green? Or Tavon/Murray 1st? In my opinion, no.

Trading for a 2/3, there is at least hope for an elite (or near elite) player still in his prime. Graham, Harvin, Gronk, Marshall, et cetera.

 

[ghostguy123]

Also depends what he plans to do. He could be playing for the future, and keep trading those picks down for 2014 1sts. Picks 35 and 38 should get him about 5-6 more 2014 1sts if he wants, in which case be woulda dealt that top pick for like 6-7 2014 1sts and own the draft next year.

Or he can try to deal his two 2014 1sts for a pick in the 4th if he can get it, in which case he traded a top three pick and his probable late 2014 1st for a 3rd and two 4ths.

 

[Concept Coop]

Also depends what he plans to do. He could be playing for the future, and keep trading those picks down for 2014 1sts. Picks 35 and 38 should get him about 5-6 more 2014 1sts if he wants, in which case be woulda dealt that top pick for like 6-7 2014 1sts and own the draft next year.

Or he can try to deal his two 2014 1sts for a pick in the 4th if he can get it, in which case he traded a top three pick and his probable late 2014 1st for a 3rd and two 4ths.

Sure, but the initial deal was still off, value wise.

 

[Jeremy]

FFPC Dynasty startup:

Team A

1.2

14.11

20.11

2014 3rd

Team B

3.11

4.2

12.2

2014 1st

Which side do you like?

This givea the team receiving 3.11 and 4.2 superb depth as you would have 2/3/3/4/4 instead of 1/2/3/4 and the 1st for next year is nice but it is very tough to not have a go to STUD from Round 1, I'd like to hear who gets taken with the picks and see how the deal worked out for both guys!

Very cheap for the 1.02. You should be able to get a 2/3 como, rather than late 3/early 4+.

Yeah, when I read that trade my first thought was "why isn't the other guys higher picks involved in this deal"? Where's the 2nd rounder? Did he moved that for another high pick in the startup?

 

[ghostguy123]

Also depends what he plans to do. He could be playing for the future, and keep trading those picks down for 2014 1sts. Picks 35 and 38 should get him about 5-6 more 2014 1sts if he wants, in which case be woulda dealt that top pick for like 6-7 2014 1sts and own the draft next year.

Or he can try to deal his two 2014 1sts for a pick in the 4th if he can get it, in which case he traded a top three pick and his probable late 2014 1st for a 3rd and two 4ths.

Sure, but the initial deal was still off, value wise.

If it is, only a little. And it depends what his options were and what he plans to do.

I definitely got more when I traded the #1 in a startup last year, but that probably wasn't the norm. I got something like a mid 2nd, mid 3rd, a 7th, and a future 1st.

 

[cdubz]

Also depends what he plans to do. He could be playing for the future, and keep trading those picks down for 2014 1sts. Picks 35 and 38 should get him about 5-6 more 2014 1sts if he wants, in which case be woulda dealt that top pick for like 6-7 2014 1sts and own the draft next year.

Or he can try to deal his two 2014 1sts for a pick in the 4th if he can get it, in which case he traded a top three pick and his probable late 2014 1st for a 3rd and two 4ths.

Sure, but the initial deal was still off, value wise.

This is an interesting one. From a theoretical perspective, probably about equal value in my mind. The way the actual players shake out this year though, you are really taking a leap of faith. If you are building for the future in that trade down, who are you taking at #35 and #38? Gio and Josh Gordon? Certainly possible that package along with a future 1st pans out, but seems a little light in my mind.

If you could move 35 + 38 for 5-6 future 1sts, that would be excellent value in my mind this year. Thinking 4 is closer to market value. So the question is, do you give up Calvin/Martin for 5 basically random future 1sts?

 

[Concept Coop]

Also depends what he plans to do. He could be playing for the future, and keep trading those picks down for 2014 1sts. Picks 35 and 38 should get him about 5-6 more 2014 1sts if he wants, in which case be woulda dealt that top pick for like 6-7 2014 1sts and own the draft next year.

Or he can try to deal his two 2014 1sts for a pick in the 4th if he can get it, in which case he traded a top three pick and his probable late 2014 1st for a 3rd and two 4ths.

Sure, but the initial deal was still off, value wise.

This is an interesting one. From a theoretical perspective, probably about equal value in my mind. The way the actual players shake out this year though, you are really taking a leap of faith. If you are building for the future in that trade down, who are you taking at #35 and #38? Gio and Josh Gordon? Certainly possible that package along with a future 1st pans out, but seems a little light in my mind.

If you could move 35 + 38 for 5-6 future 1sts, that would be excellent value in my mind this year. Thinking 4 is closer to market value. So the question is, do you give up Calvin/Martin for 5 basically random future 1sts?

I think there is an argument for 5 random firsts.

If that is the plan - the initial deal still should have been for 2/3. Then trade back from 2, then 3, then 4, then 5, etc.

In my opinion, and my perception of market value, this one is off, regardless of what ends up happening with the acquired assets. I think 1.12/3rd is closer to fair value than 3/4+1st. That's pretty bad, and the worst deal for a top 2 pick I have seen.

Prior to that, it was 1.03 (maybe it was 1.04) for 2x 3rds+.

 

[cdubz]

FFPC start-up

Team A

1.01

12.12

Team B

2.03

4.03

 

[FUBAR]

10 team PPR

Gave 1.01 for Vincent Jackson and TY Hilton

Did not need a WR and never have been a fan of VJax but I accepted because I though this was very good value

Then Traded VJax for the 1.02

I need a rb and really like Gio and believe the 1.01 will go with Tavon so with all said and done I moved back 1 spot, net Hilton and get the guy I wanted all along in Gio.

As a VJax owner who could use some youth in one league, i would be interested to trade him for the 1.02 but am pretty sure it wouldn't be accepted. Seems like good value on both sides, but usually our picks are overpriced.Although, my recent swap of the 1.05 for Gordon seems like Better value than this one. I think Gordon is worth more in dynasty than vjax.

 

[ghostguy123]

Also depends what he plans to do. He could be playing for the future, and keep trading those picks down for 2014 1sts. Picks 35 and 38 should get him about 5-6 more 2014 1sts if he wants, in which case be woulda dealt that top pick for like 6-7 2014 1sts and own the draft next year.

Or he can try to deal his two 2014 1sts for a pick in the 4th if he can get it, in which case he traded a top three pick and his probable late 2014 1st for a 3rd and two 4ths.

Sure, but the initial deal was still off, value wise.

This is an interesting one. From a theoretical perspective, probably about equal value in my mind. The way the actual players shake out this year though, you are really taking a leap of faith. If you are building for the future in that trade down, who are you taking at #35 and #38? Gio and Josh Gordon? Certainly possible that package along with a future 1st pans out, but seems a little light in my mind. If you could move 35 + 38 for 5-6 future 1sts, that would be excellent value in my mind this year. Thinking 4 is closer to market value. So the question is, do you give up Calvin/Martin for 5 basically random future 1sts?

If you can't get more than 4 future 1sts for picks 35 and 38, you are doing something wrong. But if that is the going rate in this particular league, then he should absolutely deal his two future 1sts that he now has for an early 4th

Then he would have traded a top 3 pick and a likely late 2014 1st for a 3rd and two 4ths like I said before, and have one Hell if strong starting lineup for a startup draft

 

[ghostguy123]

Also depends what he plans to do. He could be playing for the future, and keep trading those picks down for 2014 1sts. Picks 35 and 38 should get him about 5-6 more 2014 1sts if he wants, in which case be woulda dealt that top pick for like 6-7 2014 1sts and own the draft next year.

Or he can try to deal his two 2014 1sts for a pick in the 4th if he can get it, in which case he traded a top three pick and his probable late 2014 1st for a 3rd and two 4ths.

Sure, but the initial deal was still off, value wise.

This is an interesting one. From a theoretical perspective, probably about equal value in my mind. The way the actual players shake out this year though, you are really taking a leap of faith. If you are building for the future in that trade down, who are you taking at #35 and #38? Gio and Josh Gordon? Certainly possible that package along with a future 1st pans out, but seems a little light in my mind. If you could move 35 + 38 for 5-6 future 1sts, that would be excellent value in my mind this year. Thinking 4 is closer to market value. So the question is, do you give up Calvin/Martin for 5 basically random future 1sts?

I think there is an argument for 5 random firsts.

If that is the plan - the initial deal still should have been for 2/3. Then trade back from 2, then 3, then 4, then 5, etc.

In my opinion, and my perception of market value, this one is off, regardless of what ends up happening with the acquired assets. I think 1.12/3rd is closer to fair value than 3/4+1st. That's pretty bad, and the worst deal for a top 2 pick I have seen.

Prior to that, it was 1.03 (maybe it was 1.04) for 2x 3rds+.

Wow, pick 12 plus a 3rd round startup pick for even pick #1 would just be horrible for the guy moving up to pick 1.

Do you take Calvin or Martin or whoever........or someone at 12 like Julio or dez, plus a semi stud in the 3rd round? Not close, give me picks 12 and 36.

 

[ghostguy123]

Also depends what he plans to do. He could be playing for the future, and keep trading those picks down for 2014 1sts. Picks 35 and 38 should get him about 5-6 more 2014 1sts if he wants, in which case be woulda dealt that top pick for like 6-7 2014 1sts and own the draft next year.

Or he can try to deal his two 2014 1sts for a pick in the 4th if he can get it, in which case he traded a top three pick and his probable late 2014 1st for a 3rd and two 4ths.

Sure, but the initial deal was still off, value wise.

This is an interesting one. From a theoretical perspective, probably about equal value in my mind. The way the actual players shake out this year though, you are really taking a leap of faith. If you are building for the future in that trade down, who are you taking at #35 and #38? Gio and Josh Gordon? Certainly possible that package along with a future 1st pans out, but seems a little light in my mind. If you could move 35 + 38 for 5-6 future 1sts, that would be excellent value in my mind this year. Thinking 4 is closer to market value. So the question is, do you give up Calvin/Martin for 5 basically random future 1sts?

I think there is an argument for 5 random firsts.

If that is the plan - the initial deal still should have been for 2/3. Then trade back from 2, then 3, then 4, then 5, etc.

In my opinion, and my perception of market value, this one is off, regardless of what ends up happening with the acquired assets. I think 1.12/3rd is closer to fair value than 3/4+1st. That's pretty bad, and the worst deal for a top 2 pick I have seen.

Prior to that, it was 1.03 (maybe it was 1.04) for 2x 3rds+.

And now ur kinda not making sense, because if you say there is an argument fir five random future 1sts.....well, he already got one, and now has picks 35 and 38 that are easily worth more than four future 1sts.

 

[ghostguy123]

FFPC start-up

Team A

1.01

12.12

Team B

2.03

4.03

I will take 15 and 38 here.

 

[FUBAR]

FFPC start-up

Team A

1.01

12.12

Team B

2.03

4.03

I will take 15 and 38 here.

Yep

 

[Concept Coop]

And now ur kinda not making sense, because if you say there is an argument fir five random future 1sts.....well, he already got one, and now has picks 35 and 38 that are easily worth more than four future 1sts.

How does that not make sense? The 1.02 for late 3/4 +1st is a bad deal. We can add hypothetical context all we want. That move, in a vacuum, is a bad deal. If you're turning the pick into draft picks, you're going to get more if you make good deals along the way.

 

[ghostguy123]

And now ur kinda not making sense, because if you say there is an argument fir five random future 1sts.....well, he already got one, and now has picks 35 and 38 that are easily worth more than four future 1sts.

How does that not make sense? The 1.02 for late 3/4 +1st is a bad deal. We can add hypothetical context all we want. That move, in a vacuum, is a bad deal. If you're turning the pick into draft picks, you're going to get more if you make good deals along the way.

Question..what would you rather have, picks 35/38, or four future 1sts.

Your answer to that will clear that up.

I don't see how picks 35/38 and a future 1st isn't enough, yet five future 1sts would be.......yet 35/38 is better than four future 1sts.

 

[Concept Coop]

Wow, pick 12 plus a 3rd round startup pick for even pick #1 would just be horrible for the guy moving up to pick 1.Do you take Calvin or Martin or whoever........or someone at 12 like Julio or dez, plus a semi stud in the 3rd round? Not close, give me picks 12 and 36.

Depends on how you value Calvin/Richardson/Martin/Green. I think Calvin for D.Thomas/Murray is closer than Calvin for Ridley/Jordy/1st.

 

[JFS171]

16-team .5 PPR, Start: QB, WR, WR, RB, RB, TE, W/R/T, W/R/T

Send:

Victor Cruz

Chris Ivory

Torrey Smith

Phillip Rivers

Daryl Richardson

Receive:

Trent Richardson

Montario Hardesty

Ryan Broyles

Mark Sanchez (his drop)

Tim Tebow (his drop)

I likely overpaid, and knowingly did so, to get Trent. All of that from my side is replaceable IMO, while 23 year old workhorse RBs are not usually available for trades in 16-team leagues. And I had ridiculous WR/RB depth, but needed a star.

 

[Concept Coop]

Question..what would you rather have, picks 35/38, or four future 1sts.Your answer to that will clear that up.

I don't see how picks 35/38 and a future 1st isn't enough, yet five future 1sts would be.......yet 35/38 is better than four future 1sts.

We're not talking about the same deal. I am talking about the deal that happened, and you are talking about a hypothetical deal that didn't happen, and likely wont. The deal, based on my opinion and stance on the market, was well below market value.

 

[Concept Coop]

16-team .5 PPR, Start: QB, WR, WR, RB, RB, TE, W/R/T, W/R/T

Send:

Victor Cruz

Chris Ivory

Torrey Smith

Phillip Rivers

Daryl Richardson

Receive:

Trent Richardson

Montario Hardesty

Ryan Broyles

Mark Sanchez (his drop)

Tim Tebow (his drop)

I likely overpaid, and knowingly did so, to get Trent. All of that from my side is replaceable IMO, while 23 year old workhorse RBs are not usually available for trades in 16-team leagues. And I had ridiculous WR/RB depth, but needed a star.

I like the deal for you. 16 team, start 2 RB/2WR, 0.5 PPR - Trent is a top 2-3 player.

Interested to see if others think you overpaid, but I personally do not.

 

[ghostguy123]

Wow, pick 12 plus a 3rd round startup pick for even pick #1 would just be horrible for the guy moving up to pick 1.

Do you take Calvin or Martin or whoever........or someone at 12 like Julio or dez, plus a semi stud in the 3rd round? Not close, give me picks 12 and 36.

Depends on how you value Calvin/Richardson/Martin/Green. I think Calvin for D.Thomas/Murray is closer than Calvin for Ridley/Jordy/1st.

Well, don't tell me we can't discuss follow up trades to that deal if you are going to tell me which two surreal i am going to draft, lol

I take picks 12 and 36 all day every day, no matter what it depends on

 

[ghostguy123]

Question..what would you rather have, picks 35/38, or four future 1sts.

Your answer to that will clear that up.

I don't see how picks 35/38 and a future 1st isn't enough, yet five future 1sts would be.......yet 35/38 is better than four future 1sts.

We're not talking about the same deal. I am talking about the deal that happened, and you are talking about a hypothetical deal that didn't happen, and likely wont. The deal, based on my opinion and stance on the market, was well below market value.

I am not saying I would take that deal if I had pick 3, but it is not "well" below market value.

But you said pick 3 for five future 1st would be ok. Say that trade happened, do you think that is WELL below market value?

 

[Ace Matherton]

16-team .5 PPR, Start: QB, WR, WR, RB, RB, TE, W/R/T, W/R/T

Send:

Victor Cruz

Chris Ivory

Torrey Smith

Phillip Rivers

Daryl Richardson

Receive:

Trent Richardson

Montario Hardesty

Ryan Broyles

Mark Sanchez (his drop)

Tim Tebow (his drop)

I likely overpaid, and knowingly did so, to get Trent. All of that from my side is replaceable IMO, while 23 year old workhorse RBs are not usually available for trades in 16-team leagues. And I had ridiculous WR/RB depth, but needed a star.

I like the deal for you. 16 team, start 2 RB/2WR, 0.5 PPR - Trent is a top 2-3 player.

Interested to see if others think you overpaid, but I personally do not.

Agreed

 

[Concept Coop]

I am not saying I would take that deal if I had pick 3, but it is not "well" below market value.But you said pick 3 for five future 1st would be ok. Say that trade happened, do you think that is WELL below market value?

That's the beauty of the thread. We all have a different feel on the market. Again, this is the least I have seen an owner get in return, when moving a top 3 pick. Small sample size, of course. Take it for what it's worth.

I'd like to move on, however.

 

[ghostguy123]

You didn't overpay.

 

[ghostguy123]

I am not saying I would take that deal if I had pick 3, but it is not "well" below market value.

But you said pick 3 for five future 1st would be ok. Say that trade happened, do you think that is WELL below market value?

That's the beauty of the thread. We all have a different feel on the market. Again, this is the least I have seen an owner get in return, when moving a top 3 pick. Small sample size, of course. Take it for what it's worth.

I'd like to move on, however.

Concur, that's why trades happen, lol. Value is tricky though, because you HAVE to look at it from all angles and possibilities, not ONLY the exact deal on the plate in front of you. The only way that would make sense is if you are never allowed to make any more trades.

Moving on, lol. I must say though, there is definitely NOT enough startup pick trades in this thread.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

1/2/3 + flex PPR

Marshawn Lynch and Dwayne Bowe

for

Chris Johnson and Victor Cruz

I'd prefer Lynch/Bowe -- I'm a big buyer on KC across the board with Reid in town.

 

[Concept Coop]

1/2/3 + flex PPR

Marshawn Lynch and Dwayne Bowe

for

Chris Johnson and Victor Cruz

I'd prefer Lynch/Bowe -- I'm a big buyer on KC across the board with Reid in town.

Because it is PPR, I like the CJ/Cruz side. I'm likely alone, or a minority, but I actually like Cruz more than Lynch, in this format.

 

[Lott's Fingertip]

16-team .5 PPR, Start: QB, WR, WR, RB, RB, TE, W/R/T, W/R/T

Send:

Victor Cruz

Chris Ivory

Torrey Smith

Phillip Rivers

Daryl Richardson

Receive:

Trent Richardson

Montario Hardesty

Ryan Broyles

Mark Sanchez (his drop)

Tim Tebow (his drop)

I likely overpaid, and knowingly did so, to get Trent. All of that from my side is replaceable IMO, while 23 year old workhorse RBs are not usually available for trades in 16-team leagues. And I had ridiculous WR/RB depth, but needed a star.

I would have no issue paying that for Trent.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

1/2/3 + flex PPR

Marshawn Lynch and Dwayne Bowe

for

Chris Johnson and Victor Cruz

I'd prefer Lynch/Bowe -- I'm a big buyer on KC across the board with Reid in town.

Because it is PPR, I like the CJ/Cruz side. I'm likely alone, or a minority, but I actually like Cruz more than Lynch, in this format.

It's definitely close. I'm pretty sour on CJ though, as a guy who gave up alot for him in one league prior to him going down the crapper in 2011.

I see Cruz / Bowe as a wash except for age -- I think Andy Reid makes a massive difference for the KC offense moving forward. I see Bowe as a 100 catch threat the next few years.

 

[thriftyrocker]

1/2/3 + flex PPR

Marshawn Lynch and Dwayne Bowe

for

Chris Johnson and Victor Cruz

I'd prefer Lynch/Bowe -- I'm a big buyer on KC across the board with Reid in town.

Because it is PPR, I like the CJ/Cruz side. I'm likely alone, or a minority, but I actually like Cruz more than Lynch, in this format.

Cruz for Lynch is fair and Bowe for CJ is fair. I don't love any of the players in the deal but would be more confident in flipping Lynch/Bowe due to the added risk in CJ.

 

[deadlyrange0321]

10 team PPR, start 1QB 2RB 2WR 1TE 1RB/WR/TE

Team A trades:

Trent Richardson

Team B trades:

Matt Forte

Larry Fitzgerald

Cecil Shorts

 

[thriftyrocker]

10 team PPR, start 1QB 2RB 2WR 1TE 1RB/WR/TE

Team A trades:

Trent Richardson

Team B trades:

Matt Forte

Larry Fitzgerald

Cecil Shorts

TR in any format, but 10tm with only 2 req starting WR makes it more of a windfall.

 

[FUBAR]

10 team PPR, start 1QB 2RB 2WR 1TE 1RB/WR/TE

Team A trades:

Trent Richardson

Team B trades:

Matt Forte

Larry Fitzgerald

Cecil Shorts

TR in any format, but 10tm with only 2 req starting WR makes it more of a windfall.

As a Trent owner in s large league, i can see reading him for something like this if i needed depth. In a ten team league, give me tent easy.

 

[Instinctive]

12 team PPR - 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 W/R/T flex

Stevan Ridley

2014 2nd (likely late)

Marques Colston

Mike Williams (TB)

Not sure how others will feel about this one. I think I could have gotten it without including the 2nd, but people are either way up or way down on Ridley, not a ton of middle ground. With a decent RB corps and almost no depth behind Julio/DT, I decided to move Ridley for more receivers. I have now fully divested of all non-TE NE players.

Side note: this one hurts more because I had a chance to move Hernandez/1st/Ridley/Vereen for McCoy earlier in offseason, then the AHern stuff hit and I lost the opportunity. What could have been...

 

[thriftyrocker]

12 team PPR - 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 W/R/T flex

Stevan Ridley

2014 2nd (likely late)

Marques Colston

Mike Williams (TB)

Didn't like this one for you really because it hurts your RB depth. Your starters are Morris and Bush, both of which are risky IMO. You improved your team a lot with the Morris and DT trades, but this might have been one trade too many to get 2 WRs without a lot of resale value. You're in a position to power move and go for the throat but this was more of a hedge and back down to play it safe, if that makes any sense.

 

[Instinctive]

12 team PPR - 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 W/R/T flex

Stevan Ridley

2014 2nd (likely late)

Marques Colston

Mike Williams (TB)

Didn't like this one for you really because it hurts your RB depth. Your starters are Morris and Bush, both of which are risky IMO. You improved your team a lot with the Morris and DT trades, but this might have been one trade too many to get 2 WRs without a lot of resale value. You're in a position to power move and go for the throat but this was more of a hedge and back down to play it safe, if that makes any sense.

I can see that interpretation. I see no risk with either Morris or Bush though. What's the risk with Morris? No catches? Don't care, he scored fine last year without them. Shanahan? COMPLETE AND TOTAL MYTH (I'd link some previous diatribes if I had the time).

Bush's "risk" is injury - which I am well-documented at this point to think are total bull####.

It's definitely a hedge - but I'm also really down on Ridley and couldn't seem to move him for anything. I tried to trade for Mathews as a good risk/reward play and then that stupid spotlight thread popped up and the owner took a deathgrip on him like he's a top 10 RB...

ETA: For context, my roster is now:

Matt Ryan

Alfred Morris, Reggie Bush (backup = Stewart, Bryce Brown, Helu)

Demaryius, Julio, Colston, Mike Williams (Backups = Britt, Hartline, and nothing)

Gronk and Jordan Cameron (and stupid Hernandez. He really screwed this team over. Think about having the same wideouts, but McCoy also at RB. Ugh.)

 

[thriftyrocker]

I can see that interpretation. I see no risk with either Morris or Bush though. What's the risk with Morris? No catches? Don't care, he scored fine last year without them. Shanahan? COMPLETE AND TOTAL MYTH (I'd link some previous diatribes if I had the time).

Bush's "risk" is injury - which I am well-documented at this point to think are total bull####.

It's definitely a hedge - but I'm also really down on Ridley and couldn't seem to move him for anything. I tried to trade for Mathews as a good risk/reward play and then that stupid spotlight thread popped up and the owner took a deathgrip on him like he's a top 10 RB...

Risk on Morris is he'd lose his job if he got hurt. Risk on Morris is one year wonder, low grade prospect. Risk on Morris is less room if RG3 is limited. Realize some are more secure on him, but that's the risk from my view.

Hard for me to trust Bush given his past performance on carpet. It's a nice risk/reward gamble but without depth the risk becomes paramount.

Stewart also has to be very shakey at this point since he's already hurt (or was never unhurt from last year). Maybe if you got DeAng it'd even it out not to give you any suggestions.

I abandoned Ridley in a few leagues including one you used to be in but post-AH I feel a bit better than him. There's risk but also more upside.

 

[Dez]

Last year I was in an FFPC league where pick 3 was traded for picks 39/58/63.

2 years ago I was in an FFPC league where picks 2/119/170 was traded for picks 27/49/71

In that same trade I traded away picks 5/92/149 for picks 22/27+future 1st

How do those compare to the 2 for 35/38+1st ?