A discussion on terms: This is the time of year when we start describing how we feel about players. Usually, we describe positions as Buy/Sell/Hold for how we feel. Are there better terms? What do you like?
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.
A discussion on terms - Buy / Sell / Hold (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Joe Bryant
- Start date
And do y'all see it as "buy" means people you want more on your roster based on what you're seeing. "Sell" is people you want off your roster. "Hold" is no change in how you feel.
Yes I would agree with your definitions.
eighsse2
Footballguy
I would say those are accurate definitions. As opposed to keeptradecut.com, where they tell users to rank 3 players as "keep", "trade", and "cut", but what they really mean is to rank them in order of your perceived value. Which is completely different. "Keep" should mean "buy or hold". "Trade" should mean the same as "sell". "Cut" should mean not worthy of being on your roster and not likely to even fetch any value in the trade market. Those designations should not have anything to do with ranking 3 players in order of value.
According to their terminology and definitions, I should very obviously: keep a Ferrari, hold a big screen tv, and sell a cheeseburger. Even though I love cheeseburgers way more than the average person, so why would I sell it? And I don't care much for fancy cars compared to an average person, so why am I not selling the Ferrari?
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
I don't mind the current terms. I find them pretty benign.
Maybe "target" would be better than "buy". Hold seems fine. Perhaps "move off of" instead of "sell" would also be less problematic to those who falsely equate fantasy football terms to say, enslaving humans (something that someone who's always thirsty for clicks once wrote a fairly preposterous article about a few years ago).
That said, I've taken to using the term "have shares of" rather than "own", so if the nomenclature changed to "target" or "make available" I would go with the flow.
It all seems kind of silly. Language is a funny thing.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
That's how I see them.
Maybe in redraft. In dynasty there are definitely "holds" that you feel are a sell but the market isn't ripe for it yet. Last year Michael Thomas was that kind of guy. If he gets it going again this year and you can get something good for him he becomes a sell.
eighsse2
Footballguy
Wouldn't your description fit the term "buy"? But "buy" when referencing a player you own simply becomes "hold" if taken literally.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Good point. Like a Likely or Pacheco - players worth taking a flier on to hold & see if they spike in value, so you can flip for a profit.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
“Hold” to me is more “wait and see”. I like to say “hold and hope”. But whatever you define it as from the beginning is all that really matters.
I don't think so. I wouldn't have bought MT last year if I didn't have him (as a contender, I need pieces that'll contribute to my title)... and I wouldn't sell him for pennies on the dollar knowing I could hold on IR and eventually get more.
eighsse2
Footballguy
If, in the case that you own him, you could only sell him for pennies on the dollar, you wouldn't buy him at that same pennies-on-the-dollar price in the case that you didn't own him?
Excellent example. Both guys could be considered "sells" based on how much their perceived value has increased based on what it took to acquire them months ago (cash in and turn that spent 5th to a future 3rd or 2nd) but both could go off and net you an actual player maybe. Great holds to swing for the fence, sells if you're conservative.
Theoretically, sure, but most likely the MT owner in the league I don't have him in is thinking he's a hold like in the league I have him in.
eighsse2
Footballguy
Hmm, interesting. It makes sense, but almost becomes paradoxical. Each individual team owner, if he were to own the player, would give the player a decent chunk of value based on his high potential. But no owner would value him that much at a time when he does not in fact own him.
Bingo. Classic example of a hold (though there are others, like lottery tickets as HSG pointed out). Occasionally you get the perfect storm of contender trading with rebuild and a deal can get done because the improved chance at a title is worth getting less than what you might if you hold. But there's no point in jettisoning for a late 2nd.
eighsse2
Footballguy
Seems like anytime that this scenario occurs would have to require irrational owners (wait! in fantasy football?! imagine that!), probably because of the typical "my player has potential but your player has risk" bias.
Sure, team makeup can affect how valuable a certain player is to one team versus another team. But if any owner places a higher value on a player just because he owns him, that has to be bias. Not saying you're wrong at all in what you're saying. Just that it doesn't seem like a correct way for owners to think.
ShamrockPride
Footballguy
If we're defining "what you're seeing" as the writer's/poster's perceived opportunity, then I agree with your terms.
Idk how long you've been playing FF, but I'd say it's pretty common.
There's that psychological test where they give people 3 paintings to pick from then give them the one they didn't want then ask them 6 months down the line to rank the same paintings and all of a sudden the one they didn't want, but got, is the best.
And even if I don't really feel that way that's always my starting position in negotiations. Especially if the other owner comes to me with the offer.
eighsse2
Footballguy
In complete agreement that that bias occurs frequently in fantasy football.
Mister CIA
Footballguy
Most players are holds.
To add a layer, often owners try to disguise their buys as throw-ins, where you try to acquire a player before he blows up. Likewise, I usually think of sells in terms of unloading a player before he falls off a cliff.
A 26-year-old stud RB is the classic sell.
Buys are typically players who won't rise until an event occurs (injury, benched, falls off a cliff, and especially trades). Once the event occurs, everything changes. Also, I think of buys in terms of players you are willing to overpay for. Trey Lance, if you are so inclined, would be a such a player. If you think he will blow up in year two the way Mahomes did, then shoot the lock off the wallet. If Lance sets the world on fire week 1 and you didn't get him, he's basically off limits (unless you really want to overpay).
EDIT: likewise, if he stinks week 1, you might buy on the dip.
Another example, I think Jerome Ford is a buy. He passed the eyeball test; I think Hunt is prime NFL trade candidate; and Chubb is a free agent next year. The Jerome Ford owner probably knows this. I probably would not overpay much for him, but would definitely try to finesse him into a multi-player deal.
To add a layer, often owners try to disguise their buys as throw-ins, where you try to acquire a player before he blows up. Likewise, I usually think of sells in terms of unloading a player before he falls off a cliff.
A 26-year-old stud RB is the classic sell.
Buys are typically players who won't rise until an event occurs (injury, benched, falls off a cliff, and especially trades). Once the event occurs, everything changes. Also, I think of buys in terms of players you are willing to overpay for. Trey Lance, if you are so inclined, would be a such a player. If you think he will blow up in year two the way Mahomes did, then shoot the lock off the wallet. If Lance sets the world on fire week 1 and you didn't get him, he's basically off limits (unless you really want to overpay).
EDIT: likewise, if he stinks week 1, you might buy on the dip.
Another example, I think Jerome Ford is a buy. He passed the eyeball test; I think Hunt is prime NFL trade candidate; and Chubb is a free agent next year. The Jerome Ford owner probably knows this. I probably would not overpay much for him, but would definitely try to finesse him into a multi-player deal.
Last edited:
Deamon
Footballguy
I prefer "purchase"
From a perspective of a guillotiner, it would be nice if you put values next to each persons name. As that helps us understand the true value of each player and what would be a good deal vs overpayment. If a person is therefore buying a person below their true value or able to sell a player for more than their value then thus would be way more descriptive.
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
All Aboard
Maintain Course
Abandon Ship
Maintain Course
Abandon Ship
FairWarning
Footballguy
Hold could mean you want to see more before committing to a buy or sell also. it could be factors outside of that players control - like who is the qb.
Right. LIke today, we need words to discuss Allen Robinson. Are folks wanting more of him or less of him or waiting to see?
So maybe the terms really are that:
Want more
Want less
Wait and see
That feels mostly like Buy/Sell/Hold. But a little different.
GroveDiesel
Footballguy
I think it’s basically the same. Buy/Sell/Hold are stock terms so when I hear them, I’m already thinking in terms of wanting more/less/standing pat.
Judge Smails
Footballguy
Buy Sell Hold is fine
Similar threads
