A shallow(er) dive into the dynasty fable of "Trading 4 quarters for 1 dollar" (1 Viewer)

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I understand the idea that it can help you rationalize a deal after the fact but your statement was that the "value of an asset depends a lot on how you obtained that asset."  That statement is completely incorrect. 
 

taken out of the context of this discussion, sure. 
 

 

[Gally]

taken out of the context of this discussion, sure. 
 

I guess we differ in that I think my statement is correct in the context of this thread.  I would agree that it can help you rationalize an already completed deal (I only paid $3 FAAB for him so no biggie type rationalization) but even when getting 3 quarters for a dollar in a deal what you paid for the original asset is irrelevant.  Although too many people do hang on to that perception too long.  

 

[barackdhouse]

the pocket Aces poker analogy is a good one.  Being “pot invested” always seems to cost players the most money. 

I’ve never played a tourney as big as WSOP, but I’ve played local tournaments & a lot of single table games at card rooms over the years, and I’ll never understand the players who say things like, “I know you’ve got me, but I just have to see it” and pay off my check-raise to do it. 

I’ve even told players I was friendly with “huge pot already. I’ve got the nuts. Call if you hate money.” numerous times without bluffing, and time and again, they pay to see that I’m not lying.

Of course that also works to my advantage because the next time I pull that schtick they’ll believe me when I’m BSing. 

But to your point - that’s the worst $ spent in poker. They KNOW they lost but bleed some more chips anyway. It’s a strange psychology. Throwing good money after bad, is how the old saying goes.

Back to FF, assets are assets and value is value, but none of that lives in a vacuum. You have potential trade partners who also have assets. And unlike poker or Coca-Cola, the asset value isn’t neatly fixed to the price of a can, or value of a chip. FF assets have imperfect values simply as caliber of player. Then other things factor in, like age, team situation, injury history, off-field drama, etc. And you have to depend on a potential trade partner’s need fitting your desirous selling price. 

So if you’re stuck on your perceived “well the trade calculator says you’re getting 25% better value than me in this deal” you ignore the peripherals that might make the deal closer than it appears on paper. And even if it doesn’t, you’re still going to have to accept that your particular trade partner might be the only one with an asset close enough to what you’re trying to acquire (and it might even be THAT specific player) so in fact, you may need to elevate the value of your trade partner’s asset because you’re the one looking to obtain those 3 quarters, so maybe your dollar is what the price really is. In that scenario they’re actually $.33 players. 

The psychology & equitability of trading is a fascinating subject though. I’m glad you started the topic. 

yes yes

 

[barackdhouse]

I guess we differ in that I think my statement is correct in the context of this thread.  I would agree that it can help you rationalize an already completed deal (I only paid $3 FAAB for him so no biggie type rationalization) but even when getting 3 quarters for a dollar in a deal what you paid for the original asset is irrelevant.  Although too many people do hang on to that perception too long.  

Yeah I don't think he was arguing that one *should* approach trades and valuations that way, simply that many do, and that being aware of that process probably only helps us. Or arguably just makes it murkier.

 

[barackdhouse]

Just made a big FFPC superflex trade that I think fits the bill here. I knowingly overpaid in a deal where the trade partner and I had no BS between us and we both consider this a win win. But he said I would have to overpay and then I said I understand and I proceeded to overpay. I don't think it's by a lot. His team is not great and is going to get many chances to improve with these assets (maybe that is the Pepsi path). I will most likely gain a blue chip asset that is a difference maker. I just won the ship in this and my weakness is RB3. I have Henry, Robinson and then Drake and I might roster Vaughn thru cuts. I have no intention of moving Henry but he isn't getting younger. I believe in Robinson but man anything is possible with the new regime. IMO RB3 is a priority coca cola for my squad.

I gave Deebo, 1.09, 2.08, my 2022 1st and someone else's 2022 2nd
I got 1.03

In my humble opinion, improving my RB3 in a dramatic way is the coca cola that I need here. Deebo was my WR5 and was never going to get in my lineup in superflex, or rarely enough to make him replaceable. I had Hamler as my WR6 but there is an extremely non-zero chance Hamler outscores Deebo this year. I bought Hamler for a 4th, though, and if he misses so be it. If Deebo hits big from here on out, it is doubtful to outweigh the incredibly refreshing crisp taste of an ice cold RB1 at 1.03. If it goes that way. If not I take RB2 off the board or find a way to get talked out of taking Chase. It's like a coke out of the cooler with a little dirt on it. Just wipe it off and keep dominating. Deebo is more like a full price coke that is really a warm RC.