Defense for Offense Trades - Equivalencies? (1 Viewer)

[Sigmund Bloom]

So one of the most difficult and fun wrinkles to IDP leagues is figuring out equivalencies between offense and defense. I am very much biased in favor of the offense side in these kinds of trades because of the scarcity of offensive players on the WW.

This is a 16 teamer, start 1/1/3/1/1 with an RB/TE flex and 2/1/3/2/2 with an LB/DT flex. Its .5 PPR for RB, PPR for WR, 1.5 PPR for TE. tackles are worth 1.5, assists .75 sacks 5 int 5 FF 3 FR 3 (its the red dog league for those of you that followed the draft) - so IDP is weighted well. Ryans was the 32nd overall scorer. The top 5 or so LBs all fall in the 30-60 range.

I traded DJ Williams and my next year's 2nd for Ahman Green and his next year's 3rd.

The purpose of this thread is not to critique my trade, but I thought it would be a good jumping off point for this discussion. What y'all think of this equivalency? What does it make you think about trading O for D (or vice versa) in general? What other kinds of O for D trades have you seen recently?

 

[redman]

So one of the most difficult and fun wrinkles to IDP leagues is figuring out equivalencies between offense and defense. I am very much biased in favor of the offense side in these kinds of trades because of the scarcity of offensive players on the WW.This is a 16 teamer, start 1/1/3/1/1 with an RB/TE flex and 2/1/3/2/2 with an LB/DT flex. Its .5 PPR for RB, PPR for WR, 1.5 PPR for TE. tackles are worth 1.5, assists .75 sacks 5 int 5 FF 3 FR 3 (its the red dog league for those of you that followed the draft) - so IDP is weighted well. Ryans was the 32nd overall scorer. The top 5 or so LBs all fall in the 30-60 range.I traded DJ Williams and my next year's 2nd for Ahman Green and his next year's 3rd.The purpose of this thread is not to critique my trade, but I thought it would be a good jumping off point for this discussion. What y'all think of this equivalency? What does it make you think about trading O for D (or vice versa) in general? What other kinds of O for D trades have you seen recently?

The only way I can make sense of these trades is essentially the same way that I make sense of any trade: at least a rough VBD evaluation with the relative scarcity/replaceability of the player(s)/position(s) being traded for. IDP's tend to be undervalued in these trades as a general matter (not in your trade though), but skilled owners will realize that top IDP's are quite comparable under VBD analysis to top TE's, WR2's and RB2's, and maybe even low-end starting QB's in most systems.

 

[Jene Bramel]

Minority Opinion Alert:

I don't care about the scarcity of position on the offensive waiver wire. You win leagues by having the best starting lineup. You want the highest relative advantage at every lineup position.

So I say, for the most part, equivalency-schmaquivalency.

You want to be on the side of the deal that helps you win a title. If it looks a little short-sighted on paper, so be it. I've won titles trading first round draft picks for Old Man Marvin Harrison. I've won titles trading Willis McGahee for Jamie Sharper. I've ridiculously overpaid for a draft pick to get DeMeco Ryans. Sure it doesn't work all the time.

But, in leagues/systems where IDPs are nearly equal or equal to offensive players, you should be willing to draft and trade them as such. Just because the rest of the league doesn't routinely value them that way doesn't mean it's incorrect for you to structure your team that way -- within reason of course as you clearly are looking to maximize your value.

I know Sig has said he doesn't want this thread to turn into a critique of his trade and he may feel differently about the potential of the principals of this particular deal, but to illustrate...

Ahman Green is the consensus 31st overall dynasty RB in our rankings and the 24th overall redraft RB. If those rankings prove correct, he provides zero relative advantage in a start 1-2 RB league.

DJ Williams is the consensus 13th overall dynasty LB and the 20th overall redraft LB. There's considerable relative advantage if those rankings prove correct in a start 3-4 LB league.

And to borrow a poker analogy, that's without considering implied upside/downside odds, which may also factor into the decision.

Positiional scarcity aside, just because a LB2 = a RB2-3 in raw fantasy points does not mean they are equivalent in your lineup.

 

[PatsWillWin]

Meh, servicable and even good to very good IDP's can be added from the WW almost every year, except in the deepest of leagues. Guys like Gerald Hayes, Brandon Moore last season - Freddie Keiaho, E.J. Henderson this season (we think).

IDP's, unlike offensive players IMO, are not almost exclusively reliant on talent. Situation can make of a break an IDP player, which is good for the shrewd IDP manager, but also makes some of them a shaky long-term investment.

You know that a RB is a RB and as long as he starts and plays well, he'll be putting up fantasy points - his performance is directly tied to scoring fantasy points.

The same cannot be said for all IDP's. Richard Seymour is going to be one of the best DL in the NFL this year - and he'll still be fantasy irrelevant. Jonathan Vilma is going to play a crucial roll for the Jets this year - yet he's still going to have a ceiling around a LB3.

IDP's can be talented and play well and still suck at fantasy. They can also suck but still be good fantasy players.

You can't really do that with RB's, and you can't really pick up potential top 20 RB's from the WW like you can with IDP's sometimes.

 

[comfortably numb]

Good topic...

Being knowledgably weak in the IDP field, I very much tend to think along the lines of "as long as I am getting the better O player, I am getting the better end of the deal"

That has to change for me...

Being I don't know all the nice milestones of 300 carries, 1300 yards, 3000 passing yards, 100 receptions etc...

I find myself devaluing IDP players, because I don't know what I am looking for in a sense.

For me trading offensive players for Defensive is and has become a learning curve, I just have to continue to understand I need to put up the most points I possibly can from each position.

When I get an IDP by giving an offensive player, I almost have that "I’m getting shafted" feeling, but like I said, that’s part of the learning curve for me. I can’t treat IDP as some second class citizen; it needs the respect it deserves!

[FBGplug]But with the help of the FBG rankings, I can at least put my team in a position to have quality starters every week [/FBGplug]

PS Bloom

You shafted that fool in your deal!!!

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Tough call on this deal.

If your LBs are good enough, I think you made out well to get Green.

I'm not that high on DJ Williams for the long term, so I think you sold high personally.

I do agree that you need context here to make sense of this and an improvement in VBD to your starters would be a good metric.

This league (Red Dog) will start 3-4 LBs x 16 teams - so 48-64 LBs on a weekly basis. That's pretty big.

Having a Top 32 RB, OTOH, does give you help at flex.

The question is, how much did you improve your team over (A) your bench, (B) over the waiver wire player pool, and © over the long term?

Without cheating and looking at your roster, I would think you improved at RB for the next 2-3 years at RB2/3 for your team, giving you offensive flexibility, at the price of a LB for year 1. I think you'll benefit in the long run because I don't think Williams is the answer long term for DEN. So the RB wins in this particular instance.

Still, even a marginal LB is valuable because on avg. 2 LBs per NFL team will be starting in this league.

I would hazard to guess that Williams' VBD compared to LB 65 (or lower on the WW) this year > Ahman Green's value to RB33.

Good question.

 

[dirtyhalos]

correct answer to me is that all fantasy owners can rattle off the sleeper offensive players and the available gems on the waiver wire and that talent on the offensive side is generally much harder to come by and generally more expensive to trade for.

i myself will trade a good idp for a good offensive player most days of the week (alot does depend on makeup of team and scoring) and trust my research and idp knowledge to beat my opponent on finding the talent later on the defensive side

this obviously isnt going to work everday of the week, but its the philosophy i have had some success with so i will continue to roll with it

 

[redman]

Minority Opinion Alert:I don't care about the scarcity of position on the offensive waiver wire. You win leagues by having the best starting lineup. You want the highest relative advantage at every lineup position.So I say, for the most part, equivalency-schmaquivalency.You want to be on the side of the deal that helps you win a title. If it looks a little short-sighted on paper, so be it. I've won titles trading first round draft picks for Old Man Marvin Harrison. I've won titles trading Willis McGahee for Jamie Sharper. I've ridiculously overpaid for a draft pick to get DeMeco Ryans. Sure it doesn't work all the time.But, in leagues/systems where IDPs are nearly equal or equal to offensive players, you should be willing to draft and trade them as such. Just because the rest of the league doesn't routinely value them that way doesn't mean it's incorrect for you to structure your team that way -- within reason of course as you clearly are looking to maximize your value.I know Sig has said he doesn't want this thread to turn into a critique of his trade and he may feel differently about the potential of the principals of this particular deal, but to illustrate...Ahman Green is the consensus 31st overall dynasty RB in our rankings and the 24th overall redraft RB. If those rankings prove correct, he provides zero relative advantage in a start 1-2 RB league.DJ Williams is the consensus 13th overall dynasty LB and the 20th overall redraft LB. There's considerable relative advantage if those rankings prove correct in a start 3-4 LB league.And to borrow a poker analogy, that's without considering implied upside/downside odds, which may also factor into the decision.Positiional scarcity aside, just because a LB2 = a RB2-3 in raw fantasy points does not mean they are equivalent in your lineup.

I think I agree with your reasoning, Jene, just not your conclusion. Nobody disagrees with the general idea that you don't trade starters for backups. OTOH, it's an undeniable fact that, at most, there are only 32 possible "primary RB" jobs in the NFL, and many of those have disappeared in favor of RBBC. At the same time there are over 96 starting LB jobs in the NFL (and probably a good number more based upon the growing 3-4 trend). These aren't just abstract numbers. Every year, weeks into the season, there are available on the waiver wire at least a handful of LB's who have quietly positioned themselves to become starters for their team and who are in the running to become fantasy starters. Last year such players included guys like Omar Gaither, James Anderson, Freddy Keiaho and Jamar Wiliams. In the case of Gaither and Keiaho, it's not ridiculous to think that those guys could end up as LB1's for teams in a larger dynasty league. There is simply no correllary to be found with RB's in any but the most unusual circumstances. DJ Williams is certainly no waiver wire pickup. OTOH an aggressive owner will have reason to believe that he's the kind of player who can be more or less easily replaced with good drafting and waiver wire work.

 

[Beaumont]

I think it is a very rare league where Ahman Green will not outscore your third WR/second TE over the next two years. Green is one of the few RBs that is not RBBC. I think his talent is totally undervalued. Therefore, Bloom got a very valuable upgrade. I am confident DJ Williams is replaceable on his roster.

Further, in most leagues, even if your WR/TE and RB score the same over the course of a year, the RB does it more consistently and helps you win more games (i.e., keeps your score closer to the mean rather than being erratic and causing you to bench the player and lose the points on the bench) ...

 

[Jene Bramel]

Minority Opinion Alert:I don't care about the scarcity of position on the offensive waiver wire. You win leagues by having the best starting lineup. You want the highest relative advantage at every lineup position.So I say, for the most part, equivalency-schmaquivalency.You want to be on the side of the deal that helps you win a title. If it looks a little short-sighted on paper, so be it. I've won titles trading first round draft picks for Old Man Marvin Harrison. I've won titles trading Willis McGahee for Jamie Sharper. I've ridiculously overpaid for a draft pick to get DeMeco Ryans. Sure it doesn't work all the time.But, in leagues/systems where IDPs are nearly equal or equal to offensive players, you should be willing to draft and trade them as such. Just because the rest of the league doesn't routinely value them that way doesn't mean it's incorrect for you to structure your team that way -- within reason of course as you clearly are looking to maximize your value.I know Sig has said he doesn't want this thread to turn into a critique of his trade and he may feel differently about the potential of the principals of this particular deal, but to illustrate...Ahman Green is the consensus 31st overall dynasty RB in our rankings and the 24th overall redraft RB. If those rankings prove correct, he provides zero relative advantage in a start 1-2 RB league.DJ Williams is the consensus 13th overall dynasty LB and the 20th overall redraft LB. There's considerable relative advantage if those rankings prove correct in a start 3-4 LB league.And to borrow a poker analogy, that's without considering implied upside/downside odds, which may also factor into the decision.Positiional scarcity aside, just because a LB2 = a RB2-3 in raw fantasy points does not mean they are equivalent in your lineup.

I think I agree with your reasoning, Jene, just not your conclusion. Nobody disagrees with the general idea that you don't trade starters for backups. OTOH, it's an undeniable fact that, at most, there are only 32 possible "primary RB" jobs in the NFL, and many of those have disappeared in favor of RBBC. At the same time there are over 96 starting LB jobs in the NFL (and probably a good number more based upon the growing 3-4 trend). These aren't just abstract numbers. Every year, weeks into the season, there are available on the waiver wire at least a handful of LB's who have quietly positioned themselves to become starters for their team and who are in the running to become fantasy starters. Last year such players included guys like Omar Gaither, James Anderson, Freddy Keiaho and Jamar Wiliams. In the case of Gaither and Keiaho, it's not ridiculous to think that those guys could end up as LB1's for teams in a larger dynasty league. There is simply no correllary to be found with RB's in any but the most unusual circumstances. DJ Williams is certainly no waiver wire pickup. OTOH an aggressive owner will have reason to believe that he's the kind of player who can be more or less easily replaced with good drafting and waiver wire work.

As I said, I get that it's a minority opinion. I understand the positional scarcity argument and that a good owner "should" be able to grab a better IDP off the wire than an offensive player. And if it's close, I agree. Or if you're in a league where nobody knows about the Hayes, Keiaho, Gaithers of the world, that's fine too. In any case, half of the linebackers you listed may well have zero relative value again this season (or worse continue to take up a valuable roster spot while you're waiting for the cheaper replacement to develop. I think the idea of a LB1=RB2 equivalency is asking for trouble.Good luck finding either a LB1 or RB2 easily on the waiver wire even in weaker leagues. I don't care how many available RB vs LB there are, it's my opinion that trading the higher relative value puts a strain on your lineup advantage unless it's clear that the gain at one position outweighs the loss at the other, including the relative improvement/worsening of your opponent's lineup.

 

[redman]

Minority Opinion Alert:

I don't care about the scarcity of position on the offensive waiver wire. You win leagues by having the best starting lineup. You want the highest relative advantage at every lineup position.

So I say, for the most part, equivalency-schmaquivalency.

You want to be on the side of the deal that helps you win a title. If it looks a little short-sighted on paper, so be it. I've won titles trading first round draft picks for Old Man Marvin Harrison. I've won titles trading Willis McGahee for Jamie Sharper. I've ridiculously overpaid for a draft pick to get DeMeco Ryans. Sure it doesn't work all the time.

But, in leagues/systems where IDPs are nearly equal or equal to offensive players, you should be willing to draft and trade them as such. Just because the rest of the league doesn't routinely value them that way doesn't mean it's incorrect for you to structure your team that way -- within reason of course as you clearly are looking to maximize your value.

I know Sig has said he doesn't want this thread to turn into a critique of his trade and he may feel differently about the potential of the principals of this particular deal, but to illustrate...

Ahman Green is the consensus 31st overall dynasty RB in our rankings and the 24th overall redraft RB. If those rankings prove correct, he provides zero relative advantage in a start 1-2 RB league.

DJ Williams is the consensus 13th overall dynasty LB and the 20th overall redraft LB. There's considerable relative advantage if those rankings prove correct in a start 3-4 LB league.

And to borrow a poker analogy, that's without considering implied upside/downside odds, which may also factor into the decision.

Positiional scarcity aside, just because a LB2 = a RB2-3 in raw fantasy points does not mean they are equivalent in your lineup.

I think I agree with your reasoning, Jene, just not your conclusion. Nobody disagrees with the general idea that you don't trade starters for backups. OTOH, it's an undeniable fact that, at most, there are only 32 possible "primary RB" jobs in the NFL, and many of those have disappeared in favor of RBBC. At the same time there are over 96 starting LB jobs in the NFL (and probably a good number more based upon the growing 3-4 trend). These aren't just abstract numbers. Every year, weeks into the season, there are available on the waiver wire at least a handful of LB's who have quietly positioned themselves to become starters for their team and who are in the running to become fantasy starters. Last year such players included guys like Omar Gaither, James Anderson, Freddy Keiaho and Jamar Wiliams.

In the case of Gaither and Keiaho, it's not ridiculous to think that those guys could end up as LB1's for teams in a larger dynasty league. There is simply no correllary to be found with RB's in any but the most unusual circumstances. DJ Williams is certainly no waiver wire pickup.

OTOH an aggressive owner will have reason to believe that he's the kind of player who can be more or less easily replaced with good drafting and waiver wire work.

As I said, I get that it's a minority opinion. I understand the positional scarcity argument and that a good owner "should" be able to grab a better IDP off the wire than an offensive player. And if it's close, I agree. Or if you're in a league where nobody knows about the Hayes, Keiaho, Gaithers of the world, that's fine too. In any case, half of the linebackers you listed may well have zero relative value again this season (or worse continue to take up a valuable roster spot while you're waiting for the cheaper replacement to develop. I think the idea of a LB1=RB2 equivalency is asking for trouble.Good luck finding either a LB1 or RB2 easily on the waiver wire even in weaker leagues. I don't care how many available RB vs LB there are, it's my opinion that trading the higher relative value puts a strain on your lineup advantage unless it's clear that the gain at one position outweighs the loss at the other, including the relative improvement/worsening of your opponent's lineup.

To be clear, I'm not saying that every LB1 is worth more than every RB2, or even that most are worth more. Perhaps in a given year no LB1's are worth more than any RB2's. Again, I primarily use VBD, or at least a rough, seat-of-the-pants version of it to evaluate a trade proposal. I think our point of departure may be that you are focused, primarily if not exclusively, upon the present or upcoming year when you make trades, and not longer term which is where the scarcity argument has more relevance. Am I right?

 

[michaeled]

I recently traded AJ Hawk and 1:04 for the 1:01 (rookie draft). I needed AD, he needed a LB. It worked out well for both, especially since he got a second pick to boot.

 

[Jene Bramel]

To be clear, I'm not saying that every LB1 is worth more than every RB2, or even that most are worth more. Perhaps in a given year no LB1's are worth more than any RB2's. Again, I primarily use VBD, or at least a rough, seat-of-the-pants version of it to evaluate a trade proposal.

I think our point of departure may be that you are focused, primarily if not exclusively, upon the present or upcoming year when you make trades, and not longer term which is where the scarcity argument has more relevance. Am I right?

Maybe. For the most part, though, improving the lineup is improving the lineup.I don't think any of us are all too different in our philosophies. I just think that worrying over equivalencies and/or not trading offense for defense because of positional scarcity without considering relative value concepts leads to poor decisions. I'm most worried about dealing upper potential talents anyway. The lesser talents and potential have minimal relative value anyway.

When I argue that you should be considering the relative impact of any and all deals on your lineup, you're correct in that it means different things at different times. Sometimes you're willing to give up immediate value for long-term lineup upside, sometimes the opposite.

Again, I know Sig doesn't want to argue the specific deal but this thread is already a decent illustration of what I'm talking about. There's no way I'm trading a guy who may be considered a consensus LB1 in dynasty leagues (and could have still higher upside) for a guy who is a longshot to have high RB2 upside in a vacuum. Couple the age and injury issues of the principals in this deal and the fact that a possible full future round's value is also in the deal and I don't see how someone can come to the conclusion that Sig "shafted" his trading partner.

I may be a little high on DJ Williams and I tend to really value second round picks, but I take the Williams/2nd side of this deal because of relative value in a vacuum. If I had a very similar player to Williams to insert in the lineup and nothing close to Green prior to the trade, that swings the relative value balance in a different direction. But then you're rationalizing taking the poorer relative value side of the deal.

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

I recently traded AJ Hawk and 1:04 for the 1:01 (rookie draft). I needed AD, he needed a LB. It worked out well for both, especially since he got a second pick to boot.

That is highway robbery. good work.

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

Couple the age and injury issues of the principals in this deal and the fact that a possible full future round's value is also in the deal and I don't see how someone can come to the conclusion that Sig "shafted" his trading partner.

FYI, the person that said that was the trade partner.

 

[stevegamer]

I see both sides of this issue.

1. If I have stud IDP's they are going to be difference makers; I really don't want to deal them for lesser offensive players barring a real need.

2. It's usually easier to find contirbutors on the defensive side of the ball on the wire.

My only IDP league is a start 11 with 45 man rosters. While there are reasonable DL & DB's found on the wire, there aren't too many LB's worth starting on the wire, period. I've been blessed by a fairly stud-heavy LB core, featuring Peterson & Thomas, with Quarles as my (former) #3. It's been hard to find deals where I'd get a solid RB or WR (and those were this team's weak spots when I took it over) back for an elite LB. So I just didn't deal.

I can see both sides being happy with what they got here, and that helps pave the way to future deals. It's pretty well balanced with youth on one side & scarcity on the other.

I'd lean towards the LB side, since I can start 4 LB's max, and 2 RB's max. Green needs to be a top 24 RB to help me as an above average FLEX (RB/TE only, start 1 RB, figuring all FLEX are RB) - I think it's likely, but I'm not sure of his long-term value, and he's a borderline RB1/2 here.

I'm much more confident of Williams being a top-32 backer, where I'd expect 64 to be started - figure all Defensive Flex to be LB.

 

[Jene Bramel]

Couple the age and injury issues of the principals in this deal and the fact that a possible full future round's value is also in the deal and I don't see how someone can come to the conclusion that Sig "shafted" his trading partner.

FYI, the person that said that was the trade partner.

So much for my argument...

 

[Pick]

In my limited experience, it's easier to reload on defense than on offense. It is very difficult to pry away productive offensive players from owners. So if you have a hole on offense, you may have to take a chance on someone or else hit the mark in the draft.

Full disclosure: I traded for Jamal Lewis and Ahman Green recently.

 

[lord_helmet]

Bates + 3 downs + MLB + DJs athleticism = stud

If anyone got "shafted" it was Bloom

 

[alg]

Minority Opinion Alert:I don't care about the scarcity of position on the offensive waiver wire. You win leagues by having the best starting lineup. You want the highest relative advantage at every lineup position.

Agreed.Too often I see a gross predudice towards offense in various drafts. (Sure, if IDP doesn't make a big differense I can see it. But then, why bother?) I see 3rd round WRs going before Posluzney or Willis. Guys that will ride your pine till they develop. Last year I was able to draft Demeco Ryans at 2.10, after guys like Marcedes Lewis. Guys that may or may not even make your roster in 3 years. I see it time and time again in drafts, but guess who brings home the championships? Not the guys waiting for Chad Johnson to become a stud.FFB is about difference-makers, regardless of position. You can win an IDP league with great LBs and lesser RBs or WRs just as surely as the opposite.And who would I trade Ryans for this year? A shot at Bowe or Mechum? No way. Nobody wants to pay the price of what that would cost.

 

[The Man With No Name]

I also say that if a trade makes your team better it was a good trade regardless of the players and positions involved. If you have 5 top 30 wr's, why not trade one for 1 or 2 good upgrades on defense if you are weak there. that 4th and 5th wr can't do you any good on your bench most weeks.

I recently traded rookie pick #25 for DJ Williams. With Briggs looking like he's not likely to play until at least week 10 or later, I got a likely high scoring lb for what probably would have been a practice squad ff player. (top 4 lb's were gone by then). I have a chance to win this season and got more ammo to help do it.

I made an offense/defense trade a couple month's ago that also improved my team. Traded D'Qwell Jackson (who I'm not high on), Derek Hagen (my #8 wr), and rookie pick #39 for Darrell Jackson.

It is difficult to trade defense for offense even if you are offering top 10 defensive players for starting skill players or young potential guys who are not starting yet.

 

[redman]

I also say that if a trade makes your team better it was a good trade regardless of the players and positions involved. If you have 5 top 30 wr's, why not trade one for 1 or 2 good upgrades on defense if you are weak there. that 4th and 5th wr can't do you any good on your bench most weeks.

I recently traded rookie pick #25 for DJ Williams. With Briggs looking like he's not likely to play until at least week 10 or later, I got a likely high scoring lb for what probably would have been a practice squad ff player. (top 4 lb's were gone by then). I have a chance to win this season and got more ammo to help do it.

I made an offense/defense trade a couple month's ago that also improved my team. Traded D'Qwell Jackson (who I'm not high on), Derek Hagen (my #8 wr), and rookie pick #39 for Darrell Jackson.

It is difficult to trade defense for offense even if you are offering top 10 defensive players for starting skill players or young potential guys who are not starting yet.

This type of analysis is relevant but incomplete in that it doesn't factor in opportunity cost, namely that you could have gotten a better deal in another trade involving the same player you were trading away.

 

[stevegamer]

I also say that if a trade makes your team better it was a good trade regardless of the players and positions involved. If you have 5 top 30 wr's, why not trade one for 1 or 2 good upgrades on defense if you are weak there. that 4th and 5th wr can't do you any good on your bench most weeks.

I recently traded rookie pick #25 for DJ Williams. With Briggs looking like he's not likely to play until at least week 10 or later, I got a likely high scoring lb for what probably would have been a practice squad ff player. (top 4 lb's were gone by then). I have a chance to win this season and got more ammo to help do it.

I made an offense/defense trade a couple month's ago that also improved my team. Traded D'Qwell Jackson (who I'm not high on), Derek Hagen (my #8 wr), and rookie pick #39 for Darrell Jackson.

It is difficult to trade defense for offense even if you are offering top 10 defensive players for starting skill players or young potential guys who are not starting yet.

This type of analysis is relevant but incomplete in that it doesn't factor in opportunity cost, namely that you could have gotten a better deal in another trade involving the same player you were trading away.

Ah, opportunity cost. It's one of my least favorite things in FF - I've seen traded ripped because a guy didn't get enough, when "if you had only e-mailed me, I would've given you more" even though a trading block was posted and sent to all owners.I almost completely disregard it when evaluating a deal, because you always might be able to get a better deal elsewhere or later. Usually if it's a good deal now, it's still goign to be a good deal in hindsight knowing what you knew then.

 

[redman]

I also say that if a trade makes your team better it was a good trade regardless of the players and positions involved. If you have 5 top 30 wr's, why not trade one for 1 or 2 good upgrades on defense if you are weak there. that 4th and 5th wr can't do you any good on your bench most weeks.

I recently traded rookie pick #25 for DJ Williams. With Briggs looking like he's not likely to play until at least week 10 or later, I got a likely high scoring lb for what probably would have been a practice squad ff player. (top 4 lb's were gone by then). I have a chance to win this season and got more ammo to help do it.

I made an offense/defense trade a couple month's ago that also improved my team. Traded D'Qwell Jackson (who I'm not high on), Derek Hagen (my #8 wr), and rookie pick #39 for Darrell Jackson.

It is difficult to trade defense for offense even if you are offering top 10 defensive players for starting skill players or young potential guys who are not starting yet.

This type of analysis is relevant but incomplete in that it doesn't factor in opportunity cost, namely that you could have gotten a better deal in another trade involving the same player you were trading away.

Ah, opportunity cost. It's one of my least favorite things in FF - I've seen traded ripped because a guy didn't get enough, when "if you had only e-mailed me, I would've given you more" even though a trading block was posted and sent to all owners.I almost completely disregard it when evaluating a deal, because you always might be able to get a better deal elsewhere or later. Usually if it's a good deal now, it's still goign to be a good deal in hindsight knowing what you knew then.

The post-trade, "you should have emailed me" idiots aren't what I'm addressing obviously. All I'm saying is that you need to be mindful not just of what you're getting from a trade, but also of the value of what you're giving away. Most people do that automatically, so I'm just being precise.

 

[Tick]

To me, your knowledge of the IDP side makes a big difference. I traded Mike Peterson for Matt Jones last week. The reason I felt fine doing so is that I have Hawk, Witherspoon, DJ Williams, Keiaho, Crowell, Greenway, LHill, Ingram, BSimmons, Wilkinson, Demorrio, and Dontarrious.

Only Hawk and Greenway on that list cost me much - the rest were waiver and free agent pickups. Not all will pan out, but I'm confident that I'll have three good starters each week, and that some of the lower guys on that list that make my roster cuts will pan out.

If you're constantly stashing guys in good situations or with good talent, it's a lot easier to trade away a top-level IDP for an offensive prospect.

Most people have a roughly equivalent level of knowledge about offensive players - it's mostly slight variances in value based on opinions. On the defensive side, there seems to be a wider spread of comfort out there, and it's a good place to build up depth for trades.

 

[purplehaze67]

ZF league a couple weeks ago, I moved Matt Jones for AJ Hawk. With Boldin/Wayne and likely CJ at WR, plus a need at LB, this seemed to make sense for me.

If nothing else, I've raised my "floor" a little in that Hawk should be a more consistent performer then Jones will.

 

[Mapmaker]

During our rookie draft I was without a first round pick and had the 2.13 in a 14 team IDP league ... Lineup - QB, RB, WRx2, TE, Flex(RB,WR,TE), K, DLx2, LBx2, DBx2, Flex

With LT, Edge & Turner as my RB mainstays I felt comfortable in trading T.Jones for Osi Umenyiora & pick 2.8 which I parlayed into M.Bush ... I was pretty happy with that deal even though DL is the lowest scoring position in our scoring system. Even if Bush hadn't of fallen to me @ the 2.8 I was confident enough I would get very good value from the pick and with Osi I have a Pro Bowl caliber DL who's just stepping into his prime.

I'm looking to build a championship team now and felt a starter in Osi was more important to achieving that goal than retaining the depth @ RB that Jones provided me.

 

[houndirish]

If you've got a glut of talent at a defensive position I think it makes perfect sense to pull the trigger to deal for an offensive improvement. After the '06 season my dynasty LB corps consisted of Vilma (#1), Pierce, Farrior, Lemar Marshall and Channing Crowder. We only start 3 LB'rs. My weakness was at WR. My top guy was TJ Housh who was a consensus strong #2 WR but not a respected #1. I traded Antonio Pierce for Chris Chambers and thought the final piece of my championship puzzle was in place.

Turns out I got killed on the deal. Pierce was once again a top 10 LB'er. Chambers had one of his worst statistical seasons ever.

However if you were to ask me, without knowing the conclusion, would I do it again? Absolutely yes. A borderline top 15 WR will typically be more valuable than a top 10 LBer. Chambers has always been a bit erratic but his big games had a habit of making up for his small ones.

As Jene has pointed out, an impact LB can be found on the waiver wire. The Colston's of the waiver world are much rarer.

 

[Zuma]

i have been criticized heavily for this trade, so might as well take a beating here too...

i basically felt like i was super strong at rb, and had very little defensive depth...and no real #2 at wr, thus my reasoning for the following trade....

Minnesota Vikings Give Up:

NYG WR Plaxico Burress

PHI DE Trent Cole

HOU LB Morlon Greenwood

NEP CB Asante Samuel

San Diego Chargers Give Up:

KCC RB Larry Johnson

 

[dirtyhalos]

i agree with the criticizm.....alot depends on the scoring and size, but just at face value, i think you could have commanded alot more

 

[Zuma]

i agree with the criticizm.....alot depends on the scoring and size, but just at face value, i think you could have commanded alot more

zealots...

 

[UCSBgerry]

i have been criticized heavily for this trade, so might as well take a beating here too...

i basically felt like i was super strong at rb, and had very little defensive depth...and no real #2 at wr, thus my reasoning for the following trade....

Minnesota Vikings Give Up:

NYG WR Plaxico Burress

PHI DE Trent Cole

HOU LB Morlon Greenwood

NEP CB Asante Samuel

San Diego Chargers Give Up:

KCC RB Larry Johnson

By far the worst fantasy trade I have ever ever ever seen! I hope you enjoyed taking it from behind.

You get Plax and a bunch of crappy IDP's for Larry Freaking Johnson. What in the world??

 

[Zuma]

i have been criticized heavily for this trade, so might as well take a beating here too...

i basically felt like i was super strong at rb, and had very little defensive depth...and no real #2 at wr, thus my reasoning for the following trade....

Minnesota Vikings Give Up:

NYG WR Plaxico Burress

PHI DE Trent Cole

HOU LB Morlon Greenwood

NEP CB Asante Samuel

San Diego Chargers Give Up:

KCC RB Larry Johnson

By far the worst fantasy trade I have ever ever ever seen! I hope you enjoyed taking it from behind.

i'm just not a larry johnson lover...

still have some superstar caliber rb's and filled lots of other needs...

after winning the championship, maybe i was just being kind to a fellow owner...

 

[alg]

I would feel better about this trade if you had gotten a top LB. Just hope Coles and Burress come through for you.

But I'm with you on moving LJ. I don't like him at all for this year.

 

[Zuma]

fyi:

my full team is posted for opinions in the asst coach forum....

feel free to give me your ekspurt advice...

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...howtopic=319674

 

[lions327]

To me, your knowledge of the IDP side makes a big difference. I traded Mike Peterson for Matt Jones last week. The reason I felt fine doing so is that I have Hawk, Witherspoon, DJ Williams, Keiaho, Crowell, Greenway, LHill, Ingram, BSimmons, Wilkinson, Demorrio, and Dontarrious.Only Hawk and Greenway on that list cost me much - the rest were waiver and free agent pickups. Not all will pan out, but I'm confident that I'll have three good starters each week, and that some of the lower guys on that list that make my roster cuts will pan out.If you're constantly stashing guys in good situations or with good talent, it's a lot easier to trade away a top-level IDP for an offensive prospect.Most people have a roughly equivalent level of knowledge about offensive players - it's mostly slight variances in value based on opinions. On the defensive side, there seems to be a wider spread of comfort out there, and it's a good place to build up depth for trades.