[DYNASTY] Trading away all your picks, better think it through (1 Viewer)

[JohnnyU]

Why do some owners constantly trade away all their picks, even if all it does is barely make them a playoff team and an unlikely champion, or even worse a non-playoff team? I know some join dynasty leagues and do this and then quit on the league after one or two years, thus making it very hard to replace them unless you give the team away for a year or two.

If an owner is doing this in earnest, how many do you believe really think this through for the overall long term health of their team? How many just plain do not trust themselves making good draft choices? How many don't want to put the time in, in order to make good draft choices? If that's the case then they might be better served, and the league as well, to play in redraft leagues and not bother with dynasty leagues. Just a thought.

Edited to add that constantly picking in the top 5 is bad too, unless you're a master trader and it is not a result of having a bad team. I know one thing, I'd rather have some 1st and 2nd rd picks every year and also have good young talent, rather than stock up on geezers for one title run. I know I probably like young players to a fault, but in dynasty, in my mind you have to think this way long term in order to be successful long term.

 

[32 Counter Pass]

You are painting with a pretty broad brush GB. AS an example, there was an owner in one of my leagues that traded FIVE #1 picks for Westbrook one year. It netted him two championships and he cashed in two other years.

 

[cloppbeast]

I have an opponent who trades almost all his picks every season. If at all, he keeps only his first round pick. I can't really judge his strategy though, because he's made the play-offs every year and took home the trophy most recently.

In my experience, ridding most of your picks will serve an owner well. Unless you have a high pick, you basically have a lottery ticket. Why not give that risk to another owner? Considering most dynasty players seem to overrate rookie picks, you'll likely get more in return over the long haul using this strategy.

I usually keep many of picks though, even if it hurts my team. I enjoy all aspects of drafting. Half my drafted players don't work out, but at least I have fun doing it.

 

[Winning IS Everything]

This is an interesting topic, and I think many leagues have "that guy". In my main league most of our owners have been around since the beginning 21 years ago. It is a 10 team, 10 Player keeper, so not quite dynasty but close enough.

We have one owner that does this. He started it years ago to maintain yearly playoff contention. He does make the playoffs often and has won money recently, but has also gone nearly the longest since last winning it all. Now he finds himself "trading future picks to pay it back now" for youth. For example, I had 3 1sts last year and in draft traded him the 1.9 for a 2014 1st so he could draft Deandre Hopkins because hist first pick was not until the 4th round.

Meanwhile, I have been the recipient of many of those picks traded, gathering youth or trading some of the picks for young studs. What has it done for me the last 5 years? One title, two 2nds and a 3rd place, to go along with one did not finish in the playoffs. But then again, this is my rebuild year with 3 1sts and 5 2nds while he does not draft until the 5th round.

Long story short, my team has finished in the money more, and is a little better built for the future, but not much better. He was shrewd in the way he traded those picks and it has worked for him also.

 

[ROYALWITCHEESE]

I almost always trade future my picks as sweeteners, but then end up acquiring a late first or early second close to the draft just so I can participate.

It works for me, because I feel like I draft well in rounds 2/3/4. I also try to target 2nd year players who haven't done much yet as throw-ins on deals, which I guess sort of makes up for my lack of picks. Diamonds in the rough.

I have a title in 2011, 4 consecutive years as high scorer, and 7 consecutive playoff appearances. So it works.

A side note, there are a few owners in this league who consistently pick in the top 5 year after year. So there are two sides to this conversation...

 

[JohnnyU]

A side note, there are a few owners in this league who consistently pick in the top 5 year after year. So there are two sides to this conversation...

I edited the OP to talk about this as well.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

In my experience, owners who over-value youth / picks tend to out number owners who prefer veteran production pretty significantly. Probably 2:1 or better across the multiple leagues I've been in since I started playing dynasty in 1997. It obviously depends on realistically assessing one's own team, but I've never been hesitant about moving future picks to buy low on veteran players. It's simply the easiest way to pick up value most of the time IMO.

 

[JohnnyU]

In my experience, owners who over-value youth / picks tend to out number owners who prefer veteran production pretty significantly. Probably 2:1 or better across the multiple leagues I've been in since I started playing dynasty in 1997. It obviously depends on realistically assessing one's own team, but I've never been hesitant about moving future picks to buy low on veteran players. It's simply the easiest way to pick up value most of the time IMO.

That's probably the way it should be in dynasty leagues, but I probably wouldn't use the words "over value" if you're doing it right. Those who "over value" youth are those who can't even keep the youth they have, EVER, before they trade it for more picks the next year. Now if you've decided you're not quite as high on the player you drafted last year and wish to cash in while his value is still high, I don't have a problem with that as long as you know you're taking a risk. A good example of this for me is Robert Woods or Tyler Eifert, or flat out bad picks like Jonathan Franklin, who could still turn out to be a good player once his rookie contract is over and he moves on, or if Lacy gets hurt. I still think he's better than Starks. As for Eifert, I still like him a whole lot, but I hate his situation, so if I can cash him in for value I might do it if it helps my current plan. If not, then I'll hold him and hope his situation clears up some, because I still think he can be a top 5 TE down the road. As for Robert Woods, I will admit I was too high on him. I think he could be a good WR #2, but that is his ceiling. I currently don't own him in any leagues and I drafted him in plenty of them. I feel I got good value for him in the most trades.

 

[Warpig]

Personally, I like to have a balance. I won't hesitate to trade my draft picks for a vet that I think will be better off than those rookie picks.

But my experience with other guys that trade away all their rookie picks has been on the other end of the spectrum of what the majority is in here. There were two guys in two different leagues I am in that tried that strategy of trading away all their rookie picks. They ended up having a terrible team and both quit the league. Now the teams are left with no rookie picks so whoever takes over the teams will now have to trade off their good players to acquire those picks to rebuild.

 

[JohnnyU]

Personally, I like to have a balance. I won't hesitate to trade my draft picks for a vet that I think will be better off than those rookie picks.

But my experience with other guys that trade away all their rookie picks has been on the other end of the spectrum of what the majority is in here. There were two guys in two different leagues I am in that tried that strategy of trading away all their rookie picks. They ended up having a terrible team and both quit the league. Now the teams are left with no rookie picks so whoever takes over the teams will now have to trade off their good players to acquire those picks to rebuild.

nice post and I agree for the most part. Having said that, I am experimenting in one league, but for the most part I like balance as well. That is evident in most of my leagues.

 

[Zaphod]

Another thing to consider is that draft picks have an oscillating value throughout the year. So a lot of what you can get back depends on at what time of the season you are doing the trading.

As for bad teams/owners quitting and leaving a team bereft of talent, that is usually the case when a dynasty team is available. Rarely do you have a wealth of picks and quality players, that's the reason the team is available in the first place.

Personally, I like to participate in the draft, but it is hard to pass up on the skyrocketing value some owners put on draft picks right before the draft. I have found even second and third year players, who are already producing in the league, can sometimes be had for value. Many owners just can't stop themselves and all dynasty owners think every pick they have is guaranteed lottery winner.

Fortunately for me, I find that one thing almost no dynasty owners do is revisit past trends and strategies and change things that aren't working for them.

 

[JohnnyU]

Another thing to consider is that draft picks have an oscillating value throughout the year. So a lot of what you can get back depends on at what time of the season you are doing the trading.

As for bad teams/owners quitting and leaving a team bereft of talent, that is usually the case when a dynasty team is available. Rarely do you have a wealth of picks and quality players, that's the reason the team is available in the first place.

Personally, I like to participate in the draft, but it is hard to pass up on the skyrocketing value some owners put on draft picks right before the draft. I have found even second and third year players, who are already producing in the league, can sometimes be had for value. Many owners just can't stop themselves and all dynasty owners think every pick they have is guaranteed lottery winner.

Fortunately for me, I find that one thing almost no dynasty owners do is revisit past trends and strategies and change things that aren't working for them.

Yeah, rose colored glasses are a bad thing when it comes to FF strategy. There are many ways to skin a cat, so in dynasty leagues, for me at least, the best strategy is to maintain a viable product with youth, sprinkled in with some geezers, and have some nice picks for the next year's draft and beyond if possible. I try to do that with most leagues, but as I said earlier, I am trying some different stuff with a couple of leagues.

 

[Borden]

The problem isn't their strategy it's their execution and effort. Anyone who quits because their team is bad (for whatever reason) is just being lazy and a poor sport. They went for the early knock out and ran out of steam then instead of taking their lumps and rebuilding they tapped out. The problem is the person not the strategy.

The other problem is lots of the people that join dynasty leagues then quit are casual players that end up swimming into deeper and deeper water every year with sharks. It's very easy for people to think they're good at FF because they've done well in redrafts because they can follow a number of different lists. I tired to do just a 9 player keeper with my buddies. It's a 12 team league and 9 of the guys in it I've been in a redraft league with for the last 10 years. A keeper league is much, much more forgiving than a dynasty league and entering year 3 of the keeper league the divide between the top 2 guys, the middle 7 and the bottom 3 is already getting pretty big. I think that is the biggest factor in guys quitting dynasty leagues, they aren't up to par with the rest of the guys in the league and they aren't prepared for the true value of players/picks/youth.

So, taking out the quitting aspect of the problem, I don't think the strategy is a terrible one but it has to fall to the person drafting. If last year Peyton falls to me and then Gonzo falls to me I know I'm now focused on winning this year. That doesn't mean trading my first rounder for Steve Smith but I am going to move as much as I can from my depth and picks to get better at my starting positions, even if I have to sacrifice promising young players. I've seen to many teams be average to really good for a long time but they never end up being great. The idea is to win titles not drafts.

 

[JohnnyU]

The problem isn't their strategy it's their execution and effort. Anyone who quits because their team is bad (for whatever reason) is just being lazy and a poor sport. They went for the early knock out and ran out of steam then instead of taking their lumps and rebuilding they tapped out. The problem is the person not the strategy.

The other problem is lots of the people that join dynasty leagues then quit are casual players that end up swimming into deeper and deeper water every year with sharks. It's very easy for people to think they're good at FF because they've done well in redrafts because they can follow a number of different lists. I tired to do just a 9 player keeper with my buddies. It's a 12 team league and 9 of the guys in it I've been in a redraft league with for the last 10 years. A keeper league is much, much more forgiving than a dynasty league and entering year 3 of the keeper league the divide between the top 2 guys, the middle 7 and the bottom 3 is already getting pretty big. I think that is the biggest factor in guys quitting dynasty leagues, they aren't up to par with the rest of the guys in the league and they aren't prepared for the true value of players/picks/youth.

So, taking out the quitting aspect of the problem, I don't think the strategy is a terrible one but it has to fall to the person drafting. If last year Peyton falls to me and then Gonzo falls to me I know I'm now focused on winning this year. That doesn't mean trading my first rounder for Steve Smith but I am going to move as much as I can from my depth and picks to get better at my starting positions, even if I have to sacrifice promising young players. I've seen to many teams be average to really good for a long time but they never end up being great. The idea is to win titles not drafts.

I liked your post, but would add to then end of your last sentence..... "for many years into the future, not just the first one or two, unless I have a viable plan following my initial success after drafting a lot of veterans in the initial draft".

 

[thriftyrocker]

If you are a good drafter and have a good startup draft then trading picks to upgrade positions and complete lineups likely only results in incremental improvement. In a few years you look back and wonder what if you had those rookies you could have drafted.

If you are a mediocre drafter and have a mediocre startup draft then trading picks to upgrade positions and complete lineups makes you more competitive short term and allows you to continue to fill holes to remain competitive.

If you are a bad drafter and have a bad startup then trading picks to upgrade positions creates a never ending cycle of futility.

 

[Concept Coop]

I've seen it work, and I've seen it fail. It all depends on what you get for them.

 

[matttyl]

Starting about 2 years ago I was stockpiling draft picks for this 2014 draft. I was handed a team that wasn't very good, and I built around youth and future picks.

Going into this offseason, I had the #1, #3, #4, #6, #9, #11, #26, and #46 rookie picks. I also had some career under-performers like Nicks, Lamar Miller and Stevie Johnson - as well as guys a bit long in the tooth like Ray Rice.

I turned all that into Lacy, Forte, Foster, Ben Tate, EJ Manuel, Kendall Wright and the #18, #30 and #40 picks.

 

[JohnnyU]

If you are a good drafter and have a good startup draft then trading picks to upgrade positions and complete lineups likely only results in incremental improvement. In a few years you look back and wonder what if you had those rookies you could have drafted.

If you are a mediocre drafter and have a mediocre startup draft then trading picks to upgrade positions and complete lineups makes you more competitive short term and allows you to continue to fill holes to remain competitive.

If you are a bad drafter and have a bad startup then trading picks to upgrade positions creates a never ending cycle of futility.

I believe you almost have to be a good trader to maintain longevity as a great dynasty owner. Yes, you can draft well here and there and win a title or two, but in the long run you are going to flop with your draft picks more than a couple of times and that could put your team in a bad spot. The problem with some owners is they think they are great traders all the time and simply put, they trade their team into futility. It's like the gambler who never gets enough, and I will paraphrase a quote from the movie Tombstone, "That league owner has got a great big hole, right in the middle of him. He can never trade enough to ever fill it.

 

[EBF]

I think the idea in theory is that they're getting a one year jump on the rest of the league by adding that future value to their roster right now instead of keeping it in storage, but anecdotally the teams that have done this over multiple years in my leagues generally haven't been successful with it.

The problem is usually that the instant help is worth slightly less than the eventual value of the pick and also that these teams often underestimate their chances of imploding. So when they bomb out and wind up with a top 3 pick, they don't reap the benefits because somebody else owns it.

If you use this strategy and you fail, you have no clear route back to respectability other than working waivers and trying to fleece other owners.

 

[Pots]

Rookie picks are a crap shoot, and if you can get solid value for them, trading them away is actually the best thing you can do. The old saying 'a stud in the hand is worth 3 shots in the dark' (or something like that) really holds true. The only time you're doing it wrong is if you're not getting good value for your picks.

 

[JohnnyU]

Rookie picks are a crap shoot, and if you can get solid value for them, trading them away is actually the best thing you can do. The old saying 'a stud in the hand is worth 3 shots in the dark' (or something like that) really holds true. The only time you're doing it wrong is if you're not getting good value for your picks.

Spoken like true redraft owner.

 

[thriftyrocker]

I will paraphrase a quote from the movie Tombstone, "That league owner has got a great big hole, right in the middle of him. He can never trade enough to ever fill it.

Trading a mid-late 1st for a player that will contribute is an easy trade and an easy transaction. Yes you can blow it, but I think it's a lot less dangerous than other trades.

 

[JohnnyU]

I will paraphrase a quote from the movie Tombstone, "That league owner has got a great big hole, right in the middle of him. He can never trade enough to ever fill it.

Trading a mid-late 1st for a player that will contribute is an easy trade and an easy transaction. Yes you can blow it, but I think it's a lot less dangerous than other trades.

Oh, I've seen many middle to late 1st rd picks that have hit pay dirt as well as many early first who flop. Of course it's a crap shoot, but those young players, however you get them (draft or trade or ww), are still the life blood of a dynasty team long term. Trading those picks for aging veterans may be necessary at times, but they can come with a hefty price long term in dynasty leagues.

 

[Bojang0301]

I emptied my coffers last year in what I thought was a weak draft class. Ended up getting the itch by the end of it and traded into the last pick which ended up being a bad choice. I lucked into Jordan Reed after preseason. Anyway here is what my history looks like to aid this study.

2013: Chris Harper

2012: Isaiah Pead, Robert Turbin, Chris Givens, Alfred Morris, Devier Posey, Chris Rainey

2011: Mark Ingram, Mikel Leshoure, Shane Vereen, Taiwan Jones, Dion Lewis, Quan Studervant, Colin McCarthy

2010: Dez Bryant, Toby Gerhart, Jonathan Dwyer, Jermaine Gresham, Tim Teblow, Armanti Edwards, Charles Scott

I won the league last year after not having any picks. I worked this steaming pile of poop into a very strong team. The draft is an aid but definitely not the core of someone's team in fantasy. The real work is in trades and waivers. I could give you the infinite list of trades that lead me to where I am but the only players left on my list from here are Dez Bryant, Mark Ingram, Toby Gerhart, Jon Dwyer and Colin McCarthy.

 

[EBF]

Rookie picks are a crap shoot, and if you can get solid value for them, trading them away is actually the best thing you can do. The old saying 'a stud in the hand is worth 3 shots in the dark' (or something like that) really holds true. The only time you're doing it wrong is if you're not getting good value for your picks.

Trading a mid-late 1st for a player that will contribute is an easy trade and an easy transaction. Yes you can blow it, but I think it's a lot less dangerous than other trades.

That's true to an extent, but the teams that have been most successful in my leagues were not the ones who played it safe, but rather the ones who got in early on players like Julio, Dez, Demaryius, and Green while there was still some uncertainty about whether or not those players would pan out.

It seems like people are naturally hard-wired to either value security or upside in general. The security crowd looks at rookie picks and sees the risk. The upside crowd looks at them and sees the upside. Both sides have merit. The problem with being the guy who always takes the safe veteran play is that you're going to miss out on the highly-touted prospects who actually live up to the hype.

I think it often makes sense to trade picks for veterans, but it's a case by case thing. Typically when you give up a pick for a player you're sacrificing some upside for the sake of reduced risk. If you give up the 1.01 this year for Brandon Marshall, you know you'll probably get 2-3 useful seasons. On the other hand, if you stay put and draft Watkins, he'll be worth a lot more than Marshall in the long run if he ends up living up to his hype.

I think the "correct" strategy varies depending on the specific players. It's more about nailing the specific evaluations than it is about sticking with some one-size-fits-all general strategy. Same deal this year. If you're certain that Mike Evans is the real deal, he's worth more than whatever you could trade him for. Because while you might know he's the next VJax with a guaranteed awesome career, the market price will include a discount based on the probability that he's a Jon Baldwin/Roy Williams/David Terrell. When the risk with a given player is exaggerated by the general public, that's when you can get aggressive and pay over the odds for a player knowing that you're still getting him for less than he's actually worth.

Anyways, a one-size-fits-all approach to trading rookie picks is never going to be the ideal strategy. What the crowd that emphasizes risk forgets is that while many of the "next big thing" candidates never fulfill their potential, many of them do. So if you're always trading picks for veterans, you're going to miss out on the likes of Dez Bryant, Adrian Peterson, and Calvin Johnson because you couldn't stomach the bust risk.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

Rookie picks are a crap shoot, and if you can get solid value for them, trading them away is actually the best thing you can do. The old saying 'a stud in the hand is worth 3 shots in the dark' (or something like that) really holds true. The only time you're doing it wrong is if you're not getting good value for your picks.

Spoken like true redraft owner.

No need to be condescending because some disagrees with you, guy. Many, many owners wildly over-rate the actual realistic expected value of rookie picks, particularly those outside the few at the very top each year -- and those same owners often wildly under-rate actual proven production. The dynasty trade thread is littered with examples. The key to winning titles is accumulating a crushing advantage in points over baseline in a given year(s), and the rookie draft is only one of the many ways to do this. If you compare actual historic values in career points over baseline of picks vs established older stud players, you might be pretty surprised. Grabbing a Brandon Marshall or an Adrian Peterson for a couple of late 1sts or something is a massive net win even if you get only a year or two out of him. And most of the youth-lovers also hugely overestimate their ability to draft well -- the NFL is roughly 50 / 50 even on 1st round picks. I guarantee no one on here is doing better than John Schneider or Ozzie Newsome at picking rookie talent.

 

[Borden]

I think running backs are the Achillies' heel of the trading all your draft picks. WRs, TEs, and QBs all have long enough careers that you can trade for a Marshall, Fitz, Gonz, Manning, Rivers, etc. and continue to repeat the process year after year but look at guys like Steven Jackson, Michael Turner, LT, etc. and they hit cliffs in production shortly after they hit their peak. That's is where the strategy of trading all your picks fails. So, I still thing this strategy could work year after year but it comes with the * of "your trades have to include getting a late rounds pick in return" this way you can take a bunch of shots at the late round RBs every year and hope someone pans out.

 

[thriftyrocker]

Trading a mid-late 1st for a player that will contribute is an easy trade and an easy transaction. Yes you can blow it, but I think it's a lot less dangerous than other trades.

That's true to an extent, but the teams that have been most successful in my leagues were not the ones who played it safe, but rather the ones who got in early on players like Julio, Dez, Demaryius, and Green while there was still some uncertainty about whether or not those players would pan out.

...

So if you're always trading picks for veterans, you're going to miss out on the likes of Dez Bryant, Adrian Peterson, and Calvin Johnson because you couldn't stomach the bust risk.

Most of the players you mentioned were pedigree picks taken in the top 3 of rookie drafts. The sole exception is Demaryius. There is a huge difference between passing on AJ Green and "lemme pass on Golden Tate or Kendall Wright to plug a hole here." If you are a playoff team but not elite and need to improve a position to improve your chances next year, then the risk you're giving up something great with your 1st is much less. Granted there are guys who became elite assets like Keenan Allen, Cobb, Charles, etc. who were late 1st picks, but the risk is much less than an early 1st.

If you need an extra WR for this season, why draft anyone after WatkinsEvans when you can get a safe bet for WR2 production for the same price. The risk of giving up something great is pretty small.

 

[Biabreakable]

I think it makes sense to trade picks for a player(s) who can help you win now. But as you do that, then you really need to win that season because the cost will catch up with you.

The timing of these 2 goals does not line up very well.

The best time to trade away picks for a player to win that season would be after you have already won several of your games and you are looking to add a player(s) for your playoff run. But this is when the draft picks have some of the lowest value.

Trading away the picks for highest value leading up to the NFL draft could potentially burn you as the player you trade for might later on be affected by who the team drafts, free agency or by injuries.

I have done both. I generally prefer the draft picks because every draft pick I own adds total overall value to my roster. Those draft picks are somewhat like extra roster spots. You have a limit on the number of players you can roster, usually no limit on the number of picks you own. So at least in terms of overall team trade value, the team with a strong roster and a lot of rookie picks controls more value than a team with a strong roster but no rookie picks.

It can become cumulative as well if you hit on a lot of your draft picks now you have a roster full of young valuable players that you can move for replacements while also adding more draft picks and incrementally adding more overall value to your roster over time.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

Trading a mid-late 1st for a player that will contribute is an easy trade and an easy transaction. Yes you can blow it, but I think it's a lot less dangerous than other trades.

That's true to an extent, but the teams that have been most successful in my leagues were not the ones who played it safe, but rather the ones who got in early on players like Julio, Dez, Demaryius, and Green while there was still some uncertainty about whether or not those players would pan out.

...

So if you're always trading picks for veterans, you're going to miss out on the likes of Dez Bryant, Adrian Peterson, and Calvin Johnson because you couldn't stomach the bust risk.

Most of the players you mentioned were pedigree picks taken in the top 3 of rookie drafts. The sole exception is Demaryius. There is a huge difference between passing on AJ Green and "lemme pass on Golden Tate or Kendall Wright to plug a hole here." If you are a playoff team but not elite and need to improve a position to improve your chances next year, then the risk you're giving up something great with your 1st is much less. Granted there are guys who became elite assets like Keenan Allen, Cobb, Charles, etc. who were late 1st picks, but the risk is much less than an early 1st.

If you need an extra WR for this season, why draft anyone after WatkinsEvans when you can get a safe bet for WR2 production for the same price. The risk of giving up something great is pretty small.

The 1.01 / Marshall hypothetical is a total strawman -- you'd never need to pay that for a guy his age. Couple of late 1sts would usually get it done -- and that's a waaaaay different value proposition.

 

[EBF]

This is pretty crude, but you could describe a player's value using a basic mathematical formula:

(UPSIDE) x (SECURITY) = (EXPECTED VALUE)

Now let's imagine that you have two contrasting strategies that yield the same expected value based on the odds.

The Gambler - Always ignores risk for the sake of upside. More upside. More risk. (20 ppg) x (0.50) = (10 ppg)

The Nit - Always trades risk for certain production. Less upside. Less risk. (10 ppg) x (1.0) = (10 ppg)

On paper these outcomes look identical, but in practice I think a 50% chance at 20 ppg value is worth more in FF than a 100% chance of 10 ppg. That's because I think difference-makers are worth exponentially more than ordinary players. The same probably applies for overall VBD. So if you're given the choice between a solid, but unspectacular veteran who's guaranteed to produce at a decent level for a couple years and a high upside high quality prospect with more risk but a much higher ceiling, I think the latter is usually the way to go. And the big problem with trading picks is that most smart owners aren't going to give you a ppg difference-maker for a draft pick. So either you trade it for a mediocrity or you keep it and play the lottery.

Just based on what I've observed over the years in my leagues, the nit strategy is really good at getting you a 6-6 to 8-4 record and a first round playoff exit. You will beat the gamblers who either got unlucky or picked the wrong prospects to go all-in on (those guys will miss the playoffs). You'll beat the flat out bad owners who squander value whenever they get it. But you'll lose to the gamblers who went all-in on the right prospects and have amassed a core of 3-5 genuine difference-makers as a result.

As I've increasingly realized and preached over the last year or so, I think dynasty success is all about finding the strategy that will allow you to monopolize the small number of elite players who actually make a real difference on the scoring sheet. Any time you are sacrificing upside for the sake of risk, you might be pushing your team out of the cellar, but maybe not enough to threaten the legitimate contenders. I think it's better to be either really bad or really good than a toothless 6-6 team with no title hopes and no chance at a top 3-4 rookie pick.

That doesn't mean that you shouldn't trade picks for old great players like Fitzgerald, Manning, or Peterson. It's more a general criticism of a "bird in the hand" type strategy where people convert assets that have a probability of developing into elite players into assets with a high floor, but a low ceiling. Sometimes people who crash and burn in the league are so eager to reach respectability that they trade top 3-4 picks for average players who aren't going to do anything but elevate their team to mid table irrelevance. In a long-running dynasty league it's almost inevitable that a couple teams will accumulate a freaky roster, so taking a path that doesn't give you a chance to reach that level is a pure dog of a strategy IMO.

 

[John 14:6]

For me, it depends on the state of my team. Two years ago my team was horrible so I kept all my picks. Last year,I was leading my division heading into the trade deadline. I ended up trading my first, third, fourth, and fifth this year along with my second next year for Alshon Jeffrey. I made it to the title game...

 

[EBF]

Most of the players you mentioned were pedigree picks taken in the top 3 of rookie drafts. The sole exception is Demaryius. There is a huge difference between passing on AJ Green and "lemme pass on Golden Tate or Kendall Wright to plug a hole here." If you are a playoff team but not elite and need to improve a position to improve your chances next year, then the risk you're giving up something great with your 1st is much less. Granted there are guys who became elite assets like Keenan Allen, Cobb, Charles, etc. who were late 1st picks, but the risk is much less than an early 1st.

If you need an extra WR for this season, why draft anyone after WatkinsEvans when you can get a safe bet for WR2 production for the same price. The risk of giving up something great is pretty small.

Yea, I don't really disagree with that. Big difference between an early/late 1st in most classes.

OP is talking about trading FUTURE picks though. And generally you're not going to get a player like Marshall or Peterson for a random future 1st.

You're going to get a Torrey Smith, Mike Wallace, or Kendall Wright. Nice players, but not guys who are going to win you anything.

That's not such a huge problem if you do well in the league and your pick ends up being late. What often happens though is that a team that trades away its future 1st will either exaggerate its prospects and/or get ravaged by injuries. So that inconsequential late round 1st becomes a top 4-5 pick and suddenly you miss out on a potential cornerstone player because you needed to fill your WR3 spot the year before.

 

[JohnnyU]

Rookie picks are a crap shoot, and if you can get solid value for them, trading them away is actually the best thing you can do. The old saying 'a stud in the hand is worth 3 shots in the dark' (or something like that) really holds true. The only time you're doing it wrong is if you're not getting good value for your picks.

Spoken like true redraft owner.

No need to be condescending because some disagrees with you, guy. Many, many owners wildly over-rate the actual realistic expected value of rookie picks, particularly those outside the few at the very top each year -- and those same owners often wildly under-rate actual proven production. The dynasty trade thread is littered with examples. The key to winning titles is accumulating a crushing advantage in points over baseline in a given year(s), and the rookie draft is only one of the many ways to do this. If you compare actual historic values in career points over baseline of picks vs established older stud players, you might be pretty surprised. Grabbing a Brandon Marshall or an Adrian Peterson for a couple of late 1sts or something is a massive net win even if you get only a year or two out of him. And most of the youth-lovers also hugely overestimate their ability to draft well -- the NFL is roughly 50 / 50 even on 1st round picks. I guarantee no one on here is doing better than John Schneider or Ozzie Newsome at picking rookie talent.

Sorry, I didn't mean to be condescending. I just think those who are always looking to dump their picks for veteran players have a redraft mentality and not the long term interest of their dynasty team at heart. The exception being of trading those picks for young veteran players.

 

[Borden]

Trading a mid-late 1st for a player that will contribute is an easy trade and an easy transaction. Yes you can blow it, but I think it's a lot less dangerous than other trades.

That's true to an extent, but the teams that have been most successful in my leagues were not the ones who played it safe, but rather the ones who got in early on players like Julio, Dez, Demaryius, and Green while there was still some uncertainty about whether or not those players would pan out.

...

So if you're always trading picks for veterans, you're going to miss out on the likes of Dez Bryant, Adrian Peterson, and Calvin Johnson because you couldn't stomach the bust risk.

Most of the players you mentioned were pedigree picks taken in the top 3 of rookie drafts. The sole exception is Demaryius. There is a huge difference between passing on AJ Green and "lemme pass on Golden Tate or Kendall Wright to plug a hole here." If you are a playoff team but not elite and need to improve a position to improve your chances next year, then the risk you're giving up something great with your 1st is much less. Granted there are guys who became elite assets like Keenan Allen, Cobb, Charles, etc. who were late 1st picks, but the risk is much less than an early 1st.

If you need an extra WR for this season, why draft anyone after WatkinsEvans when you can get a safe bet for WR2 production for the same price. The risk of giving up something great is pretty small.

The 1.01 / Marshall hypothetical is a total strawman -- you'd never need to pay that for a guy his age. Couple of late 1sts would usually get it done -- and that's a waaaaay different value proposition.

This is pretty crude, but you could describe a player's value using a basic mathematical formula:

(UPSIDE) x (SECURITY) = (EXPECTED VALUE)

Now let's imagine that you have two contrasting strategies that yield the same expected value based on the odds.

The Gambler - Always ignores risk for the sake of upside. More upside. More risk. (20 ppg) x (0.50) = (10 ppg)

The Nit - Always trades risk for certain production. Less upside. Less risk. (10 ppg) x (1.0) = (10 ppg)

On paper these outcomes look identical, but in practice I think a 50% chance at 20 ppg value is worth more in FF than a 100% chance of 10 ppg. That's because I think difference-makers are worth exponentially more than ordinary players. The same probably applies for overall VBD. So if you're given the choice between a solid, but unspectacular veteran who's guaranteed to produce at a decent level for a couple years and a high upside high quality prospect with more risk but a much higher ceiling, I think the latter is usually the way to go. And the big problem with trading picks is that most smart owners aren't going to give you a ppg-difference maker for a draft pick. So either you trade it for a mediocrity or you keep it and play the lottery.

Just based on what I've observed over the years in my leagues, the nit strategy is really good at getting you a 6-6 to 8-4 record and a first round playoff exit. You will beat the gamblers who either got unlucky or picked the wrong prospects to go all-in on (those guys will miss the playoffs). You'll beat the flat out bad owners who squander value whenever they get it. But you'll lose to the gamblers who went all-in on the right prospects and have amassed a core of 3-5 genuine difference-makers as a result.

As I've increasingly realized and preached over the last year or so, I think dynasty success is all about finding the strategy that will allow you to monopolize the small number of elite players who actually make a real difference on the scoring sheet. Any time you are sacrificing upside for the sake of risk, you might be pushing your team out of the cellar, but maybe not enough to threaten the legitimate contenders. I think it's better to be either really bad or really good than a toothless 6-6 team with no title hopes and no chance at a top 3-4 rookie pick.

That doesn't mean that you shouldn't trade picks for old great players like Fitzgerald, Manning, or Peterson. It's more a general criticism of a "bird in the hand" type strategy where people convert assets that have a probability of developing into elite players into assets with a high floor, but a low ceiling. Sometimes people who crash and burn in the league are so eager to reach respectability that they trade top 3-4 picks for average players who aren't going to do anything but elevate their team to mid table irrelevance. In a long-running dynasty league it's almost inevitable that a couple teams will accumulate a freaky roster, so taking a path that doesn't give you a chance to reach that level is a pure dog of a strategy IMO.

I think that your theory is correct and I agree with it. What I can't get on board with is the "solid veteran" example. If this trading picks for vets is what we are discussing that it's still a gambler strategy. The difference is gambling on vets rather then rookies. You're gambling on Steve Smith having a big year after being traded, you're gambling on Manning after a year off because of neck surgery and with a new team, you're gambling Reggie Wayne having a AP like coming back from injury. Maybe Welker, Gonzo or Gore just because of age. It's a gamble with aging studs not vets like Colston, Hartline or Harry Douglas. At least that's the way I understood it.

 

[Pickle Rody]

I don't trade them all away but I often head into a draft without my first 3 to 5 rounds of picks. Not every year, but more often than not. Sometimes I acquire other picks through trade, but usually not. It means I'm filling out my roster at the end of the draft with make-up picks. I've been doing it for years and it generally doesn't keep me from being in the hunt till the very end. Won it all in 2013 and heading into this draft missing my first 3 picks. I'll survive, make the playoffs and contend for the title again.

A confident, savvy owner can do this with regularity if they do their homework each year. I think it depends largely on the owner and his dedication to winning.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

Rookie picks are a crap shoot, and if you can get solid value for them, trading them away is actually the best thing you can do. The old saying 'a stud in the hand is worth 3 shots in the dark' (or something like that) really holds true. The only time you're doing it wrong is if you're not getting good value for your picks.

Spoken like true redraft owner.

No need to be condescending because some disagrees with you, guy. Many, many owners wildly over-rate the actual realistic expected value of rookie picks, particularly those outside the few at the very top each year -- and those same owners often wildly under-rate actual proven production. The dynasty trade thread is littered with examples. The key to winning titles is accumulating a crushing advantage in points over baseline in a given year(s), and the rookie draft is only one of the many ways to do this. If you compare actual historic values in career points over baseline of picks vs established older stud players, you might be pretty surprised. Grabbing a Brandon Marshall or an Adrian Peterson for a couple of late 1sts or something is a massive net win even if you get only a year or two out of him. And most of the youth-lovers also hugely overestimate their ability to draft well -- the NFL is roughly 50 / 50 even on 1st round picks. I guarantee no one on here is doing better than John Schneider or Ozzie Newsome at picking rookie talent.

Sorry, I didn't mean to be condescending. I just think those who are always looking to dump their picks for veteran players have a redraft mentality and not the long term interest of their dynasty team at heart. The exception being of trading those picks for young veteran players.

Best way to acquire value IMO is cutting against the grain of whatever the majority of owners are doing in a particular league at a particular time -- that way you're competing with fewer owners trying to acquire the same resources. In my experience, that usually means that this time of year you can sell off picks at a pretty substantial premium.

 

[Jeremy]

I think the idea in theory is that they're getting a one year jump on the rest of the league by adding that future value to their roster right now instead of keeping it in storage, but anecdotally the teams that have done this over multiple years in my leagues generally haven't been successful with it.

The problem is usually that the instant help is worth slightly less than the eventual value of the pick and also that these teams often underestimate their chances of imploding. So when they bomb out and wind up with a top 3 pick, they don't reap the benefits because somebody else owns it.

If you use this strategy and you fail, you have no clear route back to respectability other than working waivers and trying to fleece other owners.

We have an owner in that exact situation. He doesn't have a 1st round pick until 2017. His team is middle of the pack at best and filled with RBs in their late 20s and WRs in their 30s. None of them have much trade value due to their age and declining skills. He might be competitive one more year, but soon he's going to find himself in a deep hole unless he gets really lucky on the waiver wire.

We have another who was heading that way before he traded away ADP and Peyton Manning while they still had value.

I'm not opposed to trading high draft picks in the current year, but I'm very reluctant to trade future 1sts. If everything goes to hell, at least I'll get a high draft pick and it won't go to someone else, like you said.

Personally, I don't mind trading away 1st and 2nd rounders

 

[ffgiant]

Personally, I don't mind trading away 1st and 2nd rounders

This is the time of the year, all rookies are overvalued. I always let my leagues know I am open to trade my rookies picks away. A good target will be last year's rookie, since some owners already become impatient with them.

When I will buy into picks, most of time it is in the middle of the season, when teams thinks they have chance to compete.

 

[eNdblu]

I think the idea in theory is that they're getting a one year jump on the rest of the league by adding that future value to their roster right now instead of keeping it in storage, but anecdotally the teams that have done this over multiple years in my leagues generally haven't been successful with it.

The problem is usually that the instant help is worth slightly less than the eventual value of the pick and also that these teams often underestimate their chances of imploding. So when they bomb out and wind up with a top 3 pick, they don't reap the benefits because somebody else owns it.

If you use this strategy and you fail, you have no clear route back to respectability other than working waivers and trying to fleece other owners.

We have an owner in that exact situation. He doesn't have a 1st round pick until 2017. His team is middle of the pack at best and filled with RBs in their late 20s and WRs in their 30s. None of them have much trade value due to their age and declining skills. He might be competitive one more year, but soon he's going to find himself in a deep hole unless he gets really lucky on the waiver wire.

We have another who was heading that way before he traded away ADP and Peyton Manning while they still had value.

I'm not opposed to trading high draft picks in the current year, but I'm very reluctant to trade future 1sts. If everything goes to hell, at least I'll get a high draft pick and it won't go to someone else, like you said.

Personally, I don't mind trading away 1st and 2nd rounders

Hopefully this person has paid their league dues in full for the next 3 seasons.

 

[DexterDew]

normal disclaimer: it depends.

We've talked about how a FF team is like a portfolio with a mix of value and growth stocks, you can break the positions down by sectors, too, if you like... but maybe a better analogy would be a bond portfolio where there are different durations (maturity dates). An extreme example, but if i have Peyton, i will be trying to find his replacement on my team either in this draft, or next year, because his shelf life is 1-2 year... same with Brady.

personally, I don't look farther than three years out. too many things can change in terms of injuries, contracts, coaching changes, personnel changes, etc. So the question becomes, where do i see my team this year, next year and Year 3?

i (try to) take a realistic evaluation of my roster and picks to see if i can compete this year. if i am not a contender and merely hope to make the playoffs, i try to acquire picks. If i am in rebuild mode, i want as many picks as possible for the next two years.

now if i am a contender, i will gladly trade current and future picks... with one caveat, i won't go more than two years without a serious youth infusion from picks (or devy players or devy picks). the more chances, the better off someone will hit. I agree with EBF that only the difference makers really matter. If you are a contender, your future 1st will be in the 9-12 range and it is tough to get a difference maker there... more so if there are devy's draining the pool.

some owners always trade their future picks for whatever reason... obviously they think they are getting the better end of the deal, but why? uncertainty with rookies? seems likely. Timing the fluctuation of the rookie pick market? only if they are good at it and over time, astute owners pick up on this to exploit. maybe they are thinking short term and know that a rookie is unlikely to be a contributor their first year? i actually fall into to this camp since it would be foolish to think that a rookie will help in Year 1.

i see some owners stockpile picks or devys and am privately glad since i know they will not be competitive in the current year and probably the next unless/until they convert potential into actual. I like picks because they are currency, granted you have 11 or 13 other owners that place their own value on said currency, but that is the beauty of it: it's a fluid market... they are most valuable right up to the point of using it. If you want to exploit the inefficiencies of the market, then either trade current picks for future picks (with the time use premium) or trade them for productive players. But have a back up plan in place in case you don't have any buyers... you always have to be willing to use the pick... this year is great for that because of the depth.

long story short: it depends. YMMV

 

[kutta]

I am one of "those guys" who likes the solid vets over the rookies. Usually. I won the championship last year and led the league in scoring. Of course, having Peyton helped, but he was one of the guys I acquired in a trade using my draft picks. This isn't intended to be a "look at me" because a lot of you guys might hate this roster, but just as an FYI, here's the roster I've built trading a lot of rookie picks. You can see there aren't a lot of super studs, but there are a lot of really good guys that score points. That's what I look for across my entire roster (PPR, QB, RB, 3WR, TE, K, D, Flex).

Kutta Player 2013 YTD Pts Bye Manning, Peyton DEN QB 549.08 4 Osweiler, Brock DEN QB 5.10 4 Tannehill, Ryan MIA QB 342.42 5 Bush, Reggie DET RB 257.20 9 Ivory, Chris NYJ RB 113.50 11 Peterson, Adrian MIN RB(P) 250.70 10 Vereen, Shane NEP RB 133.50 10 Boyce, Josh NEP WR (P) 21.10 10 Colston, Marques NOS WR 194.30 6 Crabtree, Michael SFO WR 52.40 8 Douglas, Harry ATL WR 201.70 9 Maclin, Jeremy PHI WR (P) - 7 Nelson, Jordy GBP WR 256.40 9 Smith, Steve BAL WR 158.50 11 Ertz, Zach PHI TE 102.90 7 Gates, Antonio SDC TE 184.20 10 Rudolph, Kyle MIN TE (P) 76.30 10 Novak, Nick SDC PK 148.00 10 Panthers, Carolina CAR Def 186.00 12 So I have some older guys and some younger ones, but mostly just guys that score well. I find that every year another veteran guy is available for a 2nd round rookie pick (someone like Maclin, Colston, etc.). I will continue to trade those picks away and gather those good, solid guys up.

 

[Doubledown1313]

I decide what I think of the upcoming rookies shortly before the previous season's trade deadline. Take a realistic look at your team and decide if you need something to help you get a championship or if its better to keep picks to build. You can use the same logic with the owner you are trying to trade with as well.

 

[Rhythmdoctor]

I will paraphrase a quote from the movie Tombstone, "That league owner has got a great big hole, right in the middle of him. He can never trade enough to ever fill it.

Trading a mid-late 1st for a player that will contribute is an easy trade and an easy transaction. Yes you can blow it, but I think it's a lot less dangerous than other trades.

I wish you were in my league where Im offering Hilton for the 1.07 or 1.08

 

[JohnnyU]

I will paraphrase a quote from the movie Tombstone, "That league owner has got a great big hole, right in the middle of him. He can never trade enough to ever fill it.

Trading a mid-late 1st for a player that will contribute is an easy trade and an easy transaction. Yes you can blow it, but I think it's a lot less dangerous than other trades.

I wish you were in my league where Im offering Hilton for the 1.07 or 1.08

I don't think I would trade Hilton for that. I guess it depends on my roster.

 

[ConnSKINS26]

I treat 2nds and 3rds as throw-ins to complete big trades, but 1sts I generally prefer to hold unless I'm packaging up for a stud, which I do as often as possible.

 

[Rhythmdoctor]

This is pretty crude, but you could describe a player's value using a basic mathematical formula:

(UPSIDE) x (SECURITY) = (EXPECTED VALUE)

Now let's imagine that you have two contrasting strategies that yield the same expected value based on the odds.

The Gambler - Always ignores risk for the sake of upside. More upside. More risk. (20 ppg) x (0.50) = (10 ppg)

The Nit - Always trades risk for certain production. Less upside. Less risk. (10 ppg) x (1.0) = (10 ppg)

On paper these outcomes look identical, but in practice I think a 50% chance at 20 ppg value is worth more in FF than a 100% chance of 10 ppg. That's because I think difference-makers are worth exponentially more than ordinary players. The same probably applies for overall VBD. So if you're given the choice between a solid, but unspectacular veteran who's guaranteed to produce at a decent level for a couple years and a high upside high quality prospect with more risk but a much higher ceiling, I think the latter is usually the way to go. And the big problem with trading picks is that most smart owners aren't going to give you a ppg difference-maker for a draft pick. So either you trade it for a mediocrity or you keep it and play the lottery.

Just based on what I've observed over the years in my leagues, the nit strategy is really good at getting you a 6-6 to 8-4 record and a first round playoff exit. You will beat the gamblers who either got unlucky or picked the wrong prospects to go all-in on (those guys will miss the playoffs). You'll beat the flat out bad owners who squander value whenever they get it. But you'll lose to the gamblers who went all-in on the right prospects and have amassed a core of 3-5 genuine difference-makers as a result.

As I've increasingly realized and preached over the last year or so, I think dynasty success is all about finding the strategy that will allow you to monopolize the small number of elite players who actually make a real difference on the scoring sheet. Any time you are sacrificing upside for the sake of risk, you might be pushing your team out of the cellar, but maybe not enough to threaten the legitimate contenders. I think it's better to be either really bad or really good than a toothless 6-6 team with no title hopes and no chance at a top 3-4 rookie pick.

That doesn't mean that you shouldn't trade picks for old great players like Fitzgerald, Manning, or Peterson. It's more a general criticism of a "bird in the hand" type strategy where people convert assets that have a probability of developing into elite players into assets with a high floor, but a low ceiling. Sometimes people who crash and burn in the league are so eager to reach respectability that they trade top 3-4 picks for average players who aren't going to do anything but elevate their team to mid table irrelevance. In a long-running dynasty league it's almost inevitable that a couple teams will accumulate a freaky roster, so taking a path that doesn't give you a chance to reach that level is a pure dog of a strategy IMO.

Are you a technical writer or do you write textbooks for a living? My thoughts, ideas and strategies about FF mimic yours almost exactly but you explain your ideas with words so well. Anyways, well said. I couldnt have said it that well in my mind.

My apostrophe button does not work on this forum using firefox. So strange.

 

[EBF]

This is pretty crude, but you could describe a player's value using a basic mathematical formula:

(UPSIDE) x (SECURITY) = (EXPECTED VALUE)

Now let's imagine that you have two contrasting strategies that yield the same expected value based on the odds.

The Gambler - Always ignores risk for the sake of upside. More upside. More risk. (20 ppg) x (0.50) = (10 ppg)

The Nit - Always trades risk for certain production. Less upside. Less risk. (10 ppg) x (1.0) = (10 ppg)

On paper these outcomes look identical, but in practice I think a 50% chance at 20 ppg value is worth more in FF than a 100% chance of 10 ppg. That's because I think difference-makers are worth exponentially more than ordinary players. The same probably applies for overall VBD. So if you're given the choice between a solid, but unspectacular veteran who's guaranteed to produce at a decent level for a couple years and a high upside high quality prospect with more risk but a much higher ceiling, I think the latter is usually the way to go. And the big problem with trading picks is that most smart owners aren't going to give you a ppg difference-maker for a draft pick. So either you trade it for a mediocrity or you keep it and play the lottery.

Just based on what I've observed over the years in my leagues, the nit strategy is really good at getting you a 6-6 to 8-4 record and a first round playoff exit. You will beat the gamblers who either got unlucky or picked the wrong prospects to go all-in on (those guys will miss the playoffs). You'll beat the flat out bad owners who squander value whenever they get it. But you'll lose to the gamblers who went all-in on the right prospects and have amassed a core of 3-5 genuine difference-makers as a result.

As I've increasingly realized and preached over the last year or so, I think dynasty success is all about finding the strategy that will allow you to monopolize the small number of elite players who actually make a real difference on the scoring sheet. Any time you are sacrificing upside for the sake of risk, you might be pushing your team out of the cellar, but maybe not enough to threaten the legitimate contenders. I think it's better to be either really bad or really good than a toothless 6-6 team with no title hopes and no chance at a top 3-4 rookie pick.

That doesn't mean that you shouldn't trade picks for old great players like Fitzgerald, Manning, or Peterson. It's more a general criticism of a "bird in the hand" type strategy where people convert assets that have a probability of developing into elite players into assets with a high floor, but a low ceiling. Sometimes people who crash and burn in the league are so eager to reach respectability that they trade top 3-4 picks for average players who aren't going to do anything but elevate their team to mid table irrelevance. In a long-running dynasty league it's almost inevitable that a couple teams will accumulate a freaky roster, so taking a path that doesn't give you a chance to reach that level is a pure dog of a strategy IMO.

Are you a technical writer or do you write textbooks for a living? My thoughts, ideas and strategies about FF mimic yours almost exactly but you explain your ideas with words so well. Anyways, well said. I couldnt have said it that well in my mind.

Not exactly, but I do write a lot.

 

[AngryPatriot]

I've done a bit of both, but the key is to try to smooth the transition, not all out stupidity! imo, this has soured dynasty leagues for me, I've almost quit 2 of my 3 leagues because of this: an owner has a fire sale and trades away top guys for picks in order to rebuild. Not only do they tend to totally suck for way too long, but all of a sudden the league dynamic has totally changed. SOme teams got top talent (usually top teams), like ADP, for a couple picks and change and there's no arguing that the trade was total BS because... "I'm rebuilding"..."getting the next stud"... "ADP is over the hill". Yes, the owner said this after his MVP season. Whatever, kinda ruined the whole thing. Makes it a joke, and sour grapes for me for not offering a laughable trade, that ends up getting accepted, lol. Picks are tricky for sure.

 

[PatsWillWin]

I've seen it work, and I've seen it fail. It all depends on what you get for them.

Pretty much this.

Depends on your league and what they will pay you, regardless of what you're trading.

No dynasty owner should "always" or "never" do anything.