Dynasty: trading future rookie picks (1 Viewer)

[SSOG]

I'd also like to throw out a random thought in general.Trading large numbers of rookie picks - especially 1st rounders for studs or "semi-studs" drastically increases variance.What I mean is, typically in dynasty leagues, year to year draft pick slot is often based on how teams did the previous year. If draft picks were never traded, theoretically, the worst team would get the best player avaialble and so on. When you trade studs for picks, you are introducing variance - the picks may yield players worth far more...or far less - than the player you traded the picks for. That said, if you fancy yourself a good FF dynasty player, should you prefer more or less variance?I am not sure of the answer just throwing out the question.Certainly, if you are "taking over a bad team" - you want the variance as high as possible...it's the only way to "make up ground" on the good teams quickly. However, if you are a good team, wouldn't it be in your best interest to "maintain the status quo"? Or keep things as non-volatile as possible?Again, just tossing out the idea.

Good points and interesting to think about. As to increasing or decreasing variance, I am not sure that going the mass rookie draft pick route necessarily increases variance (well, maybe upside, but not necessarily downside). It depends a lot on your plan for the picks.Sure, if you are going to draft the actual rookies, then yes, I suppose variance increases (although I am not certain that a rookie necessarily carries more risk than a vet). Actually drafting the rookies gives the highest upside but with it arguably the highest downside. However, if you trade for and carry the mass draft picks for a year and then end up trading them just prior to your draft for a stud vet (not necessarily the best thing, but probably the safest), then I would argue that you have REDUCED your downside and risk relative to holding a vet during the same period and, based on the market price for top vets relative to future rookie picks, have increased your upside (a possible win win). Carrying a real player for a year involves quite a bit of risk due to injury, poor performance, decline or just misevaluation (see Chris Johnson as the poster boy). Carrying future draft picks, on the other hand, carries zero risk due to any of these things (other than perhaps misevaluation on whether the picks would be high or low, but having mass picks reduces that risk anyway). As to whether a good/great team philosophically should stay put or keep taking risks to improve, I usually find that team is either looking to improve (which usually requires taking on some risk) or it is in decline (gradual as it might be). This is built into the draft pick rules where the lesser teams get the better rookie draft picks while the better teams get the lesser rookie picks and decline. Eventually, looking to maintain the status quo in dynasty leagues will lead to the evening of the playing field. It is by delving back into the rookie draft (by trading for multiple draft picks) that a good/great team can continue to improve and maintain its lead over the other teams.

This is right on the money. Rookie firsts are, in my opinion, the single best currency in all of fantasy football. They are universal and they are liquid. They do not take up a roster space, so you can have unlimited amounts. Most importantly, every team in the league can use them. Cam Newton is a hugely valuable dynasty asset, but he's not a universal currency. If you're looking to trade him, you can rule out certain teams immediately as trading partners. The guy with Rogers will not be interested in trading for Newton. If there's someone on his squad you want, Newton won't be able to get him for you. The Stafford owner might be interested, but he won't be willing to pay full market value. Maybe the Brees or Brady owners aren't really looking to pay that much for a backup. Maybe the Griffin and Luck owners are good with what they've got. Realistically, there might only be 4-5 teams in your league interested in Newton and willing to pay market value for him. Also, the market for vets restricts itself as the season progresses. As teams get eliminated from the playoffs, they lose interest in someone like Brady. As teams lock up a playoff spot, they're less willing to spend a productive player to acquire someone like Blackmon. The already small market gets even smaller. By the time the season is over, whoever you were shopping is now a year older and a year less valuable. In addition to being the only truly universal currency in dynasty leagues, rookie firsts are also the most stable. Perceptions of a draft class can alter their value, as can additional information on where they'll be slotted, but even in a weak draft the universal rule is that rookie firsts will become more and more valuable every single week until they are finally executed. If you can't find a buyer for Calvin today, you can hold him for 6 weeks, but there's no guarantee he'll hold the same value. Maybe he gets hurt. Maybe Stafford gets hurt. Maybe he underperforms, or gets arrested. With those rookie firsts, though, if there's no offer you like today, you just hold them absolutely secure in the knowledge that they WILL be more valuable 6 weeks from now. They're most valuable when they're actually on the clock, because any team that desperately wants a player that's still on the board has no choice but to deal with you. So, they're universally coveted, protected from major shocks in value, guaranteed to grow more valuable over time, and can be traded for a vet at any point. The fact that you can actually draft rookies with them is almost of secondary importance (although, as I mentioned, that whole drafting rookies thing is pretty darn valuable, too). Also, thanks to the magic of hyperbolic discounting, they can often be had for far less than they're truly worth. People prefer 10 points today over 20 points tomorrow. In an unstable dynasty league, that can be rational behavior, since who knows if the league will even exist tomorrow. In a stable league, though, that's a cognitive bias that can be exploited.

 

[SSOG]

12 firsts for a Jerry Rice or Emmitt Smith, 4-5 for a typical top fantasy player, and 2 for RB10 or WR10 - those values seem about right. Using career VBD data from PFR, and guessing who would be a fantasy first rounder based on position and draft slot, the data suggest that first round (top 12) fantasy picks are worth about 150 VBD on average. A top 3 pick is worth more like 275 VBD, and a pick outside the top 3 more like 110 VBD, so if you know where in the draft the pick will be that can change things a lot.

Jerry Rice had 1624 career VBD and Emmitt Smith had 1316 VBD, so a complete first round (1800 VBD) is probably a bit below Rice and ahead of Smith once you account for the value of a roster spot. That's assuming that you were getting their full career, and you knew in advance what they'd do.

What can you expect in advance for a player who is considered to be one of the top few dynasty players? If you judge players solely by their fantasy track record (looking at past players who had put up similar numbers by their age to see what they did over the rest of their career), then the best player out there is the youngest proven RB. Right now that's LeSean McCoy. He just had back-to-back 50+ VBD seasons seasons at ages 22 & 23 - RBs in my data set who did that averaged 579 VBD over the rest of their career (although there were only 6 of them). Alternatively, he just had a 100+ VBD season at age 23, and the 7 RBs in my data set who did that averaged 694 VBD over the rest of their career. So that's about 4 first round picks or a bit more (especially once you account for the value of a roster spot). This method of historical comparison doesn't work so well for someone like Calvin Johnson, since there are too few comparable players (unless you group him in with e.g. every WR who had 80+ VBD at age 26, but that would understate his value).

It's also hard to identify low-end RB1s, because the data I have are so age-dependent and don't deal well with injuries (there are currently only 6 RBs coming off a 50+ VBD season, and that's the cutoff that I used for inclusion in my data set). But there are a group of players in my data set who fit the "low-end top 10 WR" category pretty well: mid-career WRs (age 27-30) who are coming off back-to-back 40+ VBD seasons. They average a little over 200 VBD remaining, which makes them worth between 1 and 2 random first-round picks. PFR numbers tend to undervalue WRs relative to RBs (they use RB 24 and WR30 as the baseline, and no PPR), so perhaps it should be closer to 2.

By the way, this post needs more love. Post of the thread so far, IMO, and exactly what I was hoping to get out of this discussion. Thanks a ton for doing so much legwork on this.

 

[DoubleG]

I'd also like to throw out a random thought in general.Trading large numbers of rookie picks - especially 1st rounders for studs or "semi-studs" drastically increases variance.What I mean is, typically in dynasty leagues, year to year draft pick slot is often based on how teams did the previous year. If draft picks were never traded, theoretically, the worst team would get the best player avaialble and so on. When you trade studs for picks, you are introducing variance - the picks may yield players worth far more...or far less - than the player you traded the picks for. That said, if you fancy yourself a good FF dynasty player, should you prefer more or less variance?I am not sure of the answer just throwing out the question.Certainly, if you are "taking over a bad team" - you want the variance as high as possible...it's the only way to "make up ground" on the good teams quickly. However, if you are a good team, wouldn't it be in your best interest to "maintain the status quo"? Or keep things as non-volatile as possible?Again, just tossing out the idea.

Good points and interesting to think about. As to increasing or decreasing variance, I am not sure that going the mass rookie draft pick route necessarily increases variance (well, maybe upside, but not necessarily downside). It depends a lot on your plan for the picks.Sure, if you are going to draft the actual rookies, then yes, I suppose variance increases (although I am not certain that a rookie necessarily carries more risk than a vet). Actually drafting the rookies gives the highest upside but with it arguably the highest downside. However, if you trade for and carry the mass draft picks for a year and then end up trading them just prior to your draft for a stud vet (not necessarily the best thing, but probably the safest), then I would argue that you have REDUCED your downside and risk relative to holding a vet during the same period and, based on the market price for top vets relative to future rookie picks, have increased your upside (a possible win win). Carrying a real player for a year involves quite a bit of risk due to injury, poor performance, decline or just misevaluation (see Chris Johnson as the poster boy). Carrying future draft picks, on the other hand, carries zero risk due to any of these things (other than perhaps misevaluation on whether the picks would be high or low, but having mass picks reduces that risk anyway). As to whether a good/great team philosophically should stay put or keep taking risks to improve, I usually find that team is either looking to improve (which usually requires taking on some risk) or it is in decline (gradual as it might be). This is built into the draft pick rules where the lesser teams get the better rookie draft picks while the better teams get the lesser rookie picks and decline. Eventually, looking to maintain the status quo in dynasty leagues will lead to the evening of the playing field. It is by delving back into the rookie draft (by trading for multiple draft picks) that a good/great team can continue to improve and maintain its lead over the other teams.

This is right on the money. Rookie firsts are, in my opinion, the single best currency in all of fantasy football. They are universal and they are liquid. They do not take up a roster space, so you can have unlimited amounts. Most importantly, every team in the league can use them. Cam Newton is a hugely valuable dynasty asset, but he's not a universal currency. If you're looking to trade him, you can rule out certain teams immediately as trading partners. The guy with Rogers will not be interested in trading for Newton. If there's someone on his squad you want, Newton won't be able to get him for you. The Stafford owner might be interested, but he won't be willing to pay full market value. Maybe the Brees or Brady owners aren't really looking to pay that much for a backup. Maybe the Griffin and Luck owners are good with what they've got. Realistically, there might only be 4-5 teams in your league interested in Newton and willing to pay market value for him. Also, the market for vets restricts itself as the season progresses. As teams get eliminated from the playoffs, they lose interest in someone like Brady. As teams lock up a playoff spot, they're less willing to spend a productive player to acquire someone like Blackmon. The already small market gets even smaller. By the time the season is over, whoever you were shopping is now a year older and a year less valuable. In addition to being the only truly universal currency in dynasty leagues, rookie firsts are also the most stable. Perceptions of a draft class can alter their value, as can additional information on where they'll be slotted, but even in a weak draft the universal rule is that rookie firsts will become more and more valuable every single week until they are finally executed. If you can't find a buyer for Calvin today, you can hold him for 6 weeks, but there's no guarantee he'll hold the same value. Maybe he gets hurt. Maybe Stafford gets hurt. Maybe he underperforms, or gets arrested. With those rookie firsts, though, if there's no offer you like today, you just hold them absolutely secure in the knowledge that they WILL be more valuable 6 weeks from now. They're most valuable when they're actually on the clock, because any team that desperately wants a player that's still on the board has no choice but to deal with you. So, they're universally coveted, protected from major shocks in value, guaranteed to grow more valuable over time, and can be traded for a vet at any point. The fact that you can actually draft rookies with them is almost of secondary importance (although, as I mentioned, that whole drafting rookies thing is pretty darn valuable, too). Also, thanks to the magic of hyperbolic discounting, they can often be had for far less than they're truly worth. People prefer 10 points today over 20 points tomorrow. In an unstable dynasty league, that can be rational behavior, since who knows if the league will even exist tomorrow. In a stable league, though, that's a cognitive bias that can be exploited.

That final paragraph is great stuff.

 

[theprince]

I'd also like to throw out a random thought in general.Trading large numbers of rookie picks - especially 1st rounders for studs or "semi-studs" drastically increases variance.What I mean is, typically in dynasty leagues, year to year draft pick slot is often based on how teams did the previous year. If draft picks were never traded, theoretically, the worst team would get the best player avaialble and so on. When you trade studs for picks, you are introducing variance - the picks may yield players worth far more...or far less - than the player you traded the picks for. That said, if you fancy yourself a good FF dynasty player, should you prefer more or less variance?I am not sure of the answer just throwing out the question.Certainly, if you are "taking over a bad team" - you want the variance as high as possible...it's the only way to "make up ground" on the good teams quickly. However, if you are a good team, wouldn't it be in your best interest to "maintain the status quo"? Or keep things as non-volatile as possible?Again, just tossing out the idea.

Good points and interesting to think about. As to increasing or decreasing variance, I am not sure that going the mass rookie draft pick route necessarily increases variance (well, maybe upside, but not necessarily downside). It depends a lot on your plan for the picks.Sure, if you are going to draft the actual rookies, then yes, I suppose variance increases (although I am not certain that a rookie necessarily carries more risk than a vet). Actually drafting the rookies gives the highest upside but with it arguably the highest downside. However, if you trade for and carry the mass draft picks for a year and then end up trading them just prior to your draft for a stud vet (not necessarily the best thing, but probably the safest), then I would argue that you have REDUCED your downside and risk relative to holding a vet during the same period and, based on the market price for top vets relative to future rookie picks, have increased your upside (a possible win win). Carrying a real player for a year involves quite a bit of risk due to injury, poor performance, decline or just misevaluation (see Chris Johnson as the poster boy). Carrying future draft picks, on the other hand, carries zero risk due to any of these things (other than perhaps misevaluation on whether the picks would be high or low, but having mass picks reduces that risk anyway). As to whether a good/great team philosophically should stay put or keep taking risks to improve, I usually find that team is either looking to improve (which usually requires taking on some risk) or it is in decline (gradual as it might be). This is built into the draft pick rules where the lesser teams get the better rookie draft picks while the better teams get the lesser rookie picks and decline. Eventually, looking to maintain the status quo in dynasty leagues will lead to the evening of the playing field. It is by delving back into the rookie draft (by trading for multiple draft picks) that a good/great team can continue to improve and maintain its lead over the other teams.

This is right on the money. Rookie firsts are, in my opinion, the single best currency in all of fantasy football. They are universal and they are liquid. They do not take up a roster space, so you can have unlimited amounts. Most importantly, every team in the league can use them. Cam Newton is a hugely valuable dynasty asset, but he's not a universal currency. If you're looking to trade him, you can rule out certain teams immediately as trading partners. The guy with Rogers will not be interested in trading for Newton. If there's someone on his squad you want, Newton won't be able to get him for you. The Stafford owner might be interested, but he won't be willing to pay full market value. Maybe the Brees or Brady owners aren't really looking to pay that much for a backup. Maybe the Griffin and Luck owners are good with what they've got. Realistically, there might only be 4-5 teams in your league interested in Newton and willing to pay market value for him. Also, the market for vets restricts itself as the season progresses. As teams get eliminated from the playoffs, they lose interest in someone like Brady. As teams lock up a playoff spot, they're less willing to spend a productive player to acquire someone like Blackmon. The already small market gets even smaller. By the time the season is over, whoever you were shopping is now a year older and a year less valuable. In addition to being the only truly universal currency in dynasty leagues, rookie firsts are also the most stable. Perceptions of a draft class can alter their value, as can additional information on where they'll be slotted, but even in a weak draft the universal rule is that rookie firsts will become more and more valuable every single week until they are finally executed. If you can't find a buyer for Calvin today, you can hold him for 6 weeks, but there's no guarantee he'll hold the same value. Maybe he gets hurt. Maybe Stafford gets hurt. Maybe he underperforms, or gets arrested. With those rookie firsts, though, if there's no offer you like today, you just hold them absolutely secure in the knowledge that they WILL be more valuable 6 weeks from now. They're most valuable when they're actually on the clock, because any team that desperately wants a player that's still on the board has no choice but to deal with you. So, they're universally coveted, protected from major shocks in value, guaranteed to grow more valuable over time, and can be traded for a vet at any point. The fact that you can actually draft rookies with them is almost of secondary importance (although, as I mentioned, that whole drafting rookies thing is pretty darn valuable, too). Also, thanks to the magic of hyperbolic discounting, they can often be had for far less than they're truly worth. People prefer 10 points today over 20 points tomorrow. In an unstable dynasty league, that can be rational behavior, since who knows if the league will even exist tomorrow. In a stable league, though, that's a cognitive bias that can be exploited.

Call this hyperbole if you want, but that is one of the best posts I have ever read about FF.

 

[Skeletore Eh]

I'd also like to throw out a random thought in general.Trading large numbers of rookie picks - especially 1st rounders for studs or "semi-studs" drastically increases variance.What I mean is, typically in dynasty leagues, year to year draft pick slot is often based on how teams did the previous year. If draft picks were never traded, theoretically, the worst team would get the best player avaialble and so on. When you trade studs for picks, you are introducing variance - the picks may yield players worth far more...or far less - than the player you traded the picks for. That said, if you fancy yourself a good FF dynasty player, should you prefer more or less variance?I am not sure of the answer just throwing out the question.Certainly, if you are "taking over a bad team" - you want the variance as high as possible...it's the only way to "make up ground" on the good teams quickly. However, if you are a good team, wouldn't it be in your best interest to "maintain the status quo"? Or keep things as non-volatile as possible?Again, just tossing out the idea.

Good points and interesting to think about. As to increasing or decreasing variance, I am not sure that going the mass rookie draft pick route necessarily increases variance (well, maybe upside, but not necessarily downside). It depends a lot on your plan for the picks.Sure, if you are going to draft the actual rookies, then yes, I suppose variance increases (although I am not certain that a rookie necessarily carries more risk than a vet). Actually drafting the rookies gives the highest upside but with it arguably the highest downside. However, if you trade for and carry the mass draft picks for a year and then end up trading them just prior to your draft for a stud vet (not necessarily the best thing, but probably the safest), then I would argue that you have REDUCED your downside and risk relative to holding a vet during the same period and, based on the market price for top vets relative to future rookie picks, have increased your upside (a possible win win). Carrying a real player for a year involves quite a bit of risk due to injury, poor performance, decline or just misevaluation (see Chris Johnson as the poster boy). Carrying future draft picks, on the other hand, carries zero risk due to any of these things (other than perhaps misevaluation on whether the picks would be high or low, but having mass picks reduces that risk anyway). As to whether a good/great team philosophically should stay put or keep taking risks to improve, I usually find that team is either looking to improve (which usually requires taking on some risk) or it is in decline (gradual as it might be). This is built into the draft pick rules where the lesser teams get the better rookie draft picks while the better teams get the lesser rookie picks and decline. Eventually, looking to maintain the status quo in dynasty leagues will lead to the evening of the playing field. It is by delving back into the rookie draft (by trading for multiple draft picks) that a good/great team can continue to improve and maintain its lead over the other teams.

This is right on the money. Rookie firsts are, in my opinion, the single best currency in all of fantasy football. They are universal and they are liquid. They do not take up a roster space, so you can have unlimited amounts. Most importantly, every team in the league can use them. Cam Newton is a hugely valuable dynasty asset, but he's not a universal currency. If you're looking to trade him, you can rule out certain teams immediately as trading partners. The guy with Rogers will not be interested in trading for Newton. If there's someone on his squad you want, Newton won't be able to get him for you. The Stafford owner might be interested, but he won't be willing to pay full market value. Maybe the Brees or Brady owners aren't really looking to pay that much for a backup. Maybe the Griffin and Luck owners are good with what they've got. Realistically, there might only be 4-5 teams in your league interested in Newton and willing to pay market value for him. Also, the market for vets restricts itself as the season progresses. As teams get eliminated from the playoffs, they lose interest in someone like Brady. As teams lock up a playoff spot, they're less willing to spend a productive player to acquire someone like Blackmon. The already small market gets even smaller. By the time the season is over, whoever you were shopping is now a year older and a year less valuable. In addition to being the only truly universal currency in dynasty leagues, rookie firsts are also the most stable. Perceptions of a draft class can alter their value, as can additional information on where they'll be slotted, but even in a weak draft the universal rule is that rookie firsts will become more and more valuable every single week until they are finally executed. If you can't find a buyer for Calvin today, you can hold him for 6 weeks, but there's no guarantee he'll hold the same value. Maybe he gets hurt. Maybe Stafford gets hurt. Maybe he underperforms, or gets arrested. With those rookie firsts, though, if there's no offer you like today, you just hold them absolutely secure in the knowledge that they WILL be more valuable 6 weeks from now. They're most valuable when they're actually on the clock, because any team that desperately wants a player that's still on the board has no choice but to deal with you. So, they're universally coveted, protected from major shocks in value, guaranteed to grow more valuable over time, and can be traded for a vet at any point. The fact that you can actually draft rookies with them is almost of secondary importance (although, as I mentioned, that whole drafting rookies thing is pretty darn valuable, too). Also, thanks to the magic of hyperbolic discounting, they can often be had for far less than they're truly worth. People prefer 10 points today over 20 points tomorrow. In an unstable dynasty league, that can be rational behavior, since who knows if the league will even exist tomorrow. In a stable league, though, that's a cognitive bias that can be exploited.

Call this hyperbole if you want, but that is one of the best posts I have ever read about FF.

Agreed. Great points and well said

 

[I was in the pool]

Great discussion going on in here. A couple things I will add:

I love the move of strong teams acquiring future 1sts for their middling veterans or bench-type players (that are upgrades for other teams because of their depth of talent) in combination with 2nd round or later rookie picks. The chance at hitting on top picks is worth it to keep accumulating top prospects.

Giving multiple 1sts for established players is a fine line. Few fantasy players sustain their top production over a number of seasons. Buying high on a veteran for multiple 1st rounders can crash around a team within 12 months because, as stated above, those picks will gain value no matter what as the draft approaches and at least until those players have a bunch of negative off-season news.

The hit rate on high first rounds (mentioned above) is quite good, but late 1sts are essentially equal to 2nd round picks. I love trading down from the late 1st into the 2nd round or for a younger player and future 1st, giving yet another chance to get a higher quality prospect.

While difficult in some leagues, I like consolidating the back-end of your roster so that an owner can churn through WW guys and flavors of week (even if you don't like them long-term or even into the following season). Those players (like Alfred Morris for example) can be used to get a future 1st when packaged with 2nds, 3rds when other owners are in need of a boost and overvaluing the past week or two as the new reality.

 

[FallenHero32]

I think it also depends on league here with value for 1st round picks. In the Dynasty I am in, 1st rounders are pure gold regardless of where they are at. Everyone views them as almost untouchable and drool at the thought of getting more. I use this to my advantage and get quality producers in exchange for them. It's a balance, you cant overvalue them to the point of losing out on a good trade. But you can't give them away either.

 

[SSOG]

Great discussion going on in here. A couple things I will add:I love the move of strong teams acquiring future 1sts for their middling veterans or bench-type players (that are upgrades for other teams because of their depth of talent) in combination with 2nd round or later rookie picks. The chance at hitting on top picks is worth it to keep accumulating top prospects.Giving multiple 1sts for established players is a fine line. Few fantasy players sustain their top production over a number of seasons. Buying high on a veteran for multiple 1st rounders can crash around a team within 12 months because, as stated above, those picks will gain value no matter what as the draft approaches and at least until those players have a bunch of negative off-season news.The hit rate on high first rounds (mentioned above) is quite good, but late 1sts are essentially equal to 2nd round picks. I love trading down from the late 1st into the 2nd round or for a younger player and future 1st, giving yet another chance to get a higher quality prospect.While difficult in some leagues, I like consolidating the back-end of your roster so that an owner can churn through WW guys and flavors of week (even if you don't like them long-term or even into the following season). Those players (like Alfred Morris for example) can be used to get a future 1st when packaged with 2nds, 3rds when other owners are in need of a boost and overvaluing the past week or two as the new reality.

My initial reaction to the idea that seconds are almost as valuable as late firsts is skepticism, but I love when people challenge my preconceptions, so I decided to look it up. Here are the last 5 years worth of picks in my league (2007-2011, too early to judge 2012). Obviously my league isn't necessarily representative, but it's a good place to start. Picks 1-3: Peterson, Calvin, Lynch, McFadden, Forte, Stewart, Moreno, Wells, McCoy, Dez, Spiller, Mathews, Julio, Ingram, AJ GreenPicks 4-6: Brandon Jackson, Jamarcus, Anthony Gonzalez, Mendenhall, Kevin Smith, Ray Rice, Donald Brown, Harvin, Sanchize, Best, Mike Williams, Sam Bradford, Daniel Thomas, Roy Helu, Greg LittlePicks 7-9: Jacoby Jones, Bowe, Michael Bush, Matt Ryan, Chris Johnson, Steve Slaton, Nicks, Crabtree, Maclin, McCluster, Demaryius, Hardesty, Leonard Hankerson, Randall Cobb, Jonathan BaldwinPicks 10-12: Meachem, Brady Quinn, Ted Ginn, Felix Jones, Desean Jackson, James Hardy, Shonn Greene, Stafford, Glen Coffee, Gresham, Hernandez, Golden Tate, Cam Newton, Andy Dalton, Ryan WilliamsPicks 13-15: Steve Smith, Dwayne Jarrett, Sidney Rice, Devin Tomas, Malcom Kelly, Eddie Royal, James Davis, Kenny Britt, Jared Cook, Lafell, Tebow, Benn, Stevan Ridley, Delone Carter, Denarius MoorePicks 16-18: Greg Olsen, Craig Davis, Lorenzo Booker, Jacob Hester, Josh Morgan, Dustin Keller, Darrius Heyward-Bey, Brandon Pettigrew, Tom Brandstater, Anthony Dixon, Kareem Huggins, Jimmy Clausen, Mikel Leshore, Bilal Powell, Kendall Hunter, Antonio Brown, Vereen, Kevin BossPicks 19-21: Brian Leonard, John Beck, Zach Miller, Joe Flacco, Donnie Avery, JT O'Sullivan, Mike Thomas, Bernard Scott, Massaquoi, Colt McCoy, Mardy Gilyard, Emmanual Sanders, Kyle Rudolph, Lance Kendrick's, Demarco MurrayPicks 22-24: Chris Henry, James Jones, Drew Stanton, Tim Hightower, Kevin Boss, Limas Sweed, Manningham, Robiskie, Mike Goodson, Isaac Redman, Victor Cruz, Eric Decker, Jacquizz, Joe McKnight, Blaine GabbertJust a note: Kevin Boss is not a typo, he got drafted twice. Anyway, there's 15 names in each group. We can divide everyone into one of four (very unscientific) buckets: Studs, Starters, Depth, Busts (with each of the first three buckets containing all players in previous buckets, too- so studs also count towards starters and depth). Then we can add the Depth + Starters + 2 x Studs to come up with a "Value Score" for that pick group. It's ludicrously anecdotal and unscientific, but it'll give a rough enough estimate to work with. If we do that, here's the breakdown-1-3: 9 Studs, 12 Starters, 15 Depth, 0 Busts. Score = 454-6: 3 Studs, 3 Starters, 9 Depth, 6 Busts. Score = 187-9: 3 Studs, 7 Starters, 12 Depth, 3 Busts. Score = 2510-12: 3 Studs, 6 Starters, 11 Depth, 4 Busts. Score = 2313-15: 1 Stud, 5 Starters, 8 Depth, 7 Busts. Score = 1516-18: 0 Studs, 5 Starters, 10 Depth, 5 Busts. Score = 1519-21: 1 Stud, 3 Starters, 7 Depth, 8 Busts. Score = 1222-24: 1 Stud, 5 Starters, 8 Depth, 7 Busts. Score = 15People can feel free to quibble with the designations, but it looks to me like there's a clear rise in bust% and a dramatic fall in stud% once you get into the second round. The last three picks of the first round produced as many studs (Stafford, Hernandez, Newton) as the entire second round (Ridley, Demarco, Cruz). It definitely looks like there's a drop from the 1st to the 2nd. Not the hugest drop, but a definite drop. Also, an exercise like this really reinforces how valuable top3 picks really are.

I think it also depends on league here with value for 1st round picks. In the Dynasty I am in, 1st rounders are pure gold regardless of where they are at. Everyone views them as almost untouchable and drool at the thought of getting more. I use this to my advantage and get quality producers in exchange for them. It's a balance, you cant overvalue them to the point of losing out on a good trade. But you can't give them away either.

A distinction needs to be drawn between how your league traditionally values picks, and how valuable picks actually are. If you're in a league that traditionally charges much more for picks than they are objectively worth, then that's a bias that you can and should exploit.

 

[KellysHeroes]

In dynasty u gotta know when to hold them and when to fold them, if your team is bad then trading Calvin or Foster for a load of picks makes sense. If you team is avg or above avg then no amount of picks is worth a Calvin.

However, you should always look to move a player for picks at some point in the later part of thier careers. I usually look to unload RB before thier 27 and WRs before 29.

 

[ZWK]

Great discussion going on in here. A couple things I will add:I love the move of strong teams acquiring future 1sts for their middling veterans or bench-type players (that are upgrades for other teams because of their depth of talent) in combination with 2nd round or later rookie picks. The chance at hitting on top picks is worth it to keep accumulating top prospects.Giving multiple 1sts for established players is a fine line. Few fantasy players sustain their top production over a number of seasons. Buying high on a veteran for multiple 1st rounders can crash around a team within 12 months because, as stated above, those picks will gain value no matter what as the draft approaches and at least until those players have a bunch of negative off-season news.The hit rate on high first rounds (mentioned above) is quite good, but late 1sts are essentially equal to 2nd round picks. I love trading down from the late 1st into the 2nd round or for a younger player and future 1st, giving yet another chance to get a higher quality prospect.While difficult in some leagues, I like consolidating the back-end of your roster so that an owner can churn through WW guys and flavors of week (even if you don't like them long-term or even into the following season). Those players (like Alfred Morris for example) can be used to get a future 1st when packaged with 2nds, 3rds when other owners are in need of a boost and overvaluing the past week or two as the new reality.

My initial reaction to the idea that seconds are almost as valuable as late firsts is skepticism, but I love when people challenge my preconceptions, so I decided to look it up. Here are the last 5 years worth of picks in my league (2007-2011, too early to judge 2012). Obviously my league isn't necessarily representative, but it's a good place to start. Picks 1-3: Peterson, Calvin, Lynch, McFadden, Forte, Stewart, Moreno, Wells, McCoy, Dez, Spiller, Mathews, Julio, Ingram, AJ GreenPicks 4-6: Brandon Jackson, Jamarcus, Anthony Gonzalez, Mendenhall, Kevin Smith, Ray Rice, Donald Brown, Harvin, Sanchize, Best, Mike Williams, Sam Bradford, Daniel Thomas, Roy Helu, Greg LittlePicks 7-9: Jacoby Jones, Bowe, Michael Bush, Matt Ryan, Chris Johnson, Steve Slaton, Nicks, Crabtree, Maclin, McCluster, Demaryius, Hardesty, Leonard Hankerson, Randall Cobb, Jonathan BaldwinPicks 10-12: Meachem, Brady Quinn, Ted Ginn, Felix Jones, Desean Jackson, James Hardy, Shonn Greene, Stafford, Glen Coffee, Gresham, Hernandez, Golden Tate, Cam Newton, Andy Dalton, Ryan WilliamsPicks 13-15: Steve Smith, Dwayne Jarrett, Sidney Rice, Devin Tomas, Malcom Kelly, Eddie Royal, James Davis, Kenny Britt, Jared Cook, Lafell, Tebow, Benn, Stevan Ridley, Delone Carter, Denarius MoorePicks 16-18: Greg Olsen, Craig Davis, Lorenzo Booker, Jacob Hester, Josh Morgan, Dustin Keller, Darrius Heyward-Bey, Brandon Pettigrew, Tom Brandstater, Anthony Dixon, Kareem Huggins, Jimmy Clausen, Mikel Leshore, Bilal Powell, Kendall Hunter, Antonio Brown, Vereen, Kevin BossPicks 19-21: Brian Leonard, John Beck, Zach Miller, Joe Flacco, Donnie Avery, JT O'Sullivan, Mike Thomas, Bernard Scott, Massaquoi, Colt McCoy, Mardy Gilyard, Emmanual Sanders, Kyle Rudolph, Lance Kendrick's, Demarco MurrayPicks 22-24: Chris Henry, James Jones, Drew Stanton, Tim Hightower, Kevin Boss, Limas Sweed, Manningham, Robiskie, Mike Goodson, Isaac Redman, Victor Cruz, Eric Decker, Jacquizz, Joe McKnight, Blaine GabbertJust a note: Kevin Boss is not a typo, he got drafted twice. Anyway, there's 15 names in each group. We can divide everyone into one of four (very unscientific) buckets: Studs, Starters, Depth, Busts (with each of the first three buckets containing all players in previous buckets, too- so studs also count towards starters and depth). Then we can add the Depth + Starters + 2 x Studs to come up with a "Value Score" for that pick group. It's ludicrously anecdotal and unscientific, but it'll give a rough enough estimate to work with. If we do that, here's the breakdown-1-3: 9 Studs, 12 Starters, 15 Depth, 0 Busts. Score = 454-6: 3 Studs, 3 Starters, 9 Depth, 6 Busts. Score = 187-9: 3 Studs, 7 Starters, 12 Depth, 3 Busts. Score = 2510-12: 3 Studs, 6 Starters, 11 Depth, 4 Busts. Score = 2313-15: 1 Stud, 5 Starters, 8 Depth, 7 Busts. Score = 1516-18: 0 Studs, 5 Starters, 10 Depth, 5 Busts. Score = 1519-21: 1 Stud, 3 Starters, 7 Depth, 8 Busts. Score = 1222-24: 1 Stud, 5 Starters, 8 Depth, 7 Busts. Score = 15People can feel free to quibble with the designations, but it looks to me like there's a clear rise in bust% and a dramatic fall in stud% once you get into the second round. The last three picks of the first round produced as many studs (Stafford, Hernandez, Newton) as the entire second round (Ridley, Demarco, Cruz). It definitely looks like there's a drop from the 1st to the 2nd. Not the hugest drop, but a definite drop. Also, an exercise like this really reinforces how valuable top3 picks really are.

The numbers from my data set (1996-2005 drafts), in terms of average career VBD:1-3: 277 VBD4-6: 125 VBD7-9: 146 VBD10-12: 70 VBD13-15: 73 VBD16-18: 55 VBD19-21: 51 VBD22-24: 40 VBDMy guess is that the dropoff would be a lot smoother with more data, instead of having these jumps. It is also probably somewhat steeper than this, since I'm estimating fantasy draft pick based only on position and NFL draft spot (e.g., Randy Moss and Matt Jones both fall in the 7-9 category, as WRs drafted with pick 21). Incorporating more information (as actual fantasy drafters do) would make the rankings more predictive and the dropoff steeper. Some of the numbers are also underestimates because of players who are still active.Another way to look at it is number of players (out of 30) who have 250+ career VBD:1-3: 134-6: 67-9: 410-12: 213-15: 416-18: 219-21: 122-24: 1

 

[SSOG]

In dynasty u gotta know when to hold them and when to fold them, if your team is bad then trading Calvin or Foster for a load of picks makes sense. If you team is avg or above avg then no amount of picks is worth a Calvin. However, you should always look to move a player for picks at some point in the later part of thier careers. I usually look to unload RB before thier 27 and WRs before 29.

The problem with saying "No amount of picks is worth _______" is that it's demonstrably untrue. Anyone who traded Calvin for the picks used to select Green and Julio came out ahead. If someone traded Calvin for three of this year's top four picks, and walked away with Richardson, Martin, and Griffin, I'd say they made a killing. If someone traded Calvin for the entire 2008 first round, they would dominate their league for the better part of a decade. At some point, a package of picks becomes more valuable than Calvin Johnson. Our job is to find out where that point lies. Also, the problem with trying to sell studs once they start aging is that the rest of the market is trying to do the same thing, so there's no inefficiency there to exploit.

Great discussion going on in here. A couple things I will add:I love the move of strong teams acquiring future 1sts for their middling veterans or bench-type players (that are upgrades for other teams because of their depth of talent) in combination with 2nd round or later rookie picks. The chance at hitting on top picks is worth it to keep accumulating top prospects.Giving multiple 1sts for established players is a fine line. Few fantasy players sustain their top production over a number of seasons. Buying high on a veteran for multiple 1st rounders can crash around a team within 12 months because, as stated above, those picks will gain value no matter what as the draft approaches and at least until those players have a bunch of negative off-season news.The hit rate on high first rounds (mentioned above) is quite good, but late 1sts are essentially equal to 2nd round picks. I love trading down from the late 1st into the 2nd round or for a younger player and future 1st, giving yet another chance to get a higher quality prospect.While difficult in some leagues, I like consolidating the back-end of your roster so that an owner can churn through WW guys and flavors of week (even if you don't like them long-term or even into the following season). Those players (like Alfred Morris for example) can be used to get a future 1st when packaged with 2nds, 3rds when other owners are in need of a boost and overvaluing the past week or two as the new reality.

My initial reaction to the idea that seconds are almost as valuable as late firsts is skepticism, but I love when people challenge my preconceptions, so I decided to look it up. Here are the last 5 years worth of picks in my league (2007-2011, too early to judge 2012). Obviously my league isn't necessarily representative, but it's a good place to start. Picks 1-3: Peterson, Calvin, Lynch, McFadden, Forte, Stewart, Moreno, Wells, McCoy, Dez, Spiller, Mathews, Julio, Ingram, AJ GreenPicks 4-6: Brandon Jackson, Jamarcus, Anthony Gonzalez, Mendenhall, Kevin Smith, Ray Rice, Donald Brown, Harvin, Sanchize, Best, Mike Williams, Sam Bradford, Daniel Thomas, Roy Helu, Greg LittlePicks 7-9: Jacoby Jones, Bowe, Michael Bush, Matt Ryan, Chris Johnson, Steve Slaton, Nicks, Crabtree, Maclin, McCluster, Demaryius, Hardesty, Leonard Hankerson, Randall Cobb, Jonathan BaldwinPicks 10-12: Meachem, Brady Quinn, Ted Ginn, Felix Jones, Desean Jackson, James Hardy, Shonn Greene, Stafford, Glen Coffee, Gresham, Hernandez, Golden Tate, Cam Newton, Andy Dalton, Ryan WilliamsPicks 13-15: Steve Smith, Dwayne Jarrett, Sidney Rice, Devin Tomas, Malcom Kelly, Eddie Royal, James Davis, Kenny Britt, Jared Cook, Lafell, Tebow, Benn, Stevan Ridley, Delone Carter, Denarius MoorePicks 16-18: Greg Olsen, Craig Davis, Lorenzo Booker, Jacob Hester, Josh Morgan, Dustin Keller, Darrius Heyward-Bey, Brandon Pettigrew, Tom Brandstater, Anthony Dixon, Kareem Huggins, Jimmy Clausen, Mikel Leshore, Bilal Powell, Kendall Hunter, Antonio Brown, Vereen, Kevin BossPicks 19-21: Brian Leonard, John Beck, Zach Miller, Joe Flacco, Donnie Avery, JT O'Sullivan, Mike Thomas, Bernard Scott, Massaquoi, Colt McCoy, Mardy Gilyard, Emmanual Sanders, Kyle Rudolph, Lance Kendrick's, Demarco MurrayPicks 22-24: Chris Henry, James Jones, Drew Stanton, Tim Hightower, Kevin Boss, Limas Sweed, Manningham, Robiskie, Mike Goodson, Isaac Redman, Victor Cruz, Eric Decker, Jacquizz, Joe McKnight, Blaine GabbertJust a note: Kevin Boss is not a typo, he got drafted twice. Anyway, there's 15 names in each group. We can divide everyone into one of four (very unscientific) buckets: Studs, Starters, Depth, Busts (with each of the first three buckets containing all players in previous buckets, too- so studs also count towards starters and depth). Then we can add the Depth + Starters + 2 x Studs to come up with a "Value Score" for that pick group. It's ludicrously anecdotal and unscientific, but it'll give a rough enough estimate to work with. If we do that, here's the breakdown-1-3: 9 Studs, 12 Starters, 15 Depth, 0 Busts. Score = 454-6: 3 Studs, 3 Starters, 9 Depth, 6 Busts. Score = 187-9: 3 Studs, 7 Starters, 12 Depth, 3 Busts. Score = 2510-12: 3 Studs, 6 Starters, 11 Depth, 4 Busts. Score = 2313-15: 1 Stud, 5 Starters, 8 Depth, 7 Busts. Score = 1516-18: 0 Studs, 5 Starters, 10 Depth, 5 Busts. Score = 1519-21: 1 Stud, 3 Starters, 7 Depth, 8 Busts. Score = 1222-24: 1 Stud, 5 Starters, 8 Depth, 7 Busts. Score = 15People can feel free to quibble with the designations, but it looks to me like there's a clear rise in bust% and a dramatic fall in stud% once you get into the second round. The last three picks of the first round produced as many studs (Stafford, Hernandez, Newton) as the entire second round (Ridley, Demarco, Cruz). It definitely looks like there's a drop from the 1st to the 2nd. Not the hugest drop, but a definite drop. Also, an exercise like this really reinforces how valuable top3 picks really are.

The numbers from my data set (1996-2005 drafts), in terms of average career VBD:1-3: 277 VBD4-6: 125 VBD7-9: 146 VBD10-12: 70 VBD13-15: 73 VBD16-18: 55 VBD19-21: 51 VBD22-24: 40 VBDMy guess is that the dropoff would be a lot smoother with more data, instead of having these jumps. It is also probably somewhat steeper than this, since I'm estimating fantasy draft pick based only on position and NFL draft spot (e.g., Randy Moss and Matt Jones both fall in the 7-9 category, as WRs drafted with pick 21). Incorporating more information (as actual fantasy drafters do) would make the rankings more predictive and the dropoff steeper. Some of the numbers are also underestimates because of players who are still active.Another way to look at it is number of players (out of 30) who have 250+ career VBD:1-3: 134-6: 67-9: 410-12: 213-15: 416-18: 219-21: 122-24: 1

I'm just going to go ahead and name this guy King of the Thread.

 

[bengalbuck]

The big factor that nobody has mentioned is the opportunity cost of carrying multiple young guys, often through their unproductive seasons, vs. one roster spot for a stud starter that you put in there every week. I think people underestimate the opportunity cost in general when it comes to trading 1 guy for multiple guys, but it is even more of an issue when trading for young players.

For example, if you drafted Ronnie Hillman, Rueben Randle, Isaiah Pead, Michael Floyd, etc. with a 1st rounder this year, those guys are just sitting there on your roster as non-contributors. Maybe down the line one or two of these guys end up being studs, but for now they are dead weight on your roster. (Obviously a different scenario if its an early pick and you're getting Richardson, Martin, RG3 or someone like that.)

In general, I lean towards consolidation type trades as it then allows you to mine for gold on the waiver wire and if you have those spots, you always end up finding guys.

2 examples, one negative and one positive:

I have one team where I made a couple non-consolidation trades where I received 2 for my 1. I wanted to make some waiver moves after week 1 but didn't have the roster space as I have Lamar Miller, Lamichael James, Josh Gordon, Keenan Allen (devy), Justin Hunter (devy), etc. as unproductive guys taking up roster slots and didn't want to drop any of them. So I had to watch as guys I liked (Dennis Pitta for example) were picked up by others. I realize now that the 2 for 1 deals hurt me a bit due to tying so many of my bench spots up with these youngsters.

On the other side of the coin, I made some consolidation trades in my 14 team PPR league and as a byproduct was able to add Alfred Morris in early August as a flyer since I had some roster spots to play with and was looking for anything at all at the RB position.

 

[Biabreakable]

In a way part of the reason I started evaluating players using a 3 year projection window is so I would have some way of comparing player value to rookie pick value.

If I have a player who I project to be a top 12 player over the next 3 seasons, that player to me is worth more than 2 1st round picks, because I am considering the bust rate of 1st round picks and the unknown of where those picks will ultimately fall, particularly if the team I am getting the picks from improves their wins following the trade, thus making the pick I got from them less valuable than it was before I traded for it.

Now if one of those picks does end up top 3 (sometimes top 5 is high enough, depends on the year, but usually needs to be top 3) then I think I gained some value from trading for that 1st round pick, because a top 3(5)is much more likely to land a top 12 player than a latter 1st round pick will (of course there are exceptions but generally in competitive leagues I think this is true). So that is part of the interest in trading for 1st round picks, especially multiple picks, as that increases my chances that one of those picks winds up top 3.

So back to the 3 year idea, if I expect the player I am trading away to be in good position to be a top 12 player for the next 3 years that to replace such a player with draft picks I will need more than 2 later 1st rounders to have a decent chance of finding a rookie that would replace that value. So that means the asking price as you suggested will be 3 1st round picks or more to be willing to move such a valuable player. Also the players age is a factor. I might project a older player to perform as a top 12 for the next 3 seasons but I have to recognize that the perceived value of such a player is only going to go down. Because of this you may choose to move an elite player earlier in their career just so you can get maximum value in return before the perceived value of that player declines (which does happen before the real value of the player declines). Generally these older veterans are trade targets if I can buy low rather than the other way around. If you keep the player past the point of maximum perceived value, it often is not enough of a return on investment to sell at that point and you may as well ride them till the wheels fall off.

Now the player that you expect to be 13-24 at their positions for their careers are still useful players but you are not likely to be able to get more than a 1st round pick for them as the other owners know that they have a chance to win the lottery with that pick. Getting a 1st for a player of this caliber is not as likely, but can happen when team needs such a player to fill in. Most scenarios like this I think are when the team trading you the 1st round pick will compete for a title, and so that 1st is a late half 1st and not as valuable as one that could land top 3. So this evens out somewhat but a lot of the time you may just be better off keeping the player as the pick will have a higher bust rate.

Everyone values rookie picks differently. Some people want too much for them. Best thing to do is look for the owners who would rather have vets and make deals with them for picks.

For me when I get good players I tend to keep them rather than trying to find the next best thing. I mean why do that when you already have an elite player? I try to use my 2nd tier players to trade for picks if I can and use multiple picks to try to improve the picks draft position higher.

Timing is always the key to this. Trade the player away after big games if you were not already counting on them starting for you but keep your core players unless someone overpays enough to change your mind. Then when trading picks away they have the highest value leading into the NFL draft when all those rookies are potential superstars. This lasts sometimes a week or so after the NFL draft but the value of picks (somewhat justifiably because they are so liquid, as you mentioned above) always falls off the cliff once the pick is actually made. Just like the value of a new car declines the moment you drive it off the lot. Because of this I like to flip picks for veterans or future picks or trade down unless I am really sold on the player I can draft with the pick in question. One can churn value for their roster just by following these patterns of the yearly cycle and buying/selling when those assets are at their peaks and buying when they are in the valleys.

ETA- Playing in IDP leagues improves the value of late 1st round picks and 2nd round picks quite a bit.

 

[DropKick]

I was curious how other people value future rookie picks in dynasty. How many future firsts would you trade for a top-5 dynasty player? How many future firsts would you trade for a low-end stud (say, RB12 or WR12)? How many 1sts would you trade for a Hall of Famer in his rookie season? If you could get Jerry Rice or Emmitt Smith as a rookie, would you trade an entire first round for them in a weak draft? How about in a strong draft?

In my league, the general going rate for lower-end studs is a pair of rookie firsts. Andre Johnson and Frank Gore both went for two firsts back when they were mid-to-low top 10 players at their respective positions. In my mind, that seems a little low, unless one or more of the picks is top 3. On the other hand, the real high-end studs (Calvin, Julio, Rice, McCoy, Foster, etc) are either untouchable, or their owners want 4+ rookie firsts. In my mind, this seems high, unless none of those picks is top 3. It's like they forget that their stud likely started his career as just another generic rookie first. What is the going rate in other leagues? What's the most in future picks you've ever spent for a player? What would it take for you to trade a Calvin Johnson or Arian Foster?

You never know if a rookie will prove to be fall of famer; or become the caliber of a Rice/Smith. Likewise, how can you trade an "entire" first round? I've heard people on the boards talk about a slew of 1st round picks but that doesn't seem realistic to me. Tough to see the fantasy parallel although we've seen this at the NFL level. The Saints traded an entire draft for Ricky... and they paid too much... as did the Vikings for Hershel Walker. It was Dallas that parleyed those picks into a dynasty.Maybe that should be the lesson - never fall so much in love with a single player that you'd pay that great a price.

Are future firsts worth a true stud in the hand? I guess that depends on the individual team's constitution. If I'm built to win, I won't trade a valuable player for draft picks. On the other hand, I would if I were rebuilding.

In most rookie drafts (non-IDP), the value drops way down after the first round. While multiple firsts (especially a top 3 pick) is appealing a 1st and a 2nd... well, not so much. By the same token, a 1st 2+ years into the future doesn't thrill me either. Too many variables with that much delayed gratification.

I have to field a starting line-up of 9... I hope not to need a fistful of picks; a well blended team of vets/youth should see a little turnover every year.

 

[EBF]

How about dev picks? A lot of the leagues I play in now have a split rookie draft and developmental draft for college players. I've come to like it quite a lot. At this point, I don't think I'd join a new league that didn't have dev spots. It spices things up and adds a lot more variance. Rookie picks lose value in dev leagues because a lot of the top players are rostered a year or two before they're even drafted by the NFL, but the dev draft gives you the chance to land an eventual star player at a discount price.

Rookie drafts are easy because the NFL draft provides a pretty decent blueprint to go by. If all you do is draft according to how high the players went in the NFL draft, you'll do pretty well. This makes it easier to avoid busts, but also more difficult to pick up premium talent at a discount price since there are fewer secrets.

Dev picks are more of a gamble. There are more elite talents that slip through the cracks, but there are more outright duds in the pool. Zeros like Jeff Fuller, Edwin Baker, John Clay, and Jarett Dillard were picked in my league when they were still in college. On the other hand, eventual stars like Andrew Luck, Demaryius Thomas, Doug Martin, and David Wilson were snagged with late picks before they were really on the radar as legitimate first round prospects. I think the fact that the elite talents are harder to differentiate from the frauds in the absence of draft position data adds an element of challenge and rewards owners who are ahead of the curve. It also adds a dynamic element to the rebuilding process. Dev picks are not valued as highly as standard first round rookie picks (in non-dev leagues), which makes them easier to acquire. But they are also a lot more volatile. You can quite easily spend 2-3 dev picks and wind up with nothing of note.

 

[Biabreakable]

@ Dropkick - Most teams will not have multiple 1st round picks to offer you. If they do it is most likely because they are rebuilding and value the picks pretty highly anyways.

The actual trade would more likely be your player for 1st + 2nd + a 2nd tier player = 1st/high 2nd type of deals.

 

[Mainevent]

I was going into rebuild mode in a 12 team dynasty league w/ IDP and Superflex, held some aging players along with Foster.

Here is some of the trades I made, mostly to acquire draft picks.

Foster/Tate for 3 1sts (2012 was 10th pick, 2013, and 2014), 2nd, and a 3rd.

- Traded the 1.10 (2012) for 2.9, 2.10, 4.2, 2013 2nd, and Moeaki.

Wayne for 2012 2nd, and 2013 1st

P Willis for 2014 1st

Stevie Johnson for Ponder/Titus Young

MJD for Leshoure and 2013 1st

and more...

I now have 4 1sts in 2013 and 3 in 2014 to start to piece my team back together.

Other players I moved: McGahee, Boldin, Tulloch, D Johnson, Tillman

I could have kept it all together and been in the top half of the league, but a couple steps below the elite teams.

The challenge of rebuilding the team also played a part in these moves.

 

[Biabreakable]

How about dev picks? A lot of the leagues I play in now have a split rookie draft and developmental draft for college players. I've come to like it quite a lot. At this point, I don't think I'd join a new league that didn't have dev spots. It spices things up and adds a lot more variance. Rookie picks lose value in dev leagues because a lot of the top players are rostered a year or two before they're even drafted by the NFL, but the dev draft gives you the chance to land an eventual star player at a discount price.

Rookie drafts are easy because the NFL draft provides a pretty decent blueprint to go by. If all you do is draft according to how high the players went in the NFL draft, you'll do pretty well. This makes it easier to avoid busts, but also more difficult to pick up premium talent at a discount price since there are fewer secrets.

Dev picks are more of a gamble. There are more elite talents that slip through the cracks, but there are more outright duds in the pool. Zeros like Jeff Fuller, Edwin Baker, John Clay, and Jarett Dillard were picked in my league when they were still in college. On the other hand, eventual stars like Andrew Luck, Demaryius Thomas, Doug Martin, and David Wilson were snagged with late picks before they were really on the radar as legitimate first round prospects. I think the fact that the elite talents are harder to differentiate from the frauds in the absence of draft position data adds an element of challenge and rewards owners who are ahead of the curve. It also adds a dynamic element to the rebuilding process. Dev picks are not valued as highly as standard first round rookie picks (in non-dev leagues), which makes them easier to acquire. But they are also a lot more volatile. You can quite easily spend 2-3 dev picks and wind up with nothing of note.

This is an area where I could not hang with you because I do not follow college football. I agree the NFL evaluation process does a great job of showing FF owners who should be the top picks. Even they make mistakes but not nearly as many as a FF owner would trying to pick the players before combine, comparing college players against marginal talent they get to face at times would be a whole other ball game.

 

[EBF]

This is an area where I could not hang with you because I do not follow college football. I agree the NFL evaluation process does a great job of showing FF owners who should be the top picks. Even they make mistakes but not nearly as many as a FF owner would trying to pick the players before combine, comparing college players against marginal talent they get to face at times would be a whole other ball game.

Yea, and I think that's what takes some of the fun out of redraft leagues and standard dynasty leagues. There's so much information out there that everyone is basically drafting off the same cheatsheets and valuing players according to the same rankings. Of course there is still wiggle room and plenty of opportunity for shrewd owners to gain an advantage, but it's more like chess and less like poker in the sense that the cards are all face up on the table by the time prospects enter the NFL and go through the draft process. When you add college players into the equation, you add more uncertainty and more opportunity for discerning a player's real worth before it becomes common knowledge.

 

[ConnSKINS26]

A nice middle-ground between a normal post-NFL draft rookie draft and a Dev draft like EBF is talking about, is to have your rookie draft before the NFL draft plays out, but after the Combine. You get much of the same information that NFL teams get about players like measurables, pro days, rumors of team visits, etc., but the gap in talent evaluation ability between league mates is much more apparent than in a standard dynasty league rookie draft.

Plus, its fun watching the NFL draft from Thursday-Sunday and not just rooting for your team's picks...you now are watching in anticipation hoping your 1st round RB pick doesn't pull a Jon Dwyer and fall to the 6th into a bad situation. Hoping the WR you had pegged as an NFL 2nd rounder lands in a great situation, hoping that one of your later picks becomes a "late-riser" in the draft process, and that a team falls in love with them the way you have. Fun, challenging, and with the ability to get elite players at more of a discount if you have an eye for talent or a VERY keen researcher's eye. Best of both worlds. Play in any leagues like this, EBF?

 

[EBF]

No, but I like the idea and I agree that it's a decent compromise. The closest I have come is doing startup drafts between the end of the regular season and the start of draft season. I've done that a couple times and it adds a little more unpredictability to the rookie values, which I like. I did a draft like that this past year and guys like Martin, Jenkins, Hill, and Fleener went a lot lower than they would have in April.

 

[KellysHeroes]

In dynasty u gotta know when to hold them and when to fold them, if your team is bad then trading Calvin or Foster for a load of picks makes sense. If you team is avg or above avg then no amount of picks is worth a Calvin. However, you should always look to move a player for picks at some point in the later part of thier careers. I usually look to unload RB before thier 27 and WRs before 29.

The problem with saying "No amount of picks is worth _______" is that it's demonstrably untrue. Anyone who traded Calvin for the picks used to select Green and Julio came out ahead. If someone traded Calvin for three of this year's top four picks, and walked away with Richardson, Martin, and Griffin, I'd say they made a killing. If someone traded Calvin for the entire 2008 first round, they would dominate their league for the better part of a decade. At some point, a package of picks becomes more valuable than Calvin Johnson. Our job is to find out where that point lies.

what if you used your picks to draft Ingram and then one of the WRs, pretty sure you wouldn't feel ahead. Or if your draft Ryan Mathews and Dez Bryant? or Crabtree and Moreno? Pretty sure you would be kicking yourself for moving an uber stud for any of those combos. Yeah, if you have a crystal ball and know that those picks will be future studs then ofcourse its a no brainer to make these deal; but its just to much to risk for me.to do a trade like this mid-season is even worse since you don't know what pick your getting

 

[DoubleG]

In dynasty u gotta know when to hold them and when to fold them, if your team is bad then trading Calvin or Foster for a load of picks makes sense. If you team is avg or above avg then no amount of picks is worth a Calvin.

However, you should always look to move a player for picks at some point in the later part of thier careers. I usually look to unload RB before thier 27 and WRs before 29.

The problem with saying "No amount of picks is worth _______" is that it's demonstrably untrue. Anyone who traded Calvin for the picks used to select Green and Julio came out ahead. If someone traded Calvin for three of this year's top four picks, and walked away with Richardson, Martin, and Griffin, I'd say they made a killing. If someone traded Calvin for the entire 2008 first round, they would dominate their league for the better part of a decade. At some point, a package of picks becomes more valuable than Calvin Johnson. Our job is to find out where that point lies.

what if you used your picks to draft Ingram and then one of the WRs, pretty sure you wouldn't feel ahead. Or if your draft Ryan Mathews and Dez Bryant? or Crabtree and Moreno? Pretty sure you would be kicking yourself for moving an uber stud for any of those combos. Yeah, if you have a crystal ball and know that those picks will be future studs then ofcourse its a no brainer to make these deal; but its just to much to risk for me.to do a trade like this mid-season is even worse since you don't know what pick your getting

Well, there is another apsect to this that hasn't been brought up - why are you trading studs? Is your team bad? If so, perhaps taking the risk (which is exactly what trading away Calvin for draft picks is) - is worth the potential reward. When your team is good, unless if you have incredibly sick depth at a position, I think it's tough to trade away studs, as you could end up trading your season away. This is where I come down alongside Fear and Loathing's position - Championship banners fly forever. The ultimate goal is to win - not have the best team on paper 2-3 years from now. I would much rather hold a stud a year too long (missing my opportunity to trade him for multiple firsts) and win, then lose but have multiple 1st rounders to show for a failed season. There are people in dynasty who are always chasing the future - forgetting that someone will win THIS year. I prefer not to be one of those people, as I like the checks.

 

[Shanahanigans]

The big factor that nobody has mentioned is the opportunity cost of carrying multiple young guys,

I've mentioned this a couple times in this thread. SSOG seems content to ignore this issue, most likely because it severely hurts his argument. The fact is roster space is limited, and most teams would have to cut multiple players that are rosterable in order to make room for 4-6 picks in a single draft (not to mention later round picks).

 

[Shanahanigans]

The problem with saying "No amount of picks is worth _______" is that it's demonstrably untrue. Anyone who traded Calvin for the picks used to select Green and Julio came out ahead. If someone traded Calvin for three of this year's top four picks, and walked away with Richardson, Martin, and Griffin, I'd say they made a killing. If someone traded Calvin for the entire 2008 first round, they would dominate their league for the better part of a decade. At some point, a package of picks becomes more valuable than Calvin Johnson. Our job is to find out where that point lies.

It is only "demonstrably untrue" with hindsight. I agree that Green and Jones will be beasts, but who is to say they do not turn into Braylon Edwards, Charles Rodgers, or Roy Williams, especially before we have even seen them play a down? Calvin is already a beast, Richardson, Martin, and RG3, while they look good, have only played 2 games and could all still easily bust.Also, you would never be able to trade for an entire first round. That would imply that someone was able to consolidate all twelve picks of a draft's 1st round which is a logistical impossibility. The most picks I have ever seen a guy have in the 1st round is 4, and they were not all at the top of the draft, they were dispersed through the round. This was last year, and he ended up with 1.02 Ingram, 1.06 Hunter, 1.07 Little, and 1.11 Baldwin. Not exactly a king's ransom. Realistically, a team is only going to be able to offer around 4 1st round picks for any player, and this is not worth trading Calvin imo. Sure, if you can get an entire year's first round it may be worth it, but that would never happen.

 

[FUBAR]

The problem with saying "No amount of picks is worth _______" is that it's demonstrably untrue. Anyone who traded Calvin for the picks used to select Green and Julio came out ahead. If someone traded Calvin for three of this year's top four picks, and walked away with Richardson, Martin, and Griffin, I'd say they made a killing. If someone traded Calvin for the entire 2008 first round, they would dominate their league for the better part of a decade. At some point, a package of picks becomes more valuable than Calvin Johnson. Our job is to find out where that point lies.

It is only "demonstrably untrue" with hindsight. I agree that Green and Jones will be beasts, but who is to say they do not turn into Braylon Edwards, Charles Rodgers, or Roy Williams, especially before we have even seen them play a down? Calvin is already a beast, Richardson, Martin, and RG3, while they look good, have only played 2 games and could all still easily bust.Also, you would never be able to trade for an entire first round. That would imply that someone was able to consolidate all twelve picks of a draft's 1st round which is a logistical impossibility. The most picks I have ever seen a guy have in the 1st round is 4, and they were not all at the top of the draft, they were dispersed through the round. This was last year, and he ended up with 1.02 Ingram, 1.06 Hunter, 1.07 Little, and 1.11 Baldwin. Not exactly a king's ransom. Realistically, a team is only going to be able to offer around 4 1st round picks for any player, and this is not worth trading Calvin imo. Sure, if you can get an entire year's first round it may be worth it, but that would never happen.

I had 6 out of 12 one year, but basically destroyed my team to do it. Wasn't a good move in hindsight, but it was fun.

 

[FUBAR]

The problem with saying "No amount of picks is worth _______" is that it's demonstrably untrue. Anyone who traded Calvin for the picks used to select Green and Julio came out ahead. If someone traded Calvin for three of this year's top four picks, and walked away with Richardson, Martin, and Griffin, I'd say they made a killing. If someone traded Calvin for the entire 2008 first round, they would dominate their league for the better part of a decade. At some point, a package of picks becomes more valuable than Calvin Johnson. Our job is to find out where that point lies.

It is only "demonstrably untrue" with hindsight. I agree that Green and Jones will be beasts, but who is to say they do not turn into Braylon Edwards, Charles Rodgers, or Roy Williams, especially before we have even seen them play a down? Calvin is already a beast, Richardson, Martin, and RG3, while they look good, have only played 2 games and could all still easily bust.Also, you would never be able to trade for an entire first round. That would imply that someone was able to consolidate all twelve picks of a draft's 1st round which is a logistical impossibility. The most picks I have ever seen a guy have in the 1st round is 4, and they were not all at the top of the draft, they were dispersed through the round. This was last year, and he ended up with 1.02 Ingram, 1.06 Hunter, 1.07 Little, and 1.11 Baldwin. Not exactly a king's ransom. Realistically, a team is only going to be able to offer around 4 1st round picks for any player, and this is not worth trading Calvin imo. Sure, if you can get an entire year's first round it may be worth it, but that would never happen.

Lesson here is if you can't draft well, don't trade for picks.

 

[Shanahanigans]

1-3: 9 Studs, 12 Starters, 15 Depth, 0 Busts. Score = 454-6: 3 Studs, 3 Starters, 9 Depth, 6 Busts. Score = 187-9: 3 Studs, 7 Starters, 12 Depth, 3 Busts. Score = 2510-12: 3 Studs, 6 Starters, 11 Depth, 4 Busts. Score = 2313-15: 1 Stud, 5 Starters, 8 Depth, 7 Busts. Score = 1516-18: 0 Studs, 5 Starters, 10 Depth, 5 Busts. Score = 1519-21: 1 Stud, 3 Starters, 7 Depth, 8 Busts. Score = 1222-24: 1 Stud, 5 Starters, 8 Depth, 7 Busts. Score = 15

So, with these stats we can glean that of the last 60 first round picks, there have been 18 studs produced. This means you have a 30% chance of taking a stud with a 1st round pick. This means that 7 out of 10 times, when picking in the first round, you are not going to get a stud. So, if you have 4 draft picks in the first round of a draft, you are most likely to get 1 Stud, 2 Average Players, and 1 Bust. Additionally, you are probably going to have to wait for them to develop on your bench, and they take up 4 roster spots. No thanks I will stick with Calvin.I agree with EBF, that there are very few players I wouldn't trade for 3+ first round picks, but guys like Calvin, Rodgers, and McCoy I would not trade for draft picks ever. It would have to be multiple firsts along with one or two proven commodities.

 

[SSOG]

In a way part of the reason I started evaluating players using a 3 year projection window is so I would have some way of comparing player value to rookie pick value.

I have thoughts on the 3-year window thing, but they're really better suited for another thread. The short version is that a 3-year window is a useful heuristic that makes evaluations simpler, but it does so (like any heuristic) by ignoring data or by using reasonable-but-not-exact analogies, which reduces accuracy. Like any heuristic, it has blind spots and inefficiencies that can be ruthlessly exploited. The biggest such blind spot is that it exacerbates the natural tendency to overrate the present in relation to the future. Obviously rookie draft picks will be wildly undervalued under this projection system. In the most extreme example, if everyone used a strict 3 year window, you'd be able to trade 11 guys off the wire for the entire 2015 first round.

You never know if a rookie will prove to be fall of famer; or become the caliber of a Rice/Smith. Likewise, how can you trade an "entire" first round? I've heard people on the boards talk about a slew of 1st round picks but that doesn't seem realistic to me. Tough to see the fantasy parallel although we've seen this at the NFL level. The Saints traded an entire draft for Ricky... and they paid too much... as did the Vikings for Hershel Walker. It was Dallas that parleyed those picks into a dynasty.

Maybe that should be the lesson - never fall so much in love with a single player that you'd pay that great a price.

Are future firsts worth a true stud in the hand? I guess that depends on the individual team's constitution. If I'm built to win, I won't trade a valuable player for draft picks. On the other hand, I would if I were rebuilding.

In most rookie drafts (non-IDP), the value drops way down after the first round. While multiple firsts (especially a top 3 pick) is appealing a 1st and a 2nd... well, not so much. By the same token, a 1st 2+ years into the future doesn't thrill me either. Too many variables with that much delayed gratification.

I have to field a starting line-up of 9... I hope not to need a fistful of picks; a well blended team of vets/youth should see a little turnover every year.

The point of this isn't to decide whether anyone could reasonably acquire an entire first round, the point is to serve as an interesting thought experiment meant to determine how much first rounders are worth relative to established vets. Of course you can't know in advance who is the next Jerry Rice, and you can't acquire an entire first round. That's not the point of this exercise. I also think it's wrong to be overly rigid in your thinking. If I'm a contender, I'll still sell my best player for the right offer. If I'm rebuilding, I'll still give up my picks if the right offer comes around. My team's status and composition changes the value equation, but it does not eliminate it entirely.

@ Dropkick - Most teams will not have multiple 1st round picks to offer you. If they do it is most likely because they are rebuilding and value the picks pretty highly anyways.

The actual trade would more likely be your player for 1st + 2nd + a 2nd tier player = 1st/high 2nd type of deals.

Not true. Most contenders DON'T acquire a boatload of picks, but they easily could. According to FBGs "rate my team" feature, I'm the odds-on favorite to win it all this year. I also owned the 4th, 5th, 7th, 11th, 15th, 16th, and 21st picks in last year's draft. I have 4 firsts in 2013. If you're willing to make short-term sacrifices, they're surprisingly easy to pick up. I've picked up firsts for James Jones, Steve Johnson, Ben Tate, and Greg Little. At the time, all were quality prospects, but they weren't going to be difference-makers in my stacked roster, so I traded them for lottery tickets. Once you own firsts, they become self-perpetuating. I traded the 1.05 this year for the 1.10, 2.05, and a 2013 first. I traded the 1.07 and 2.05 for Brandon Marshall when Wilson fell and someone had to have him. I traded the 1.10, 1.11, and Finley for Charles and another future first. The funny thing is that I traded these picks to their former owners, who happily gave them away earlier when they were distant in the future, but suddenly had to have them back once they promised an immediate payoff. Hyperbolic discounting at work!

what if you used your picks to draft Ingram and then one of the WRs, pretty sure you wouldn't feel ahead. Or if your draft Ryan Mathews and Dez Bryant? or Crabtree and Moreno? Pretty sure you would be kicking yourself for moving an uber stud for any of those combos. Yeah, if you have a crystal ball and know that those picks will be future studs then ofcourse its a no brainer to make these deal; but its just to much to risk for me.

to do a trade like this mid-season is even worse since you don't know what pick your getting

Sure, with the wrong picks this looks bad. Of course, what if you traded Priest Holmes, LaDainian Tomlinson, Brian Westbrook, Shaun Alexander, Chad Ochocinco, Torry Holt, or Randy Moss right before the wheels fell off? The point isn't that there are some combinations that look better and some that look worse. The point is there has to be some breaking point where the average value of the picks surpasses the average value of the players.

I've mentioned this a couple times in this thread. SSOG seems content to ignore this issue, most likely because it severely hurts his argument. The fact is roster space is limited, and most teams would have to cut multiple players that are rosterable in order to make room for 4-6 picks in a single draft (not to mention later round picks).

I'm ignoring nothing. You don't have to tell me that roster spots are valuable- I'm one of the biggest proponents of the value of roster spots around. I can link you to a dozen posts, at least, that demonstrate this. The reason I haven't addressed this is because draft picks do not take up a roster spot. Remember that whole "universal currency" thing? You don't have the room for them, package and trade them. Or trade them for future picks and carry them until you do have the room. Owning future firsts increases roster flexibility, it doesn't decrease it.

So, with these stats we can glean that of the last 60 first round picks, there have been 18 studs produced. This means you have a 30% chance of taking a stud with a 1st round pick. This means that 7 out of 10 times, when picking in the first round, you are not going to get a stud. So, if you have 4 draft picks in the first round of a draft, you are most likely to get 1 Stud, 2 Average Players, and 1 Bust. Additionally, you are probably going to have to wait for them to develop on your bench, and they take up 4 roster spots. No thanks I will stick with Calvin.

I agree with EBF, that there are very few players I wouldn't trade for 3+ first round picks, but guys like Calvin, Rodgers, and McCoy I would not trade for draft picks ever. It would have to be multiple firsts along with one or two proven commodities.

18 studs in 60 picks means you have a 24% chance to get 0 studs, a 41% chance to get 1 stud, a 26% chance to get two studs, a 7% chance to get three studs, and a 1% chance to get 4 studs. That's an average of 1.18 studs... But a very important point needs to be made- if you trade for Calvin or McCoy now, you only get HALF of their career. These studs you draft, however, will be with you for their WHOLE career. That, by definition, makes them more valuable. Ray Rice as a rookie is, by definition, twice as valuable as Ray Rice as a 25-year-old. And, again, this is just looking at studs. Not only do you get 1.18 studs for their whole career, you also can expect to get several starters, to boot.Again, people seem to be overlooking the simple fact that almost all of these players who people would never under any circumstances trade for rookie firsts... began their careers as rookie firsts. This simple and obvious point should pretty clearly prove that there are situations where it can make sense to trade these players for rookie firsts.

 

[Shanahanigans]

18 studs in 60 picks means you have a 24% chance to get 0 studs, a 41% chance to get 1 stud, a 26% chance to get two studs, a 7% chance to get three studs, and a 1% chance to get 4 studs.

Using these stats and logic, you are almost certainly not going to get 3 or 4 studs, and you are just as likely to get zero studs as you are to get two. As I said in my previous post, statistically the most likely outcome is 1 stud, 2 average players, and 1 bust. This is not enough for me to give up Calvin. Also, unless you are able to parlay some of those picks into future picks, which is not a given as you imply, you're going to have to take up roster spots. Beyond that, by diluting your picks through multiple drafts you are upping the odds that your pick busts. I mean this whole theory is based on getting a bunch of picks in one single draft. Also, we are using the term stud loosely. You have both Forte and Calvin as studs, but one is clearly on another level than the other. A guy like Forte I would have no problem giving up for 3 firsts, but Calvin is a different story.

 

[Shanahanigans]

I'm ignoring nothing. You don't have to tell me that roster spots are valuable- I'm one of the biggest proponents of the value of roster spots around. I can link you to a dozen posts, at least, that demonstrate this. The reason I haven't addressed this is because draft picks do not take up a roster spot. Remember that whole "universal currency" thing? You don't have the room for them, package and trade them. Or trade them for future picks and carry them until you do have the room. Owning future firsts increases roster flexibility, it doesn't decrease it.

Draft picks do take up a roster spot in the scenario you are presenting. It is impossible to know ahead of time which of your rookie picks is going to be the stud or studs. This whole theory is predicated on gathering 4+ picks in a single draft. This ups your odds of hitting on a stud. However, if you trade your picks for firsts in future drafts, the odds of you getting a stud go down. Beyond that, you are not guaranteed to be able to move your pick. If tyhis happens you have no choice but to take up a roster spot. I remember back in 2006 draft, my draft went as bad as possible (ie my Top 7 went in the Top 7), and I was stuck with the 1.08. I shopped it for any team's first the next season. Having no takers I took Vince Young. Sometimes you have no choice but to use your pick, it is not as if there is always someone chomping at the bit to trade their next year's first to you.

 

[SSOG]

18 studs in 60 picks means you have a 24% chance to get 0 studs, a 41% chance to get 1 stud, a 26% chance to get two studs, a 7% chance to get three studs, and a 1% chance to get 4 studs.

Using these stats and logic, you are almost certainly not going to get 3 or 4 studs, and you are just as likely to get zero studs as you are to get two. As I said in my previous post, statistically the most likely outcome is 1 stud, 2 average players, and 1 bust. This is not enough for me to give up Calvin. Also, unless you are able to parlay some of those picks into future picks, which is not a given as you imply, you're going to have to take up roster spots. Beyond that, by diluting your picks through multiple drafts you are upping the odds that your pick busts. I mean this whole theory is based on getting a bunch of picks in one single draft. Also, we are using the term stud loosely. You have both Forte and Calvin as studs, but one is clearly on another level than the other. A guy like Forte I would have no problem giving up for 3 firsts, but Calvin is a different story.

1 stud is the most common outcome, but 1.18 studs is the average and therefore the number we should be focusing on when discussing average outcomes. Besides, you just conveniently glossed over the 3 and 4 stud possibilities. You've got a 41% chance at one stud, 34% chance at multiple studs, and a 24% chance at zero studs. In other words, you're almost 50% more likely to walk away with multiple studs than you are to walk away with zero. This is why it's much more important to focus on the average than the mode. I do agree that there is a lot of range between one stud and the next. A guy like Randy Moss was a much bigger stud than a guy like Jamaal Lewis. Of course, you are completely ignoring my "whole career vs. half career" point. Going back to my Randy Moss vs. Jamal Lewis comparison, Lewis had 382 career VBD compared to 995 from Randy Moss. Huge edge to Moss, right? Well, from the beginning of his age 27 season to the end of his career, Moss put up 371 VBD. A high-end stud with his career half over is not substantially more valuable than a low-end stud with his whole career ahead of him. Sure, maybe Calvin ages more like Owens than Moss... but maybe he ages more like Holt, instead. And Calvin and McCoy are really the best case scenarios- their careers are likely only a third over instead of half. Rogers, Foster, and Rice are probably at the halfway mark.

 

[Biabreakable]

SSOG I was trying to contribute to the discussion here but your responses are so narrow minded. How you come to the conclusion that someone is going to be able to trade WW players for all of another owners draft picks is baffling. Sure some players picked up off the WW will be useful enough in the short term that owners will trade picks for those players to help them now. Does not mean they are going to trade all of them away for players they could pick up themselves. Your statement and assumptions are completely baseless and have nothing to do with what I said. Why am I not surprised?

Thanks for teaching me a new word.

Heuristic

History

The representative heuristic was first proposed by Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman. The two completed multiple studies beginning in 1973 regarding cognitive processes. The term representative heuristic was coined to describe the notion that causes and effects resemble one another. Thus, the representative heuristic is based on the belief that the outcome of two events will be similar if the events are similar.

Function

This form of causal reasoning is useful in everyday life. It allows for you to categorize people and events as a way to navigate through possibly threatening situations. The availability heuristic is based on the human need to classify things.

Considerations

Although representative heuristics help you understand and navigate the world around you, the judgments are not always correct. Judgments are actually entirely bias as they are solely based on personal experiences and information. However, this heuristic is commonly used, as it is quick and easy.

Read more: What Is Representative Heuristic? | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/facts_7332222_representative-heuristic_.html#ixzz27KuX2zfa

This seems fine and you have not made clear why such a form of evaluation is vulnerable to being exploited. Instead you just said that it is. I need proof why.As for the other thing you claim is not true that I said, I am not interested in your team or FBG rating of your team. I have been playing dynasty FF since 1989. The only way that trading for multiple 1st round picks is going to happen often is if you are trading for future years beyond the next season, and I think such rules are formula for an abandoned league sooner than usual. Simple math tells you that no one owner can control more than 25% of the picks (3 1st rounders)very easily.

 

[SSOG]

SSOG I was trying to contribute to the discussion here but your responses are so narrow minded. How you come to the conclusion that someone is going to be able to trade WW players for all of another owners draft picks is baffling. Sure some players picked up off the WW will be useful enough in the short term that owners will trade picks for those players to help them now. Does not mean they are going to trade all of them away for players they could pick up themselves. Your statement and assumptions are completely baseless and have nothing to do with what I said. Why am I not surprised?

I never said you would trade a 2015 first for a waiver player. I never said ANYONE would. I said that a very strict 3-year window would lead to one taking that action. That's simple fact. A draft pick 3 years from now will score zero points in the next 3 years. If anyone ever used a strict 3-year window, said pick would be completely worthless to them. This demonstrates the flaws with a 3-year window. All rational actors take steps to account for those flaws- typically by incorporating some form of "exit value" into the calculation. The incorporation of exit value is a tacit admission of the flaws of a 3-year model.

Thanks for teaching me a new word.

Heuristic

History

The representative heuristic was first proposed by Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman. The two completed multiple studies beginning in 1973 regarding cognitive processes. The term representative heuristic was coined to describe the notion that causes and effects resemble one another. Thus, the representative heuristic is based on the belief that the outcome of two events will be similar if the events are similar.

Function

This form of causal reasoning is useful in everyday life. It allows for you to categorize people and events as a way to navigate through possibly threatening situations. The availability heuristic is based on the human need to classify things.

Considerations

Although representative heuristics help you understand and navigate the world around you, the judgments are not always correct. Judgments are actually entirely bias as they are solely based on personal experiences and information. However, this heuristic is commonly used, as it is quick and easy.

Read more: What Is Representative Heuristic? | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/facts_7332222_representative-heuristic_.html#ixzz27KuX2zfa

This seems fine and you have not made clear why such a form of evaluation is vulnerable to being exploited. Instead you just said that it is. I need proof why.

Did you even read that blurb you posted? I'd like to draw your attention specifically to the portion that says "Judgments are actually entirely bias". Biases are sort of by definition inefficiencies vulnerable to exploitation.

As for the other thing you claim is not true that I said, I am not interested in your team or FBG rating of your team. I have been playing dynasty FF since 1989. The only way that trading for multiple 1st round picks is going to happen often is if you are trading for future years beyond the next season, and I think such rules are formula for an abandoned league sooner than usual. Simple math tells you that no one owner can control more than 25% of the picks (3 1st rounders)very easily.

Simple math? I'd love to see the simple mathematical equation that says someone can't control more than 25% of the first round easily. It happened in my league in 2009 and 2012. I also control 40% of the first round in 2013, and a league mate controls 30% of the 2014 first round. So observational experience pretty strongly contradicts "simple math".

 

[SSOG]

Drilling down more into the heuristic discussion... some questions are extremely difficult for the human mind to answer. Our brains (or, at least, the conscious portions of our brains) are poorly designed for answering complex questions with multiple moving parts. Our working memories can only hold a few facts in mind at one time. As a result, we've developed a strategy for answering very complex questions by substituting similar, but simpler questions and answering those, instead. For instance, if someone asks "how much value does Arian Foster have going forward", that question is incredibly hard to answer... so we don't even try. Instead, we ask "what are some backs similar to Arian Foster, and how did they do". That's a much simpler question to answer. Unfortunately, that's not the question at hand. If Terrell Davis tore his ACL, that will change the answer to the question "how did similar RBs perform", but obviously an injury to Terrell Davis has absolutely no bearing on the original question- which was what we can expect from Arian Foster. This is a weakness with heuristics- since you're answering a different question than what was asked, extraneous and irrelevant data can impact the answer.

Unfortunately, none of this changes the fact that humans are really, really bad at answering these tough questions. We really have no recourse except to resort to heuristics, because our brains lack the processing power to answer the question any other way. It's simply important to recognize that we're using heuristics, recognize that those heuristics are flawed, try to determine what the flaws in our heuristics are, and try to guard against them. Incorporating "exit value" into a faulty "strict 3 year window" heuristic is one such example of recognizing and accounting for flaws.

 

[Biabreakable]

Enjoy your straw men. You are the only person talking about a "strict" 3 year window or anything. I never said anything about it being the only form of analysis or that it must be rigid and binding. I think every projection should have multiple variables/information/influences behind it and never considered the concept of a 3 year window to be unnecessarily limited or constrained as you are trying to frame it. Exit value certainly is one of those variables to consider, just as ownership, coaches, personnel, schemes, league trends, injuries, age of supporting cast and so on. Your only arguing with yourself with those statements.

Do not pretend that your judgement is immune to being subjective, which is the core of your argument. No matter what you use to make it seem objective you are still making subjective judgments, as proof from your unnecessary and disrespectful argument against things I never said.

Good luck with that big star.

 

[SSOG]

Enjoy your straw men. You are the only person talking about a "strict" 3 year window or anything. I never said anything about it being the only form of analysis or that it must be rigid and binding. I think every projection should have multiple variables/information/influences behind it and never considered the concept of a 3 year window to be unnecessarily limited or constrained as you are trying to frame it. Exit value certainly is one of those variables to consider, just as ownership, coaches, personnel, schemes, league trends, injuries, age of supporting cast and so on. Your only arguing with yourself with those statements.Do not pretend that your judgement is immune to being subjective, which is the core of your argument. No matter what you use to make it seem objective you are still making subjective judgments, as proof from your unnecessary and disrespectful argument against things I never said.Good luck with that big star.

Edit: it's clear that what I think I'm saying is nothing at all like what others think I'm saying, so rather than continuing to spin my wheels, I figured I'd go back to square one and try to re-explain myself. Point #1: predicting the future is hard, so we use handy little shortcuts to make it easier. These shortcuts are necessary, but each is biased and has weaknesses. Point #2: the 3-year window is one such shortcut. It has strengths (it minimizes the number of variables one must consider), and is a perfectly viable (and very popular) heuristic. Like all heuristics, though, it is biased and has weaknesses. Point #3: the easiest way to see those weaknesses is to take the 3-year window to its logical extreme. This extreme is rarely seen in the wild, and should not be taken as a characterization of anyone's actual position. Point #4: this logical extreme would lead one to conclude that waiver wire picks were more valuable than 2015 first rounders. We should be able to immediately recognize that position as illogical and indefensible, so therefore we have identified a breakdown or flaw in the 3-year window heuristic. Conclusion: the 3-year window has blind spots, and one of those blind spots is that it underrated future picks. It is therefore imperative for anyone who uses this philosophy to be on guard against this tendency, and to manually adjust when necessary. Again, my intention was never to insult or belittle. Does this post clarify my original position?

 

[duaneok66]

SSOG , you are one of the best posters in the Shark Pool. Period. I miss your posts when you are gone. However, your weakeness is that sometimes you lack tact and you get a little defensive when someone disagrees with you. I hope you don't take this the wrong way. This was a great thread but like others in the Pool is has descended somewhat. Hopefully you can take this heart. Biabreakable (or anyone else) should be able to talk intelligently about FF without it coming to this.

If i offended, I apologize in advance.

 

[SSOG]

SSOG , you are one of the best posters in the Shark Pool. Period. I miss your posts when you are gone. However, your weakeness is that sometimes you lack tact and you get a little defensive when someone disagrees with you. I hope you don't take this the wrong way. This was a great thread but like others in the Pool is has descended somewhat. Hopefully you can take this heart. Biabreakable (or anyone else) should be able to talk intelligently about FF without it coming to this.If i offended, I apologize in advance.

No offense taken. Sometimes I come off as a tool. Sometimes I meant to. Some times I didn't. This is one of those times where I didn't. I really just meant to say "three year windows are handy tools, but they lead one to underrate rookie picks, and here's a handy thought experiment that demonstrates why", and then move back on to a discussion of rookie picks.

 

[Biabreakable]

Enjoy your straw men. You are the only person talking about a "strict" 3 year window or anything. I never said anything about it being the only form of analysis or that it must be rigid and binding. I think every projection should have multiple variables/information/influences behind it and never considered the concept of a 3 year window to be unnecessarily limited or constrained as you are trying to frame it. Exit value certainly is one of those variables to consider, just as ownership, coaches, personnel, schemes, league trends, injuries, age of supporting cast and so on. Your only arguing with yourself with those statements.Do not pretend that your judgement is immune to being subjective, which is the core of your argument. No matter what you use to make it seem objective you are still making subjective judgments, as proof from your unnecessary and disrespectful argument against things I never said.Good luck with that big star.

Edit: it's clear that what I think I'm saying is nothing at all like what others think I'm saying, so rather than continuing to spin my wheels, I figured I'd go back to square one and try to re-explain myself. Point #1: predicting the future is hard, so we use handy little shortcuts to make it easier. These shortcuts are necessary, but each is biased and has weaknesses. Point #2: the 3-year window is one such shortcut. It has strengths (it minimizes the number of variables one must consider), and is a perfectly viable (and very popular) heuristic. Like all heuristics, though, it is biased and has weaknesses. Point #3: the easiest way to see those weaknesses is to take the 3-year window to its logical extreme. This extreme is rarely seen in the wild, and should not be taken as a characterization of anyone's actual position. Point #4: this logical extreme would lead one to conclude that waiver wire picks were more valuable than 2015 first rounders. We should be able to immediately recognize that position as illogical and indefensible, so therefore we have identified a breakdown or flaw in the 3-year window heuristic. Conclusion: the 3-year window has blind spots, and one of those blind spots is that it underrated future picks. It is therefore imperative for anyone who uses this philosophy to be on guard against this tendency, and to manually adjust when necessary. Again, my intention was never to insult or belittle. Does this post clarify my original position?

Yes. I pretty much agree with what you say here even.I think in Fantasy Football the most important thing in any league is to be up to date. The more up to date you are and focused on what is happening NOW the better off you will be.Things like 3 year window and others are what I consider to be theory, a way to try to describe ones perspective about many unknowns. It is a way to quantify unrelated things in a way that they can become comparable. When I invest in a rookie player I am pretty much making a commitment to that player for 3 years, that is the time frame I am willing to give for the player to show their worth. There are many players who do very well later on in their careers after doing little or being inconsistent in their 1st 3 years, but most of those.. Brandon Lloyd for example, have shown flashes of greatness earlier on in their career, it just take them longer to put it all together. So there are exceptions of course, but generally if I am going to use a rookie pick and roster spot on a player that means I am going to commit that roster slot to them for 3 years. So in this way I think the 3 year projection has value for comparing rookie players who you likely would value more in their 2nd and 3rd seasons if they pan out. So it becomes an apples to apples type of comparison, or closer to one. This is certainly not the only way to do it. You could look at whole careers, by PPG or other ways and those ways are valid as well. Each has it's own strength. But I consider all of these things to be more about theory than application. The most important thing will always be that you are up to date with what is happening right now, then apply theory as you find applicable to the current information.In this sense the 3 year window idea is just that, an idea, but you never see that 3rd or even the 2nd year because you always updating information as you go. This is kind of what me and gheemoney were talking about as far as adjusting value within that time frame based on the current composition of your team and your goals. Meaning one year your goal may be to get younger, thus putting more value on that and years X+1, X+2 than you might otherwise give to the current year or vise versa.I think it is useful because you my be able to move a player who is a spot starter for you for some decent picks at some point. But you still have to ask yourself if not having that spot starter available to use this year is going to make you a lot weaker if another player at this position becomes injured. These are the trade offs one must consider when looking to trade an established player for draft picks. I find the idea useful for making such comparisons.ETA- Replacement level value is something Couch Potato introduced to me several years ago and I think is very useful for figuring out what the baseline production should be for a player to be rosterable. I would not go back to not looking at things this way. I think it is important to figure out which rookies are best left to free agency and which are actually worth rostering. Same can be said for veteran players and WW claims. If you can get value for a player that you can easily replace with a free agent that is pretty much a no lose situation. I have wasted a lot of roster space in the past carrying players who were not above replacement level value too long. Keeping this in mind should make your roster and use of draft picks more efficient and free you up to make multi pick deals for pick upgrades as you go along.

 

[cstu]

SSOG I was trying to contribute to the discussion here but your responses are so narrow minded. How you come to the conclusion that someone is going to be able to trade WW players for all of another owners draft picks is baffling. Sure some players picked up off the WW will be useful enough in the short term that owners will trade picks for those players to help them now. Does not mean they are going to trade all of them away for players they could pick up themselves. Your statement and assumptions are completely baseless and have nothing to do with what I said. Why am I not surprised?

I never said you would trade a 2015 first for a waiver player. I never said ANYONE would. I said that a very strict 3-year window would lead to one taking that action. That's simple fact. A draft pick 3 years from now will score zero points in the next 3 years. If anyone ever used a strict 3-year window, said pick would be completely worthless to them. This demonstrates the flaws with a 3-year window. All rational actors take steps to account for those flaws- typically by incorporating some form of "exit value" into the calculation. The incorporation of exit value is a tacit admission of the flaws of a 3-year model.

Correct, but the player who replaces him on your roster will.

 

[Max Power]

A lot of good discussion in here. I've always been a fan of trading future picks that don't look to be in the top 3-4 draft spots for players that are currently producing. I can tell draft pick values are on the rise again right now. College ball is in full swing and some of the bad teams are already starting to look at next year.

My issue is this year is the new designated to return IR tag. My league has IR spots, which lets me free up another spot basically, but once that player is activated I need to drop someone. So long story short, I'm on the other end of the coin this year trying to move players for draft picks and people in my leagues are holding those draft picks pretty tight these days.

I can only think the recent success of Rookie QBs has people thinking they are going to hit homeruns in the draft. But even late second round picks (20+) that I don't see as all that valuable are being clung to. Are you guys seeing this in other leagues?

 

[Nugget]

The big factor that nobody has mentioned is the opportunity cost of carrying multiple young guys,

I've mentioned this a couple times in this thread. SSOG seems content to ignore this issue, most likely because it severely hurts his argument. The fact is roster space is limited, and most teams would have to cut multiple players that are rosterable in order to make room for 4-6 picks in a single draft (not to mention later round picks).

I'm rebuilding a dynasty team right now and have traded aging players for 1st round draft picks. I now hold 4 1sts and 2 2nds for the 2013 draft and have opened up 4 roster spots for prospects. I've picked up additional young WW players that I can see how they develop over the rest of the season that I could not have rostered before. I don't know if Rod Streeter or Aldrick Robinson will amount to anything, but right now I control them. As the draft approaches, I can package them up for players I like, make the picks, or trade them for 2014 picks. Draft picks give me more options, both now and in the future.

 

[whatadai]

I got Gronkowski this past August for two first round rookie picks. One pick will most likely be the 1st pick in the rookie draft...the team that I got that pick from has won 5 games in 3 seasons. The other pick will most likely be mid to late in the round. It's also IDP and only a 10 team league so better prospects last longer and mid round draft picks are still sought after. Sadly, his production right now, even though he's one of the top TEs, is not worth those picks in my eyes nor the eyes of the other owners.