EBF, with all due respect, you don't seem to be recognizing that the concept of
discounting to present value carries over into fantasy draft picks. If you're trading for future picks in the same round as the present year's pick that you're trading away, you're losing value.
Can there be exceptions? Yes, of course. If you knew for a certainty that a given player would be available at a given pick the following year,
and (again for a certainty) that that player was superior to anyone available at the same or similar spot in the present draft year, then that would be an exception. The trouble is, aside from having the 1.01, you never know that a player will certainly be available at a given pick, and figuring out players' draft values a year out - or sometimes even whether they'll be draft eligible - can be very problematic.
The other parts of your post I agreed with, but not this. There is risk to agreeing to a future benefit. First of all, you have to wait for it. If you trade for a 2008 pick, you're guaranteed to get zero production out of that pick in 2007.
Will you have to wait an extra year? Yes. But in theory, you also get an extra year of value. It cancels out. A first round pick is a first round pick.Also, draft picks are not dead weight. They carry trade value without even using roster space. So technically, they're not without value in year one. They're actually quite valuable.
You get an extra year of value when and from what? From the "extra" year that you're expecting on the future players' career? How do you know that that future player is going to even have the same career length as the player you're effectively trading away by trading a draft pick? Even assuming he does, how long am I supposed to wait until I receive that bonus value? 2013? 2015? As for future draft picks, I agree that they're not "dead weight" but your argument there is a straw man because I never made a statement to that effect. In fact the whole assumption behind my comments was that future draft picks
do hold value, just not as much as present draft picks
ceteris parabis ("all other things being equal", for the unwashed).
In addition, trading just to add value that you intend to trade again (which is really what your argument is just suggesting) only begs the question. At some point that draft pick
will be used to draft an actual player. Unless you're assuming stupidity on the part of all of your potential trading partners (never a good idea), everyone is going to recognize the fact that some account will have to be made for the fact that a draft pick represents a player at some point and not some abstract value.
Second, you have a much more difficult time discerning the actual value of that future pick by being able to judge which players will be available than you do a pick for the current year. While you have an idea of some players who will be entering the NFL in coming years, you're never sure what juniors will declare for the draft and you can't predict how injuries during their last college year can affect them.
It's a two way street. Assuming that a given draft class contains an average number of impact players, isn't it just as likely that the next draft class will contain
more impact players as it is that the next draft class will contain
less impact players? So while next year's group might be weaker than this year's, it has an equal chance of being stronger (assuming that this year's class is merely average).
I'm not disagreeing that a pick in a weak draft crop has less value than a pick in an average draft crop. I never made that claim. If you think this particular class is exceptionally strong then you might be justified in keeping a late 1st round pick like 1.10 or 1.11 instead of trading it for a 2008 1st round pick (which would probably be higher).
But from where we stand right now, I don't see how you can say that a 2009 1st round pick has less value than a 2008 1st round pick. We know very little about the top prospects in either draft.
This is precisely the problem. You have to guess at value in a future draft far more than a draft that is only weeks away. That means there is greater uncertainty, and where there is greater uncertaintythere is reduced effective value.
Shouldering this risk should be compensated for, and I agree with Jeff that, one year out, that tends to be worth a round or so.
I disagree. If I had a pick like 2.06 or 2.07, I'd almost always be willing to give it up for a 1st round pick the next year. In fact, I'd be willing to make a deal with a team that every year I give him my second round pick for his next year's first round pick. In the long run, I would absolutely kill him in that deal. It's not even close.
You seem to be assuming that the first round pick will necessarily be a high first round pick. Obviously if you're trading with the perennial league doormat then that may be a good assumption in which case I'd tend to agree with you. The trouble is that most leagues do not have that level of predictability year to year, and even to the extent they do most owners - even the doormats - will be aware of that situation and refuse the trade. Moreover, the difference between the value of the 1.11 and the 2.05, for example in most dynasty leagues tends to be relatively minor. Just as one real life example, check out the picks from the second half of the first round last year through the first half of the second round in one of my dynasty IDP leagues:
1.08 Vernon Davis, TE, San Francisco
1.09 Vince Young, QB, Tennessee
1.10 Chad Jackson, WR, Denver
1.11 Jerrious Norwood, RB, Atlanta
1.12 Santonio Holmes, WR, Pittsburgh
1.13 AJ Hawk, LB, Green Bay
1.14 Ernie Sims, LB, Detroit
2.01 Greg Jennings, WR, Green Bay
2.02 Marcedes Lewis, TE, Jacksonville
2.03 Sinorice Moss, WR, New York Giants
2.04 Mario Williams, DE, Houston
2.05 Bobby Carpenter, LB, Dallas
2.06 Brian Calhoun, RB, Detroit
2.07 Demeco Ryans, LB, Houston
Obviously there are some picks that in hindsight look better than others, but the point here isn't to cherry pick (because you can't know down to the specific pick which one you'll get) but rather to look at the way that such picks are generally hit and miss.
If you're not using this principle to trade, I'd strongly suggest you consider utilizing it in the future.
Edit to add a couple of extra thoughts and to reformat.
in to understand myself.
Trade offers sent. :(
in to understand myself.
This rule makes no sense. What is the reasoning behind it?
This rule makes no sense. What is the reasoning behind it?
This rule makes no sense. What is the reasoning behind it?
This rule makes no sense. What is the reasoning behind it?
In general, the person who got the best player in a trade wins a trade (thanks to Faletti for that adage)You build depth through FA pickups, rookie draft, throw-ins in trades.
