Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
I Don't get most owners (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Mr Two Cents
- Start date
jwb
Footballguy
Well, like I mentioned, it wasn't common knowledge at the time. It became common knowledge later that day. He definitely had some real early info.Like in any business dealing, your reputation/etc matters. Fair or not, guys who send offers based on breaking news will eventually earn a lousy rep.
johnadams
Footballguy
I got one dynasty where the off season is the most active time for trades, with well over 30 since the NFL draft. The other, we have a bunch of teams that are perenniel cellar dwellers that do nothing while those that are at the top tend to deal with each other, finding win/win trades and separating even more from the lower ranks. It's gotten sad enough that I've considered trading my whole team for someone else's just for the challenge. Too bad it's a decent sized money league and I'm not going to walk away from a team that has won the regular season three years in a row with one championship, one second, and one third overall finish.
kylechoffman
Footballguy
I felt that all of these moves negatively impacted the league both for weakening the owner mentioned above and greatly improving the other teams involved. He traded twice to one team and then the other two he traded with were two of the top 4 teams from 2010. It ruins the league when something like this happens. Back on point of the thread, after the 2007 season I was the worst team in a different zealot league and held tomlinson. Being a charger fan it was tough to part with him but I knew it was time to rebuild. I moved LT and a 2008 2nd rounder for B Jacobs, Calvin and a 2008 first (ended up with the 1.2). I then moved my 1.1 in 2008 (for being worst in 2007), a third and 4th in 2008 for the 1.4, 1.8, and 1.9. I turned those picks into J stewart, Mendenhall, M Ryan and Hardy (killing myself for passing on C Johnson). Hardy was a failure but the rest were solid. I also picked up flacco at 2.1. That was a massive rebuild and I sold LT at the right time. Hes had a couple good years but otherwise its been a good trade. I sold turner last season prior to the playoffs for a 2011 1st (took leshoure). Again, I sold when I could on players that were reaching their 30s.
kylechoffman
Footballguy
He could have drafted ingram. He lost his 2012 first. He could have done much better imo.
eakfootball
Footballguy
He destroyed his team. Awful management.
eakfootball
Footballguy
He could have drafted Ingram and traded Big Ben for say Mike Thomas and a first.
I was just about to post this. I've been in leagues where I made zero trades and it was the right move and others where I made 2-5 or whatever and it was the right thing to do. Active to me means that the owner logs in, sets their best possible lineup, responds to league correspondence in a timely manner. Some of you guys in leagues with 60 deals? LOL...get into stocks.oh and some guys are just OBSESSED with "rebuilds". I'm all for a challenge, but I'm sorry that you started the season 2-6 and now you want to acquire my next 2 drafts and all my young players for your aging studs. Really I am.So not trading means your are an inactive owner
mlball77
Footballguy
I would agree with the previous poster that just because an owner doesn’t trade much does not mean he is inactive all together. Further, I would interject that an owner that doesn’t trade much can field a very good team, even for long periods. Rookie drafts are critical for teams such as this. I do concede; however, that it will be more difficult for such an owner to field a very good team as compared to an owner that is a savvy trader that makes several nice moves for his team each year. Although, an owner that rarely trades has an advantage over an owner that trades a ton when many of those trades are counterproductive for his team. It cuts both ways.
Trading is just one facet of the game of being a fantasy GM. It’s important for sure, but so is drafting, making the right lineup decisions, etc. etc. If you aren’t effective in all of the major facets, you’re odds for success are lower than an owner that is effective in all of them.
Summary: Trading Frequency <> Trading Efficiency -and- Inactive Trader <> Inactive Owner
Trading is just one facet of the game of being a fantasy GM. It’s important for sure, but so is drafting, making the right lineup decisions, etc. etc. If you aren’t effective in all of the major facets, you’re odds for success are lower than an owner that is effective in all of them.
Summary: Trading Frequency <> Trading Efficiency -and- Inactive Trader <> Inactive Owner
THE HITTER
Footballguy
Not sure why my statement was so hilarious, Wreck.Lot of ifs involved in any fantasy conversation...but IF TJones becomes the heir to the Oakland backfield (Bush is likely to be dealt this year or next, and we all know McFadden's injury history), then he'll have above average value. And many are predicting Fairley to be a complete beast alongside Suh. Thus, my comments.
THE HITTER
Footballguy
I agree he could've POSSIBLY gotten more. But saying he could've drafted Ingram is even worse speculation than thinking Hillis/Helu were bad trades. So what if he grabbed Ingram at 1.1...it seems there is a split among those that think Ingram will have any relevance at all with PT, Ivory, RBush all still there PLUS short camps. It doesn't help his RB situation as he STILL would not have a clear-cut starter at RB. So, in my opinion, Hillis & Helu is worth more than Ingram. It depends on whether you value proven players over rookie potential. I personally prefer the former.Its also WILD speculation that this owner COULD HAVE gotten more. Maybe this was the best offer he was getting.
Again, maybe I am alone in my opinion that his starting lineup is better after the trades, which, to me, is the goal of a trade.
THE HITTER
Footballguy
Again, complete speculation that he COULD HAVE made/gotten that trade. In none of my dynasty leagues would Big Ben fetch Mike Thomas + a 1st.
hostile
Footballguy
Are you saying that Thomas and a 1st is too much or too little for Ben?
THE HITTER
Footballguy
I'm saying Roethlisberger isn't worth a young, #1 receiver PLUS a 1st rounder. At least in any of my dynasty leagues. Rarely does a sub-top 7 QB go that high that I've seen. Unless scoring/rules provide for higher measurables for QBs than other positions.
Last edited by a moderator:
jeter23
Footballguy
Who are the people saying that Ingram will be insignificant? Would love to hear from them. Even if you are not a believer in Ingram, the point here is value and this guy did not get enough value in any of these deals, especially if he is rebuilding.So HITTER, are you the one making all of these deals?
thriftyrocker
Footballguy
Roethlisberger isn't worth Maclin or good Mike Williams, but he most certainly is worth Mike Thomas, a 1st rounder, and a few fliers or lower round picks. Roeth's PPG last year was the same as Rivers, and they are the same age. You're not giving Roeth enough credit, and you're giving Mike Thomas too much credit. If JAX signs a free agent WR, Mike Thomas is almost worthless. Roethlisberger's going to hold his value for at least 4 more years.
hostile
Footballguy
Cool. I was just checking, b/c I thought that is what you meant, and I couldnt disagree more.
If I could get Ben for Thomas and my next year's 1st I would do that in an instant. That wouldnt fly in any of my leagues b/c its simply not enough for Ben (and I'm not including my 2QB league where that would be posted over in the "worst trade proposals" thread).
Mike Thomas is a #1 WR??... Seriously? No way. Not even close. You're talking about a WR on a team where speculation is that Jason Hill could be the WR1. If it weren't for Dillard's injuries, I'm not so sure he would have beaten Dillard out, and let's be honest, Jax's passing attack scares no one. Even when Garrard was hitting all cylinders, it was a passing game that could barely support 1 legit WR1, let alone two. MSW flirted with it, but never attained it. Moreover, I think Lewis is the #1 option in that passing game heading into 2011.
Even in a league which only scores 4pts/QB TD, Ben is way more valuable that than an unproven WR and a "hasnt played a down" pick. The 1.1 in rookie drafts usually equates to a 2nd or 3rd round pick in startups, which is something I always keep in mind, and next year's first rounders are generally the equivalent of this year's second rounders in rookie drafts, so I'm not one who has beer goggles when it comes to 1st round rookies anyways, so I differ from many in that respect. This trade was his 2012 1st.
But if I could lock down one of the current top 10 dynasty QBs for the next 5 -7 years who isnt even 30 years old yet, will most likely be in the top 5-7 consistently by age 30, has won two SBs, who has some of the best talent around him, in one of the best organizations in the league, despite the knucklehead factor, for what would ostensibly be a borderline WR3 on my roster and a complete unknown... sign me up.
Last edited by a moderator:
THE HITTER
Footballguy
First of all, no, I am not the one making any of these trades. That said, fantasy football is all in perceived value. What one owner considers garbage today, can lead another to a championship run in two years. So I understand that wholeheartedly. Secondly, no one said Ingram would be 'insignificant'. I should have phrased it differently...ie there is a WIDE gap in the range of what most believe will be Ingram's stats. Just check out the Player Spotlight for him. Estimates range from 700 yards/6 TDs to 1400 yards/15 TDs...from 120 carries to 300+ carries. Sean Payton has never had a back carry more than 240 times, and I personally believe, as many others do, that Pierre Thomas is gifted/experienced enough to hold onto the starting spot. Again, I'm not saying Ingram won't be THE MAN in 2-3 years. I was simply making the point that some fantasy owners would rather take a shot on a veteran RB thats put up some real stats versus a potential STUD/potential BUST in a rookie RB. Given the shortened training camps, the logjam of RBs currently on the Saints roster, and the damage that missing on a 1.1 pick can do to a fantasy roster, I can see why many would trade out of that spot.
jeter23
Footballguy
If someone is looking to rebuild, Ingram seems like a perfect guy to do that around. And if you don't like him, you know someone in your league does, get better value than that. I don't really care about any projections for this year. We are talking about dynasty and a rebuild. This guy should be looking long term. Now, he can't win this year, or anytime soon.
AmosMoses
Footballguy
I laughed at it too. You are saying that success will greatly depend upon hitting on 2 2nd round picks. One a backup/return RB behind Darren McFadden and another a DT. It didn't have to if he didn't sell Romo for a pittance. Damn right he's going to have to depend on hitting squarely on Fairley and Jones, but he shouldn't have to. Stupid, stupid trade.Not sure why my statement was so hilarious, Wreck.Lot of ifs involved in any fantasy conversation...but IF TJones becomes the heir to the Oakland backfield (Bush is likely to be dealt this year or next, and we all know McFadden's injury history), then he'll have above average value. And many are predicting Fairley to be a complete beast alongside Suh. Thus, my comments.
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
Nick Fairley can be DT#1 and he still won't be the reason that team fails or succeeds.Not sure why my statement was so hilarious, Wreck.Lot of ifs involved in any fantasy conversation...but IF TJones becomes the heir to the Oakland backfield (Bush is likely to be dealt this year or next, and we all know McFadden's injury history), then he'll have above average value. And many are predicting Fairley to be a complete beast alongside Suh. Thus, my comments.
GrandpaRox
Footballguy
To me dynasty has taken to much of the FF market. I agree it is not fun when one third of your league mates are near the bottom year after year and eventually quit because they do not get better over time. There are exceptions but there are far too many that do not put enough into it.
They should either not play or just do redraft where they can draft a new team every year and then just set lineups and try again the next year.
JMHO
They should either not play or just do redraft where they can draft a new team every year and then just set lineups and try again the next year.
JMHO
FUBAR
Footballguy
I'm operating under the assumption that if I know something, so does everyone else or they can easily find out. If you have a true insider in your league, that's different. If I had JJ, I'd just assume the guy likes the Seahawks or thinks he would do well there. Either way, it wasn't a lowball offer.
THE HITTER
Footballguy
This thread is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. While your post devalues that 1.1 pick due to the 'hasn't played a down' theory, and you would trade that pick PLUS a young WR in a heartbeat to get Big Ben, Jeter23 thinks that pick (Ingram) is worth its/his weight in gold, and I'd venture he would not trade Ingram straight up for Big Ben. He sees that 1.1 RB potential as the way to build his dynasty, while you would give that same pick away in a deal for a proven veteran. Thats the whole basis of my point. Its all just in the perception of the owner. Ya know, 'eye of the beholder' kinda thing. I would rather have the young WR on my roster than Big Ben as I personally feel that I can forecast a QB within a couple of ppg of Big Ben, while 'hitting' on a WR is more of a crapshoot for me.'hostile said:
THE HITTER
Footballguy
As many said last year to the new Arian Foster owner after he drafted him in the 5-8th round. He too was an afterthought that led many a team to a championship. And keeping Romo would not have won him a championship either. In this thread, it seems an owner gets beat up for holding on to players, or get killed for getting rid of them for what they deem value. Maybe the owner should poll the league first to decide if its ok for him to trade a player. Otherwise, its a no-win situation for him, unless all other owners think it was a fair deal.'AmosMoses said:I laughed at it too. You are saying that success will greatly depend upon hitting on 2 2nd round picks. One a backup/return RB behind Darren McFadden and another a DT. It didn't have to if he didn't sell Romo for a pittance. Damn right he's going to have to depend on hitting squarely on Fairley and Jones, but he shouldn't have to. Stupid, stupid trade.Not sure why my statement was so hilarious, Wreck.Lot of ifs involved in any fantasy conversation...but IF TJones becomes the heir to the Oakland backfield (Bush is likely to be dealt this year or next, and we all know McFadden's injury history), then he'll have above average value. And many are predicting Fairley to be a complete beast alongside Suh. Thus, my comments.
jeter23
Footballguy
I don't think anyone said they would trade the 1.01 for Ben. I am guessing Hostile would not do that deal.
THE HITTER
Footballguy
I've read the bold part 3 different times now and I must be misunderstanding him completely cuz that's exactly what it seems to me he's sayin'. It shouldn't matter though as his point was the draft pick is an 'unproven commodity', just as Thomas is, but Roethlisberger is not. I don't agree at all, but again, I am just pointing out the wide variety of values in this thread.
jwb
Footballguy
No, it wasn't lowball. In fact, if you look at my op, I said it was a decent price for JJ. But he got wind of it early (how, I don't know), and tried to make a move hoping I didn't hear of it - *that's* my point. Everytime he sent me an offer after that, it was "hmmm, what's he up to now?"'FUBAR said:
hostile
Footballguy
Depends on how badly I needed a RB or WR, but his trade involved the guy's "2012 1st" for Ben, which has nowhere near the worth of a known, top-of-the round 1st this year.
So, a WR3 (Thomas) and the equivalent of a 2011 2nd for Ben? If I can buy Ben for that price, I'll do it every time and twice on Sundays.
If I had Ben and someone offered me 1.01 *this year*, I'd still most likely turn it down. I believe in building around elite talent, not selling it off for a bunch of lesser pieces. RB's have such a short shelf, they are actually pretty easy to dig up b/c the NFL churns through so many of them. WR's are more value b/c the studs usually last longer, but there are so many of them. QB's, the top ones, are rarities, so, in the context of 1.1 this year, let alone some vaporware "2012 1st", there is no way I'm burning away one of the best dynasty QBs around for a player like Ingram; for Green or Jones... I'd still probably turn it down.
I'm more into buying proven QBs and WRs, then looking under rocks and in corners for RBs. Guys like Foster, Hillis, and Blount were either on the WW in short bench leagues, or could be had for peanuts heading into last season. That goes even more so for a WR like Thomas.
Last edited by a moderator:
FUBAR
Footballguy
If he's offering fair value (with the news), who cares what he's "up to"? Seems the guy overvalues news and it's a good time to trade with him.
renesauz
IBL Representative
While the OP has a point, it's equally true that some owners are trade happy. They feel like they HAVE to try to make a trade with SOMEONE at least every couple of weeks.
I really don't see how/why constant turnover of a roster helps anything. I mean....in every league there's one guy who sends me an offer at LEAST every two weeks. These guys trade simply for the sake of trading. Especially when NOTHING is going on in the NFL (that affects player values anyway), why would an owner standing pat right now be even remotely bad?
Lets not confuse apparent inactivity with laziness or stupidity.
I really don't see how/why constant turnover of a roster helps anything. I mean....in every league there's one guy who sends me an offer at LEAST every two weeks. These guys trade simply for the sake of trading. Especially when NOTHING is going on in the NFL (that affects player values anyway), why would an owner standing pat right now be even remotely bad?
Lets not confuse apparent inactivity with laziness or stupidity.
I love to trade, and can't understand why every fantasy owner doesn't. To me, it's an essential part of playing the game. I've been in a total keeper league for 22 years, and trading has practically disappeared over the past decade or so. I am still ready and willing, but except for two or three others, everyone is scared to make a move. One guy has made TWO trades in 22 years. Shockingly, he's never won the championship.
I think that rookie picks are generally overvalued. Having been through these drafts for so many years, I can tell you that more than half of the future "stud" RBs bust (or at least never become stars). Look at last year- Matthews was rated over many solid veteran RBs in preseason fantasy rankings. The top three rookie backs last year in every draft were Matthews, Best and Spiller. Do you think anyone won a championship because they picked one of them? As for rookie WRs and QBs, it's really a matter of how many you can afford to keep on your roster and wait for them to develop (and again, how many never become stars or are outright busts?) I drafted Matt Stafford as a rookie, and think he'll be a stud, but he has to stay healthy, and so far hasn't proven he can. I had to give up on Tim Tebow halfway through last season, because I just didn't have room on my roster (injuries to guys like DWill and Dallas Clark, neither of whom I could cut).
Luck is probably more than 50% of fantasy football success, but if you don't make regular free agent moves, and are afraid to trade, you will have to be incredibly lucky to ever win a championship. I hit big last season with Arian Foster in one league, and Peyton Hillis in two. That was pretty much pure luck, especially with Hillis. In the keeper league, I've profited the past few seasons from owners cutting their rookie WRs way too early. Because of this, I was able to jump on Dwayne Bowe in his rookie season, and Hakeem Nicks in his. So, I guess I'm glad that so many owners are clueless, but I understand the OPs main point- fantasy football is better when everyone participates.
I think that rookie picks are generally overvalued. Having been through these drafts for so many years, I can tell you that more than half of the future "stud" RBs bust (or at least never become stars). Look at last year- Matthews was rated over many solid veteran RBs in preseason fantasy rankings. The top three rookie backs last year in every draft were Matthews, Best and Spiller. Do you think anyone won a championship because they picked one of them? As for rookie WRs and QBs, it's really a matter of how many you can afford to keep on your roster and wait for them to develop (and again, how many never become stars or are outright busts?) I drafted Matt Stafford as a rookie, and think he'll be a stud, but he has to stay healthy, and so far hasn't proven he can. I had to give up on Tim Tebow halfway through last season, because I just didn't have room on my roster (injuries to guys like DWill and Dallas Clark, neither of whom I could cut).
Luck is probably more than 50% of fantasy football success, but if you don't make regular free agent moves, and are afraid to trade, you will have to be incredibly lucky to ever win a championship. I hit big last season with Arian Foster in one league, and Peyton Hillis in two. That was pretty much pure luck, especially with Hillis. In the keeper league, I've profited the past few seasons from owners cutting their rookie WRs way too early. Because of this, I was able to jump on Dwayne Bowe in his rookie season, and Hakeem Nicks in his. So, I guess I'm glad that so many owners are clueless, but I understand the OPs main point- fantasy football is better when everyone participates.
Here is a rebuild from this offseason in zealots:
1-12 team from 2010 in a zealot league vacated the team. The new guy takes over with the following:
QB - Romo, Big Ben, Henne, Clausen, Whitehurst
RB - R Brown, R Bush, M Bush, Mcknight, Torain
WR - H ward, Sims-walker, L Evans, L moore, and lots of garbage
TE - V Davis and Boss
DL - Docket, freeney, stroud,
LB - Ware, Currey, Wimbley, Burnett
DB - Rhodes, chung, toler, haden, cromartie
Held the 1.1, 2.10, two fourths, a fifth and a sixth.
Traded 1.1 for 1.11 (took helu) and P Hills
Traded romo for 2.4
Traded Big ben, Ford, Jacoby OAK WR; 2011 2.10; His 2012 1st for Bulger and D Bowe Traded M bush and the 4.1 for M Cassel
Traded R Brown and R Bush for V Young and 4.9 (C Jordan)
I think people are being too hard on this guy. He tried to make some moves- probably made too many- but after all the dealing, I think his overall team is probably a little bit improved. The big deals were the ones that landed him Hillis and Bowe. If they come close to matching last season's stats, he got two real studs and obviously made his starting lineup a lot better. The #1 pick in a rookie draft is often blown on a projected "stud" who turns out to be nothing. Ingram doesn't impress me a great deal, and I'd much rather have Hillis, who was fantastic last year and is still young. Helu is also in a better situation, imho, as Peyton likes to rotate backs as much as Shanny, but the Redskins really have no one else.
I am high on Jacoby Ford, but Bowe was the top fantasy WR last season in standard scoring (I think- he certainly had the most TDs), and is a huge upgrade there.
Trading Romo for two #2 picks was pretty stupid, but if Cassel approaches last season's stats, it's not much of a dropoff.
The other trades are pretty meaningless. I mean, Ronnie Brown, Reggie Bush, Vince Young? Who cares? They will all probably be irrelevant in fantasy (and NFL) terms this season. As I noted, draft picks in rookie leagues are usually overvalued. In my keeper league, only my #1 pick, and sometimes my #2, even make my roster, unless I'm in a real rebuilding mode, which I'm usually not, since I try to use free agent moves to stockpile young players.
1-12 team from 2010 in a zealot league vacated the team. The new guy takes over with the following:
QB - Romo, Big Ben, Henne, Clausen, Whitehurst
RB - R Brown, R Bush, M Bush, Mcknight, Torain
WR - H ward, Sims-walker, L Evans, L moore, and lots of garbage
TE - V Davis and Boss
DL - Docket, freeney, stroud,
LB - Ware, Currey, Wimbley, Burnett
DB - Rhodes, chung, toler, haden, cromartie
Held the 1.1, 2.10, two fourths, a fifth and a sixth.
Traded 1.1 for 1.11 (took helu) and P Hills
Traded romo for 2.4
Traded Big ben, Ford, Jacoby OAK WR; 2011 2.10; His 2012 1st for Bulger and D Bowe Traded M bush and the 4.1 for M Cassel
Traded R Brown and R Bush for V Young and 4.9 (C Jordan)
I think people are being too hard on this guy. He tried to make some moves- probably made too many- but after all the dealing, I think his overall team is probably a little bit improved. The big deals were the ones that landed him Hillis and Bowe. If they come close to matching last season's stats, he got two real studs and obviously made his starting lineup a lot better. The #1 pick in a rookie draft is often blown on a projected "stud" who turns out to be nothing. Ingram doesn't impress me a great deal, and I'd much rather have Hillis, who was fantastic last year and is still young. Helu is also in a better situation, imho, as Peyton likes to rotate backs as much as Shanny, but the Redskins really have no one else.
I am high on Jacoby Ford, but Bowe was the top fantasy WR last season in standard scoring (I think- he certainly had the most TDs), and is a huge upgrade there.
Trading Romo for two #2 picks was pretty stupid, but if Cassel approaches last season's stats, it's not much of a dropoff.
The other trades are pretty meaningless. I mean, Ronnie Brown, Reggie Bush, Vince Young? Who cares? They will all probably be irrelevant in fantasy (and NFL) terms this season. As I noted, draft picks in rookie leagues are usually overvalued. In my keeper league, only my #1 pick, and sometimes my #2, even make my roster, unless I'm in a real rebuilding mode, which I'm usually not, since I try to use free agent moves to stockpile young players.
Last edited by a moderator:
sspunisher
Footballguy
Man I'm in a league where one owner has Brees, Schaub and Freeman and absolutely no RB or WR depth. Another owner had only Orton and a ton of WR and RB depth. I tried to trade with both of them to no avail. Worst of all, they're the absolute best trade partners and ridicolously overvalue their own players. Every week one of them has 40-60 points sitting on their bench from QBs and skill players that they benched. If they'd just suck it up and pull off the trade, they'd both be better teams.
cheese
Footballguy
I wouldn't. Why would I do this? He's either going to know I'm wrong in how I value the stocks and accept it, or he's going to reject it anyway. There is specifically one guy in my main league that I won't deal with for this very reason. Its a rare deal where both sides win and this guy doesn't "lose" trades.
Instinctive
Footballguy
I guess I just think it's funny how one guy has you frozen in fear of making a trade that he "wins" such that you'd rather not trade at all. I don't care who I'm trading with. The goal is to make your team better. The best way to accomplish a trade is to make the other guy better too. If you're too scared about making him better, you'll always be a mediocre/cellar team, hoping that a WW/rookie pick player explodes and you get lucky one year rather than going out each season and getting the guys you want...It's just hilarious to me that you wouldn't offer a trade to a guy because you're afraid he might accept it...
squistion
Footballguy
I am somewhat amused at this attitude - that you don't trade because the other party usually is on the winning end of a deal. A variation of this is in a 6 keeper league I am in, where I have had consistently one of the best teams, but some people won't trade with me because it will make my team better.I guess I just think it's funny how one guy has you frozen in fear of making a trade that he "wins" such that you'd rather not trade at all. I don't care who I'm trading with. The goal is to make your team better. The best way to accomplish a trade is to make the other guy better too. If you're too scared about making him better, you'll always be a mediocre/cellar team, hoping that a WW/rookie pick player explodes and you get lucky one year rather than going out each season and getting the guys you want...It's just hilarious to me that you wouldn't offer a trade to a guy because you're afraid he might accept it...
This is what is known as cutting off your nose to spite your face. Isn't the goal to build the best team possible - and, if so, what difference does it make how it is accomplished? As others have noted in this thread, the objective is to make the playoffs, because once you get there it is a head-to-head matchup and it is not the best team that wins, it is the best team for that particular week.In the age of the internet, everyone has access to not only the same information, but also a plethora of expert opinions. With the playing field being leveled, to give yourself an edge, you have to take risks, even if it means trading with someone who usually always lands on their feet. My experience is that the owners who obstinately refuse to trade out of fear are the ones who never rise above mediocrity. The best owners are the ones who consistently are willing to roll the dice.
JAA
Footballguy
Something people quickly forget is that having 40-60 points per week on your bench can sometimes be a good thing as they are points that arent being scored against you, or helping other owners to increase the total points. Sure you may not be maximizing your bench, but it doesnt mean you should readily trade them.
JamesTheScot
Footballguy
Zealots League here. What I don't understand are all the 4-9 or even 6-7 teams that do nothing except the rookie draft and expect to have a better record the next year.
It never seems to fail, you have 4 or 5 good teams with active owners in each league and they are the ones that are always at the top or in re-building mode. Making their teams stronger or going from nothing to better.
How do good teams get to nothing so they can go from nothing to better?
The rest of the owners pretty much are afraid to do anything cause they refuse to give up a good player but that player will not get them into the playoffs even if he is a stud. A Chris Johnson or Andre Johnston will get you 4 wins but no more if the rest of your team is mediocre.
You may be right in that the one stud won't get them to the playoffs. But that's still just an opinion. People differ on what they think players are capable of, so it's very possible these owners see more potential in their stud or in the supporting cast than you do. Just because someone doesn't run their team like you would doesn't mean they aren't trying to get to the playoffs. It may just mean they think their roster is playoff caliber so they are holding pat. And obviously they don't think what you are offering them will get them to the playoffs, so why would they trade?
Why not blow up the team and get draft picks or young players for the future. Why stand pat and keep being a 500 team year after year after year? I just don't get it.
Because they don't think they will be .500 the upcoming year. If they did, they would be trying to fix it. If they thought your trade offer would get them in, they'd pull the trigger. But they obviously don't. It still boils down to predictions. They like their team "as is" better than the one you are offering them. What you think they should do is irrelevant.
I have a great team but if in a couple of year don't get anywhere will blow it up and start over, love doing that as a challenge. Might even give a great team to an owner of a last place team to see how long it takes to rebuild.
If it doesn't win you championship, will it be because of luck or bad ownership? It's a serious question. Blowing up a championship caliber team because it hasn't won a championship yet is silly unless you enjoy the thrill of rebuilding more than you do winning right now. Amazing that people could have different opinions on which is more important/fun.
Most owners don't get it and they frustrate me. You guys that stand pat suck.
So what you're saying is that you tried to trade for someone's stud, they wouldn't trade him to you, so now they suck and you need to vent?If they're so bad at running their teams and you are so smart, why do you need their players?
Last edited by a moderator:
GregR_2
Footballguy
I don't know, I think you're focusing on his example all wrong. I agree with his example, in a straight up trade of stocks I wouldn't trade with Buffet either.But the place in that example worth having a good discussion is in how it differs from FF. With stocks, there is a single value that is the same to both owners of it, which is the cash value of it.But that isn't the case in FF. In FF, we have starters and we have backups. If I have a player who for me is a backup but for someone else would be a starter, that player has more value to the other owner's team than he does to me.And that's how you make a win-win trade. You don't normally have them happen when both teams are trading starters. You have them happen when one team is trading some of their depth whose fantasy points won't contribute fully to their starting lineup, but will on the other team. Now if you had a Buffet of fantasy football, I wouldn't be afraid to trade with him the way I would be afraid to trade stocks with him. Because I know even if he's right more than I am, that I can still come out ahead on a trade by using the trade to fill needs or upgrade my starters rather than trying to stick it to the other guy.I guess I just think it's funny how one guy has you frozen in fear of making a trade that he "wins" such that you'd rather not trade at all. I don't care who I'm trading with. The goal is to make your team better. The best way to accomplish a trade is to make the other guy better too. If you're too scared about making him better, you'll always be a mediocre/cellar team, hoping that a WW/rookie pick player explodes and you get lucky one year rather than going out each season and getting the guys you want...It's just hilarious to me that you wouldn't offer a trade to a guy because you're afraid he might accept it...
GregR_2
Footballguy
I don't think not trading with a top team is quite so black and white. There are times I won't and times I will, and it all depends on the situation. If I'm a team that is in contention with the other top team I'm a lot less likely to trade with him. If I'm a team who is unlikely to be able to compete with him then I'll do everything I can to improve and make the playoffs.If I'm a contending team, I'm also likely to air on the side of how I can increase the risk of the other owner's team. I might be willing to give him a win-win trade assuming everyone stays healthy if it means that his team is at more risk of one or two injuries crippling his team. Or if I think he's already at such risk and a trade would lessen it, that might be enough I wouldn't make the deal. And the amount of gain I get and how it affects my risk of course also plays into it similarly.I am somewhat amused at this attitude - that you don't trade because the other party usually is on the winning end of a deal. A variation of this is in a 6 keeper league I am in, where I have had consistently one of the best teams, but some people won't trade with me because it will make my team better.I guess I just think it's funny how one guy has you frozen in fear of making a trade that he "wins" such that you'd rather not trade at all. I don't care who I'm trading with. The goal is to make your team better. The best way to accomplish a trade is to make the other guy better too. If you're too scared about making him better, you'll always be a mediocre/cellar team, hoping that a WW/rookie pick player explodes and you get lucky one year rather than going out each season and getting the guys you want...It's just hilarious to me that you wouldn't offer a trade to a guy because you're afraid he might accept it...
In the age of the internet, everyone has access to not only the same information, but also a plethora of expert opinions. With the playing field being leveled, to give yourself an edge, you have to take risks, even if it means trading with someone who usually always lands on their feet. My experience is that the owners who obstinately refuse to trade out of fear are the ones who never rise above mediocrity. The best owners are the ones who consistently are willing to roll the dice.
That said, there's also plenty of times I've been in trades where we were the clearcut #1 and #2 and both teams felt they got better. It just really depends on the situation. I do agree that never trading with the better team in any situation simply because they are the better team isn't a good strategy. But I also don't think a blanket criticism should be leveled at anyone that had that as a reason. Sometimes it's the wisest thing to do for their chances at a championship.
Last edited by a moderator:
Donnybrook
Footballguy
I am fairly positive one of teams in my Z league went from worst to first. Don't recall him making any major trades. One of my Z teams last year was full of studs (IMO) and still managed to have a losing record. Sometimes byes, matchups, player injuries or slumps and just plain bad luck can conspire against you. Worst thing you can do is over-react and get rid of your core players.
cheese
Footballguy
I understand your point, but I'm not saying I don't trade at all. I'm saying I trade with someone else. Its not about being afraid, there is no upside. The point is, if I deal with him I'm likely to lose. If I deal with anyone else in that league I'm likely to come out ahead. I do understand your point about win-win trades (which I mentioned in my earlier post), but I still maintain that when you look back at the end of the year very few trades helped both people. Normally, one side ended up benefitting and the other didn't. That is my experience at least.I guess I just think it's funny how one guy has you frozen in fear of making a trade that he "wins" such that you'd rather not trade at all. I don't care who I'm trading with. The goal is to make your team better. The best way to accomplish a trade is to make the other guy better too. If you're too scared about making him better, you'll always be a mediocre/cellar team, hoping that a WW/rookie pick player explodes and you get lucky one year rather than going out each season and getting the guys you want...It's just hilarious to me that you wouldn't offer a trade to a guy because you're afraid he might accept it...
Also, I'm not sure I buy that other people are thinking along the lines of "how to make both teams better". What I see most often is that teams have in the back of their minds specific players they would like to unload for one reason or another. That reason is usually NOT that they think the player is about to help the team he's dealt to. When negotiating for the player they're targeting, they just happen to land on this player that they're looking to move. When he's yours, they're banking on him failing. If they thought otherwise, they would've kept talking until they could move whichever of their players they don't believe in.
THE HITTER
Footballguy
I think people are being too hard on this guy. He tried to make some moves- probably made too many- but after all the dealing, I think his overall team is probably a little bit improved. The big deals were the ones that landed him Hillis and Bowe. If they come close to matching last season's stats, he got two real studs and obviously made his starting lineup a lot better. The #1 pick in a rookie draft is often blown on a projected "stud" who turns out to be nothing. Ingram doesn't impress me a great deal, and I'd much rather have Hillis, who was fantastic last year and is still young. Helu is also in a better situation, imho, as Peyton likes to rotate backs as much as Shanny, but the Redskins really have no one else.
I am high on Jacoby Ford, but Bowe was the top fantasy WR last season in standard scoring (I think- he certainly had the most TDs), and is a huge upgrade there.
Trading Romo for two #2 picks was pretty stupid, but if Cassel approaches last season's stats, it's not much of a dropoff.
The other trades are pretty meaningless. I mean, Ronnie Brown, Reggie Bush, Vince Young? Who cares? They will all probably be irrelevant in fantasy (and NFL) terms this season. As I noted, draft picks in rookie leagues are usually overvalued. In my keeper league, only my #1 pick, and sometimes my #2, even make my roster, unless I'm in a real rebuilding mode, which I'm usually not, since I try to use free agent moves to stockpile young players.
I 100% agree with everything you stated, bigunreal. Be prepared to be ridiculed by others for your opinion and remarks. lol.
I am high on Jacoby Ford, but Bowe was the top fantasy WR last season in standard scoring (I think- he certainly had the most TDs), and is a huge upgrade there.
Trading Romo for two #2 picks was pretty stupid, but if Cassel approaches last season's stats, it's not much of a dropoff.
The other trades are pretty meaningless. I mean, Ronnie Brown, Reggie Bush, Vince Young? Who cares? They will all probably be irrelevant in fantasy (and NFL) terms this season. As I noted, draft picks in rookie leagues are usually overvalued. In my keeper league, only my #1 pick, and sometimes my #2, even make my roster, unless I'm in a real rebuilding mode, which I'm usually not, since I try to use free agent moves to stockpile young players.
I 100% agree with everything you stated, bigunreal. Be prepared to be ridiculed by others for your opinion and remarks. lol.
Instinctive
Footballguy
If it works for you, it works. I just can't believe I would ever not make an offer to a guy because he might accept it. And I think you're too cynical about people trading. All of my best trades have been of the help-both-teams variety. In fact, I just got Charles, a WR3, and two firsts for Roddy and Vick. The other guy now probably wins his division, but I now I can worst-to-first in mine too, since I actually have a starting RB and fall back on Rivers.'cheese said:I understand your point, but I'm not saying I don't trade at all. I'm saying I trade with someone else. Its not about being afraid, there is no upside. The point is, if I deal with him I'm likely to lose. If I deal with anyone else in that league I'm likely to come out ahead. I do understand your point about win-win trades (which I mentioned in my earlier post), but I still maintain that when you look back at the end of the year very few trades helped both people. Normally, one side ended up benefitting and the other didn't. That is my experience at least.I guess I just think it's funny how one guy has you frozen in fear of making a trade that he "wins" such that you'd rather not trade at all. I don't care who I'm trading with. The goal is to make your team better. The best way to accomplish a trade is to make the other guy better too. If you're too scared about making him better, you'll always be a mediocre/cellar team, hoping that a WW/rookie pick player explodes and you get lucky one year rather than going out each season and getting the guys you want...It's just hilarious to me that you wouldn't offer a trade to a guy because you're afraid he might accept it...
Also, I'm not sure I buy that other people are thinking along the lines of "how to make both teams better". What I see most often is that teams have in the back of their minds specific players they would like to unload for one reason or another. That reason is usually NOT that they think the player is about to help the team he's dealt to. When negotiating for the player they're targeting, they just happen to land on this player that they're looking to move. When he's yours, they're banking on him failing. If they thought otherwise, they would've kept talking until they could move whichever of their players they don't believe in.
That's just one example (oddly enough, the past season through now, almost every trade of mine involves Charles and/or Nicks haha) - but the point is, even when the two time defending champ was the guy who had Nicks...I still sent an offer. It's not like I'm going to be scared and think "Uh oh, if he accepts it maybe Nicks isn't a top 5 guy anymore because he must be omniscient AHHHHHHHHH!!!"
shader
Footballguy
I disagree with this.Last year I got hit with the perfect storm of injuries and bad luck and started the year 0-5 in one league. I basically "tanked it" and started trading like a maniac for guys that were hurt, injured and in bad situations. I traded for Vincent Jackson, Tony Romo, Deangelo Williams, and I got as many rookie draft picks as possible.Finished with the number 1 overall pick, then I had so many other picks I was able to trade up and get Ingram, Julio and AJ Green... (very competitive league, too)If you just try and "stick it out", you'll have a hard time moving on from mediocrity.If you "legally tank it", you can build a truly awesome team.
Mr Two Cents
Footballguy
I expect that is the exception, which I admit will happen, but not the rule. For every exception you post I can show 4 or 5 of the opposites.
I can guarantee that most owners that do nothing , accomplish nothing. I have been playing dynasty since before Zealots 1 formed and have seen the history year after year.
Exceptions are exactly that, exceptions. The norm is to do nothing and remain a bottom 4 team. Look at the history it is there.
I can guarantee that most owners that do nothing , accomplish nothing. I have been playing dynasty since before Zealots 1 formed and have seen the history year after year.
Exceptions are exactly that, exceptions. The norm is to do nothing and remain a bottom 4 team. Look at the history it is there.
