Improving your team (1 Viewer)

[Knobs]

I know some of you will say you need to make a deal if it improves your starting lineup. But do any of you ever take into account how much it would improve your opponent?

I won't mention the specific players (as I don't want this to become a WDIS issue) but let's say I had a deal lined up with the owner I feel is the biggest threat to my championship chances.

The deal would improve my team by about 5 ppg. It would improve his team by about 10 ppg. Frankly, I can't bring myself to make the deal as I feel it would benefit his team much more than mine. Even if I got more pieces from his team, that would be the upside of my starting point production (though other pieces would improve my bench, I really only care about my lineup and generally disregard depth).

After years of having the mind set you should always make deals that improve your starting lineup, I'm now beginning to question the validity of that thinking. How do the sharks feel about this kind of thing?

 

[MCguidance]

I need a bye QB this week and the other 6-1 team came knocking with a good option for one of my good WRs, and I said no. I figured I could get away with a bye week filler, or at worst a loss, and not have him take a very good wr. I did not want him improving his already very good team. I know it may not make much sense, but it does to me, lol.

 

[NeverEnough]

I just traded Flacco (top 5 QB) to a division rival for VD. I needed a TE upgrade. He has Cutler as his QB1.

 

[seadoc]

Before week 7, I was working on securing a stud RB because both of mine were going on bye. Problem was, it was going to cut pretty deep into my WR quality. Another buddy talked me out of it because I wasn't thinking big-picture (I was going to give away a WR or 2 that I needed to *start* EVERY week for a guy that would either be benched or would edge out another RB stud *every week*

epilogue: the WR that the other owner wanted was the one that won me week 7 (guess who)

 

[TakiToki]

Don't read too much into current PPG. Those games are over and done.

You probably should pay a bit of attention to improving an opponent, if you think there is a reasonable chance that you two will be fighting over a playoff spot or the championship.

It's a delicate situation, and there's no stock answer. You just gotta Bayesian it out, and be confident in your total projections.

 

[basher]

You have to be mindful of who and how you help another squad out but ... right now your only goal should be to get to the playoffs and the best way to do that is to put out the best possible lineup you can.

 

[Knobs]

You have to be mindful of who and how you help another squad out but ... right now your only goal should be to get to the playoffs and the best way to do that is to put out the best possible lineup you can.

Some teams are still struggling to make the playoffs. However, there are some teams (like mine) that have had the good fortune of winning most of their games thus far. At this point the playoffs for me are virtually assured. Mathematically I could still miss them, but realistically? Fat chance.So at that point I do believe you should start looking at how much something would improve your team's lineup vs. how much it would improve your opponent.

 

[Ray_T]

I know some of you will say you need to make a deal if it improves your starting lineup. But do any of you ever take into account how much it would improve your opponent?I won't mention the specific players (as I don't want this to become a WDIS issue) but let's say I had a deal lined up with the owner I feel is the biggest threat to my championship chances.The deal would improve my team by about 5 ppg. It would improve his team by about 10 ppg. Frankly, I can't bring myself to make the deal as I feel it would benefit his team much more than mine. Even if I got more pieces from his team, that would be the upside of my starting point production (though other pieces would improve my bench, I really only care about my lineup and generally disregard depth).After years of having the mind set you should always make deals that improve your starting lineup, I'm now beginning to question the validity of that thinking. How do the sharks feel about this kind of thing?

these are the times when you need to be really honest with yourself.1) is his team really that good?2) is your team really that good?if you improve his team by more than you improve your own, the deal only matters if you are ranked 1 and 2. if you are a fringe playoff contender, you do what you can to get into the playoffs. If my team is top 3 or top 4, I will not trade with another team in the top 3 or 4 unless the deal is clearly good for my team.end of discussion.

 

[Crippler]

I think it is tough. So in one league we have a very good team but he has one issue. QB, He has Anderson and Russell in a league that gives 6 pts per TD and can start 2 QB's per week but must start one. I sit with Flacco, Rivers and Favre so I am loaded and leave pts on bench each week. My fantasy guy who I email with suggested giving Favre and Holt for Stephon Jackson. Both guys would hit his lineup immediately and make it pretty unstoppable as IDP and his D is sick. I was hesitant because in the end it improved my team but only by 3 pts per week. It improved his team by 7 pts per week. 4 pts is alot in the end. So I asked for a 2011 1st in deal and he turned down because of age I guess. But I also believe age is not important if you can make a deal that wins you a championship. Getting negative pts from QB each week will only kill. Anderson is high top pt getting QB on year with 5 pts. Brett has 94 and would be his top pt producer now.

 

[Anthony Borbely]

I think it is tough. So in one league we have a very good team but he has one issue. QB, He has Anderson and Russell in a league that gives 6 pts per TD and can start 2 QB's per week but must start one. I sit with Flacco, Rivers and Favre so I am loaded and leave pts on bench each week. My fantasy guy who I email with suggested giving Favre and Holt for Stephon Jackson. Both guys would hit his lineup immediately and make it pretty unstoppable as IDP and his D is sick. I was hesitant because in the end it improved my team but only by 3 pts per week. It improved his team by 7 pts per week. 4 pts is alot in the end. So I asked for a 2011 1st in deal and he turned down because of age I guess. But I also believe age is not important if you can make a deal that wins you a championship. Getting negative pts from QB each week will only kill. Anderson is high top pt getting QB on year with 5 pts. Brett has 94 and would be his top pt producer now.

While I can understand your logic...what says that this owner won't trade with another team and get his QB? Then he improves and you don't.

 

[FUBAR]

I know some of you will say you need to make a deal if it improves your starting lineup. But do any of you ever take into account how much it would improve your opponent?I won't mention the specific players (as I don't want this to become a WDIS issue) but let's say I had a deal lined up with the owner I feel is the biggest threat to my championship chances.The deal would improve my team by about 5 ppg. It would improve his team by about 10 ppg. Frankly, I can't bring myself to make the deal as I feel it would benefit his team much more than mine. Even if I got more pieces from his team, that would be the upside of my starting point production (though other pieces would improve my bench, I really only care about my lineup and generally disregard depth).After years of having the mind set you should always make deals that improve your starting lineup, I'm now beginning to question the validity of that thinking. How do the sharks feel about this kind of thing?

In a 12 team league I have 11 opponents, not this one team. As long as the deal improves my projections against the other 10, I'll make the deal.

 

[MCguidance]

I know some of you will say you need to make a deal if it improves your starting lineup. But do any of you ever take into account how much it would improve your opponent?I won't mention the specific players (as I don't want this to become a WDIS issue) but let's say I had a deal lined up with the owner I feel is the biggest threat to my championship chances.The deal would improve my team by about 5 ppg. It would improve his team by about 10 ppg. Frankly, I can't bring myself to make the deal as I feel it would benefit his team much more than mine. Even if I got more pieces from his team, that would be the upside of my starting point production (though other pieces would improve my bench, I really only care about my lineup and generally disregard depth).After years of having the mind set you should always make deals that improve your starting lineup, I'm now beginning to question the validity of that thinking. How do the sharks feel about this kind of thing?

In a 12 team league I have 11 opponents, not this one team. As long as the deal improves my projections against the other 10, I'll make the deal.

What if you are playing that 1 team this week?

 

[T Bag]

if you improve his team by more than you improve your own, the deal only matters if you are ranked 1 and 2. if you are a fringe playoff contender, you do what you can to get into the playoffs. If my team is top 3 or top 4, I will not trade with another team in the top 3 or 4 unless the deal is clearly good for my team.end of discussion.

This is correct. In my 12-team money league I just traded Mendy, Boldin, and Steve Smith (Car) for Ray Rice and Walter. His team now:QB - BreesWR - BoldinWR - S. SmithRB - BrownRB - SlatonRB/WR - MendenhallTE - ClarkK - RackersD - PittsburghBench - R. Williams, Caddy, Holmes, A. GonzalezMy team now:QB - WarnerWR - MegatronWR - NicksRB - RiceRB - DWillRB/WR - GrantTE - V. DavisK - FolkD - ArizonaBench - Bradshaw, Collie, Walter, GB DHe's pretty loaded, huh? I'm 3-4 in 8th place and he's 7-0 in 1st place. I'm in a must win game against another 3-4 team this week. At this point, I don't give a rat's ### how good I potentially made him. Mendy's bye screwed me and I didn't want to start Bradshaw in the flex at the Eagles. Now I'm loaded at RB and have a good chance of winning this week. If Boldin and Smith return to past form he may be close to unbeatable, but that is irrelevant to me unless I make the playoffs. Another added bonus is that I don't play him anymore this season (I've already played him twice) and he still plays several teams ahead of me in the standings. I agree that if you are in 2nd you probably shouldn't trade with the 1st place team if it improves his team more than yours. It all depends on your situation and in my case, you gotta do what you gotta do to make the playoffs and worrry about the rest later.

 

[plymkr]

Similar situation. My buddy has a great team...except QB. I have Romo & Schaub. (Schaub is off wk 10 the week I play this guy) I could improve my team & his, (except for week 10) but I actually feel my team is stronger than his if I don't do the deal. If I do the deal, yes my team would be stronger, but I'm not as comfortable w/my advantage over him even though my team is better.

 

[LittlePhatty]

I know some of you will say you need to make a deal if it improves your starting lineup. But do any of you ever take into account how much it would improve your opponent?

Sure. Right about now (half way through the regular FF season) is when it should be obvious that some teams in your league aren't going to make the playoffs. 0-7 records, 1-6 records. I'm willing to give up more in a trade to one of those teams because I know they won't be a threat later. Say my team is really deep at RB but I desperately need a QB. I might trade a Top 10 RB + a QB14 straight up for someone like Philip Rivers, who has a great match up in Week 16. That is, if I can take the hit at RB. But I wouldn't even consider trading a Top 10 RB to a team I might face later in the FF playoffs - even if I felt it was a slight upgrade to my team, I wouldn't want to improve their team.

 

[Knobs]

Similar situation. My buddy has a great team...except QB. I have Romo & Schaub. (Schaub is off wk 10 the week I play this guy) I could improve my team & his, (except for week 10) but I actually feel my team is stronger than his if I don't do the deal. If I do the deal, yes my team would be stronger, but I'm not as comfortable w/my advantage over him even though my team is better.

This is exactly my situation. While my potential deal would improve my team, imo it would close the gap between our teams. He can't make as good a trade with another owner so I don't care if he goes to another team.

 

[FUBAR]

I know some of you will say you need to make a deal if it improves your starting lineup. But do any of you ever take into account how much it would improve your opponent?I won't mention the specific players (as I don't want this to become a WDIS issue) but let's say I had a deal lined up with the owner I feel is the biggest threat to my championship chances.The deal would improve my team by about 5 ppg. It would improve his team by about 10 ppg. Frankly, I can't bring myself to make the deal as I feel it would benefit his team much more than mine. Even if I got more pieces from his team, that would be the upside of my starting point production (though other pieces would improve my bench, I really only care about my lineup and generally disregard depth).After years of having the mind set you should always make deals that improve your starting lineup, I'm now beginning to question the validity of that thinking. How do the sharks feel about this kind of thing?

In a 12 team league I have 11 opponents, not this one team. As long as the deal improves my projections against the other 10, I'll make the deal.

What if you are playing that 1 team this week?

If you think trading now will cost you the win, I'd probably wait, but the season is a lot more than one week. So if it helps me more long term and I don't think he'd make the deal next week, I do it.

 

[FUBAR]

Similar situation. My buddy has a great team...except QB. I have Romo & Schaub. (Schaub is off wk 10 the week I play this guy) I could improve my team & his, (except for week 10) but I actually feel my team is stronger than his if I don't do the deal. If I do the deal, yes my team would be stronger, but I'm not as comfortable w/my advantage over him even though my team is better.

This is exactly my situation. While my potential deal would improve my team, imo it would close the gap between our teams. He can't make as good a trade with another owner so I don't care if he goes to another team.

Why are you so concerned with this one team that is still worse than yours? Maybe he'll get lucky one week and knock off one of your better rivals? Sure, he might beat you but he might anyway, so I'm just not worried about that.

 

[mlball77]

I think it is prudent to look at the impact of a potential trade on the team you are trading with... both good and bad impacts. I think it matters less in redraft leagues and early on in the season... but significance increases for the following reasons: later in the season if you are fighting for a playoff spot, in a keeper/dynasty league and your trade helps another team long-term, and if you are helping a team in your own division (and play more div games than non-div).

Overall, I am primarily concerned with a trade's impact on my team, but there are very legit reasons to have marked concern about how your trade might impact the other team involved.