In a start-up Dynasty draft, what round pick would you trade for a 1st (1 Viewer)

[RustyFA]

You are in a start-up dynasty draft. You want to trade for an extra 1st round rookie pick next year. What is fair value? You have no idea what pick it is going to be so it could be the #1 overall or the #12. I am in a start-up and was wondering what fair worth would be.

I would think that it won't be too high because you are still getting starters through the 8th round. I voted a 7th. What do you think?

 

[TitusIII]

I'd probably toss a 5th rounder, if I can get a deal like some NBA teams get(top 3 guaranteed, etc)...

7th+ otherwise...

 

[EBF]

It depends on the league size.

You can do a rough calculation using the values from this thread:

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...148170&st=0

The numbers suggest that the average future first round pick is worth an early 7th round selection in the vet draft.

 

[RustyFA]

Thanks EBF. Just checking it out for ourdraft

 

[kremenull]

In a startup draft, how does a commish even reconcile a deal such as this? If you are giving up a draft pick for a future 1st Rd pick, that leaves you one roster spot short for this draft and the other owner 1 spot over the limit. So what gives???? As a commish, I would have a hard time placing a value on a future 1st Rd draft pick in exchange for a current draft pick, seems as though something like this would unfairly impact the balance of the league (towards the owner receiving the extra draft pick in this current draft).....as he is essentially gaining an extra Top 40-50 player right now, which, IMO, is a huge advantage.

 

[EBF]

This sort of trade is pretty common in a startup. Whatever advantage it offers in the short term to the team receiving the veteran pick is canceled out by the disadvantage of the missing rookie pick. I don't think it hurts the balance of the league.

 

[JPeso]

In a startup draft, how does a commish even reconcile a deal such as this? If you are giving up a draft pick for a future 1st Rd pick, that leaves you one roster spot short for this draft and the other owner 1 spot over the limit. So what gives???? As a commish, I would have a hard time placing a value on a future 1st Rd draft pick in exchange for a current draft pick, seems as though something like this would unfairly impact the balance of the league (towards the owner receiving the extra draft pick in this current draft).....as he is essentially gaining an extra Top 40-50 player right now, which, IMO, is a huge advantage.

 

[broncofan13000]

An 8th rounder seems about right (in a 14 teamer)

 

[cstu]

I voted an 8th since you are helping a team do better this year and their pick is likely to be a lower one.

 

[kremenull]

This sort of trade is pretty common in a startup. Whatever advantage it offers in the short term to the team receiving the veteran pick is canceled out by the disadvantage of the missing rookie pick. I don't think it hurts the balance of the league.

Disagree wholeheartedly. I'll give you an example. Say Team 1 trades a 4th Rounder for a future 1st Rd pick to Team 2. Team 1 now has (and I'll just throw out a few common names who could be associated with the first 4 rounds of a draft)......2 stud-type RBs, 2 stud-type WRs (his original 4 picks). Now, with the extra 4th rounder (for the future 1st), Team 1 selects either another WR2 caliber talent such as D.Bowe, Holmes, or other comparable WR, or a top flight QB (Brees, Palmer, other). Keep in mind, this added selection is on top of the next few round selections where Team 1 essentially still can acquire similar value as the rest of the league in their selections. So, in the end, Team 1 will have a very huge advantage in talent, and depth, vs the rest of the league going into year 1 just by adding the 1 player right now in exchange for a future 1st. Thus, skewing the balance of the league. I'm not into providing an owner a virtual brick road to the championship, especially in most of my leagues which are $100 and above, this would certainly not be allowable. Anyone would trade a future 1st for a gift opportunity to win a league championship. Sure, nothing is guaranteed, but I'd take the odds of Team 1 winning over anyone else, no matter how great the other teams may have appeared to draft. And Team 2 is now void of that same caliber of player, waiting for Year 2 and hoping to come in last place this season right out of the gate....never a good idea to encourage or fascilitate tanking. I don't see how anyone would ever allow this to occur in their leagues unless the commish steps in and values the future 1st as an 8th or 9th Rd, or later, selection, in exchange for a 20th and the future 1st.

 

[EBF]

2 stud-type RBs, 2 stud-type WRs (his original 4 picks). Now, with the extra 4th rounder (for the future 1st), Team 1 selects either another WR2 caliber talent such as D.Bowe, Holmes, or other comparable WR, or a top flight QB (Brees, Palmer, other). Keep in mind, this added selection is on top of the next few round selections where Team 1 essentially still can acquire similar value as the rest of the league in their selections. So, in the end, Team 1 will have a very huge advantage in talent, and depth, vs the rest of the league going into year 1 just by adding the 1 player right now in exchange for a future 1st. Thus, skewing the balance of the league.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that you aren't accounting for the cost of losing the rookie pick. Sure, Team 1 might do better in year one because he had an extra vet pick, but that advantage will be canceled out once the rookie draft comes along and he misses out on the elite prospects. Just because Team 1 gets the immediate benefit and Team 2 gets the deferred benefit doesn't mean Team 1's benefit is greater than Team 2's. We're assuming that the teams are trading assets of equal value. So if we assume that the rookie pick is exactly equal in value to the vet pick then the value ultimately cancels out and neither team has an advantage. It would be like if you agreed to give me $50 today and I agreed that in five years I would pay you back your $50 plus inflation. We would be both be getting the exact same thing. Hence neither one of us would be winning or losing the exchange.

 

[kremenull]

2 stud-type RBs, 2 stud-type WRs (his original 4 picks). Now, with the extra 4th rounder (for the future 1st), Team 1 selects either another WR2 caliber talent such as D.Bowe, Holmes, or other comparable WR, or a top flight QB (Brees, Palmer, other). Keep in mind, this added selection is on top of the next few round selections where Team 1 essentially still can acquire similar value as the rest of the league in their selections. So, in the end, Team 1 will have a very huge advantage in talent, and depth, vs the rest of the league going into year 1 just by adding the 1 player right now in exchange for a future 1st. Thus, skewing the balance of the league.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that you aren't accounting for the cost of losing the rookie pick. Sure, Team 1 might do better in year one because he had an extra vet pick, but that advantage will be canceled out once the rookie draft comes along and he misses out on the elite prospects. Just because Team 1 gets the immediate benefit and Team 2 gets the deferred benefit doesn't mean Team 1's benefit is greater than Team 2's. We're assuming that the teams are trading assets of equal value. So if we assume that the rookie pick is exactly equal in value to the vet pick then the value ultimately cancels out and neither team has an advantage. It would be like if you agreed to give me $50 today and I agreed that in five years I would pay you back your $50 plus inflation. We would be both be getting the exact same thing. Hence neither one of us would be winning or losing the exchange.

Sorry bud, in no way are these comparable occurrences. I run a $300/yr dynasty, and if in the startup draft I would have processed a trade such as this, thus giving said owner the clear-cut advantage at winning ~$2k, I'm sorry, but I think I would have been stoned to death. I know if I was a participating owner with such stakes on the line, and frankly, it could be $20 on the line, the premise is still the same, this just doesn't fly in my book. Here's hoping I don't have to confront such a situation in any of my leagues, 'cause I would not let this slide, no how no way. Although, it's good to get an opposing take on this issue, I think things like this should be discussed so that people who commish leagues can gather different points of view........but honestly, I really don''t see how anyone can agree with you here, my friend. No disrespect though, it's just that it'd be too much of a hassle to have to determine the fair value of the 1st Rder during the inaugural draft, as well as take into account the league balance and fair play issues. It's just not worth it to me to allow these types of deals. Now if someone wants to wheel and deal the drafted players for the draft picks after the draft is done, so be it. At least the playing field, and opportunity for such a deal, is now open to everyone whereas the possibility of collusion would instantly creep into my mind in the original case (draft pick for future 1st).

 

[EBF]

No one is suggesting that owners should be allowed to trade top 30 veteran picks for future first round picks. Obviously there comes a point where the veteran pick is so high that it holds a lot more value than the rookie pick. However, I still think trades of initial vet picks for rookie picks should be fair game in serious leagues.

The rough numbers show that the average future first round rookie pick is worth an early 7th round pick in the initial draft. I don't see why an owner wouldn't be allowed to give up his 7th round pick for a future first. Do you really think an extra 7th round pick is going to catastrophically shift the power structure in your dynasty league?

I think people sometimes have a hard time with the temporal component of the dynasty format. I've noticed that a lot of owners don't understand that tomorrow = today, so they have a problem with any move that is geared towards the future.

As far as the trading of initial picks for rookie picks goes, I think you can break it down using simple mathematics.

Let V = a unit of value = 7th round vet pick = future 1st round rookie pick

At the beginning of the league, each team starts out with an equal number of value units. For simplicity sake, let's say that number is eight.

Team 1

VVVV

VVVV

Team 2

VVVV

VVVV

Each of these teams also has a future first round rookie pick in its pocket. The value of the pick is V. I will put the pick in parenthesis to indicate that it is off in an inaccessible cocoon that won't hatch until the rookie draft.

Team 1

VVVV

VVVV + (V)

Team 2

VVVV

VVVV + (V)

Now Team 1 and Team 2 agree to a trade. Team 1 will trade its rookie pick for a unit of value from Team 2. That leaves the following:

Team 1

VVVV

VVVVV

Team 2

VVVV

VVV + (V) + (V)

Team 1 has a value advantage right now.

The season ends. The NFL draft happens and the rookie picks hatch, leaving us with the following:

Team 1

VVVV

VVVVV

Team 2

VVVV

VVVVV

Once again, the total value of Team 1 = the total value of Team 2.

The trade has canceled out. Neither team has "thrown off the balance of the league."

Now someone might look at this and say, "Wait, doesn't Team 1 still win because there was a period of time when its value

exceeded that of Team 2?" Not in theory because there will come a time years down the road where the initial V that was traded from Team 2 to Team 1 will expire and since the the (V) acquired by Team 1 in that trade is a younger player who has a greater shelf life on average, the greater long-term shelf life of the (V) will cancel out the short-term advantage.

Whether or not you agree with my point doesn't affect whether or not my point is correct. If the assets being traded are of equivalent value then neither team wins or loses from the deal in the long-term. It just means that they experience the benefits at different times. Simple as that.

 

[gianmarco]

Can't understand why someone would argue this would hurt the league. Think of it this way. Let's say you draft Deion Branch in the 7th round. How would it be any different trading that 7th round pick for a 2009 1st round rookie pick during the draft vs. waiting till the draft is over and trading Branch for a 2009 1st round pick? That thinking makes no sense. They are the exact same thing. Instead of looking at it as a pick, look at it as a player. It's no different if you trade it before the draft, during the draft, at the end of the draft, or 2 months into the season.

 

[hacman]

I have to say kremenull is being narrow-minded here- I would not participate in a league that would veto a trade like this. Not everyone builds their team to win year 1. There was an interesting article on FBG (I forget the author) who makes argument to build for year 2.

 

[FUBAR]

2 stud-type RBs, 2 stud-type WRs (his original 4 picks). Now, with the extra 4th rounder (for the future 1st), Team 1 selects either another WR2 caliber talent such as D.Bowe, Holmes, or other comparable WR, or a top flight QB (Brees, Palmer, other). Keep in mind, this added selection is on top of the next few round selections where Team 1 essentially still can acquire similar value as the rest of the league in their selections. So, in the end, Team 1 will have a very huge advantage in talent, and depth, vs the rest of the league going into year 1 just by adding the 1 player right now in exchange for a future 1st. Thus, skewing the balance of the league.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that you aren't accounting for the cost of losing the rookie pick. Sure, Team 1 might do better in year one because he had an extra vet pick, but that advantage will be canceled out once the rookie draft comes along and he misses out on the elite prospects. Just because Team 1 gets the immediate benefit and Team 2 gets the deferred benefit doesn't mean Team 1's benefit is greater than Team 2's. We're assuming that the teams are trading assets of equal value. So if we assume that the rookie pick is exactly equal in value to the vet pick then the value ultimately cancels out and neither team has an advantage. It would be like if you agreed to give me $50 today and I agreed that in five years I would pay you back your $50 plus inflation. We would be both be getting the exact same thing. Hence neither one of us would be winning or losing the exchange.

Sorry bud, in no way are these comparable occurrences. I run a $300/yr dynasty, and if in the startup draft I would have processed a trade such as this, thus giving said owner the clear-cut advantage at winning ~$2k, I'm sorry, but I think I would have been stoned to death. I know if I was a participating owner with such stakes on the line, and frankly, it could be $20 on the line, the premise is still the same, this just doesn't fly in my book. Here's hoping I don't have to confront such a situation in any of my leagues, 'cause I would not let this slide, no how no way. Although, it's good to get an opposing take on this issue, I think things like this should be discussed so that people who commish leagues can gather different points of view........but honestly, I really don''t see how anyone can agree with you here, my friend. No disrespect though, it's just that it'd be too much of a hassle to have to determine the fair value of the 1st Rder during the inaugural draft, as well as take into account the league balance and fair play issues. It's just not worth it to me to allow these types of deals. Now if someone wants to wheel and deal the drafted players for the draft picks after the draft is done, so be it. At least the playing field, and opportunity for such a deal, is now open to everyone whereas the possibility of collusion would instantly creep into my mind in the original case (draft pick for future 1st).

I disagree, but am intrigued. Do you ever think it's ok to trade a future pick for something in the present?

 

[kremenull]

No one is suggesting that owners should be allowed to trade top 30 veteran picks for future first round picks. Obviously there comes a point where the veteran pick is so high that it holds a lot more value than the rookie pick. However, I still think trades of initial vet picks for rookie picks should be fair game in serious leagues.

The rough numbers show that the average future first round rookie pick is worth an early 7th round pick in the initial draft. I don't see why an owner wouldn't be allowed to give up his 7th round pick for a future first. Do you really think an extra 7th round pick is going to catastrophically shift the power structure in your dynasty league?

I think people sometimes have a hard time with the temporal component of the dynasty format. I've noticed that a lot of owners don't understand that tomorrow = today, so they have a problem with any move that is geared towards the future.

As far as the trading of initial picks for rookie picks goes, I think you can break it down using simple mathematics.

Let V = a unit of value = 7th round vet pick = future 1st round rookie pick

At the beginning of the league, each team starts out with an equal number of value units. For simplicity sake, let's say that number is eight.

Team 1

VVVV

VVVV

Team 2

VVVV

VVVV

Each of these teams also has a future first round rookie pick in its pocket. The value of the pick is V. I will put the pick in parenthesis to indicate that it is off in an inaccessible cocoon that won't hatch until the rookie draft.

Team 1

VVVV

VVVV + (V)

Team 2

VVVV

VVVV + (V)

Now Team 1 and Team 2 agree to a trade. Team 1 will trade its rookie pick for a unit of value from Team 2. That leaves the following:

Team 1

VVVV

VVVVV

Team 2

VVVV

VVV + (V) + (V)

Team 1 has a value advantage right now.

The season ends. The NFL draft happens and the rookie picks hatch, leaving us with the following:

Team 1

VVVV

VVVVV

Team 2

VVVV

VVVVV

Once again, the total value of Team 1 = the total value of Team 2.

The trade has canceled out. Neither team has "thrown off the balance of the league."

Now someone might look at this and say, "Wait, doesn't Team 1 still win because there was a period of time when its value

exceeded that of Team 2?" Not in theory because there will come a time years down the road where the initial V that was traded from Team 2 to Team 1 will expire and since the the (V) acquired by Team 1 in that trade is a younger player who has a greater shelf life on average, the greater long-term shelf life of the (V) will cancel out the short-term advantage.

Whether or not you agree with my point doesn't affect whether or not my point is correct. If the assets being traded are of equivalent value then neither team wins or loses from the deal in the long-term. It just means that they experience the benefits at different times. Simple as that.

Yeah, these formulas look and sound so precise and all, but I simply can't agree with the basis of a rookie pick = 7th Rd vet pick......I saw the thread from Beto and frankly, it just doesn't jibe with me. Each rookie draft is different, and placing the same basis value on a rookie pick from 2005, 2006, 2007, and now 2008, is inaccurate. The rookie drafts are not equivalent in top-end talent nor depth (e.g., 2007 was seriously lacking depth, and 2005 lacked star power) and neither are the inaugural drafts. IMO, this is the deepest talent pool for startup dynasty drafts in quite some time, with both veteran and rookie pools loaded with quality and quantity talent. All this value basis is purely subjective, so that's why I believe it simply isn't worth the added hassle to promote these types of deals. I believe commissioner's already have a tough time in assessing fair value of draft picks for player trades anyway, as this is again subjective to the eyes of the beholder. So why add even more (possible) turmoil by allowing even more subjective trades, which is what I would classify these types (rookie pick for veteran pick) of deals to be. Anyway, good debate.... ......but I'm now Warrick.........as in Dunn!

 

[gianmarco]

Since when is it a commish's job to judge the value of a trade? Maybe that's the problem. That's not up to the commish, it's up to the 2 parties involved and it seems you think a commish should have final say in a trade. I would guess 99% of people here would disagree with that.

Again, what's the difference if I trade my 7th round pick for the 2009 1st vs. trading the player I took with the 7th round pick for the 2009 1st?

 

[hacman]

I believe commissioner's already have a tough time in assessing fair value of draft picks for player trades anyway, as this is again subjective to the eyes of the beholder. So why add even more (possible) turmoil by allowing even more subjective trades, which is what I would classify these types (rookie pick for veteran pick) of deals to be.

I don't believe that the commissioner's job is to assess fair value on trades; it's to assess whether there is collusion or not.

 

[duece2626]

I see no reason why there should be a problem in trading a rookie pick for a vet pick. And some good points were made about being commish..... It's not the commishs job to dictate whether a trade was fair or not, it's his job to prevent collusion, nothing more.

 

[nittanylion]

...or, if you haven't had your Draft yet, (which you shouldn't have - no startup Dynasty should have it's initial player disbursement until after the NFL Draft), you can avert all this mess by bringing up the merits of an AUCTION to initially disburse the Players...

...do a search and find the threads where we've discussed this from one end to the other. You'll find a plenty of thoughts from highly respected longtimers from these parts that overwhelmingly agree that an Auction is a much more equitable way to START UP a Dynasty League, and beats the living daylights out of a Draft.

From these threads, you'll have the material you need to form an absolutely bulletproof pitch by which to convince your Leaguemates that this is the way to go.

In short, every Owner enters the Auction on equal footing, and has to make economic decisions how to spend their Fantasy Bucks to build their Team to their image and likeness. Every single Owner will have a chance to craft their franchise to their own individual philosophy, and, if they are willing and able to pay for them, acquire ANY AND EVERY Player they want on their roster to implement said strategy.

Every Owner has a shot at Tomlinson, Manning, etc., not the guy lucky enough to win whatever contest you formulate to decide your Draft Order...as long as you're willing and able to be the highest bidder!

Drafts are a fine way to distribute Rookies, and if you choose, Restricted and Urestricted Free Agents, in future Seasons, if you choose...

...but at least consider giving your Owners a chance to 'do it their way' right out of the gate - by developing a Team Strategy for the Present and Future, and, if able and willing, to have access to any and every player they choose to acquire, to implement it.

When it comes to starting a Dynasty League...

Draft:

Auction:

...and please feel free to PM if you're interested in any specifics. I'll be happy to link you to the Message Board for my $$$ Dynasty League, now going strong into it's 8th Season.

 

[kremenull]

I see no reason why there should be a problem in trading a rookie pick for a vet pick. And some good points were made about being commish..... It's not the commishs job to dictate whether a trade was fair or not, it's his job to prevent collusion, nothing more.

So if I were to trade for S-Jax, and give up B.Marshall and 1.07, let's say......As a commish, you all would allow this deal to be processed??? I don't know what type of leagues you guys play in, but for me, if a one-sided, bonehead move by another owner is the primary culprit for me (and others) not having a viable chance to compete for the top prize, then I'm raising a ruckus.......and not after the fact, but as it happens. Sure, obvious collusion is first and foremost, but also in big $$$$ leagues, severely undervalued deals should also be taken into consideration on whether they should be processed or not. And no matter how this is resolved per your by-laws, league vote, commissioner authority, or whatever, if this isn't in place then I'd think there is a strong potential for disaster, and league anarchy. It has nothing to do with dictating anything, it has to do with a fair playing field, for which often, collusion could be at the root yet not provable.Anyway, you guys do what you do, and I'll keep doing what I do, but when my $$$ are on the line, I'm not into these haphazard, laissez-faire attitudes when it comes to a fair playing field. In any $500 or more league, I think you'd be crazy to join without a no-trade stipulation in place. And you may all believe this is only to avoid possible collusion, but boneheaded decisions that skew the playing field, deals that can be made quite innocently in fact, are also what this stipulation is meant to avoid. So to me, applying some of the same principles to the lower money leagues should also be considered, and that's why I do what I do even in lesser $$$$ leagues.....as someone else's dollars, big or small in comparison to yours, should be respected and protected just as well.......Just me, I guess, but I'm real serious about this stuff.

 

[FUBAR]

I see no reason why there should be a problem in trading a rookie pick for a vet pick. And some good points were made about being commish..... It's not the commishs job to dictate whether a trade was fair or not, it's his job to prevent collusion, nothing more.

So if I were to trade for S-Jax, and give up B.Marshall and 1.07, let's say......As a commish, you all would allow this deal to be processed??? I don't know what type of leagues you guys play in, but for me, if a one-sided, bonehead move by another owner is the primary culprit for me (and others) not having a viable chance to compete for the top prize, then I'm raising a ruckus.......and not after the fact, but as it happens. Sure, obvious collusion is first and foremost, but also in big $$$$ leagues, severely undervalued deals should also be taken into consideration on whether they should be processed or not. And no matter how this is resolved per your by-laws, league vote, commissioner authority, or whatever, if this isn't in place then I'd think there is a strong potential for disaster, and league anarchy. It has nothing to do with dictating anything, it has to do with a fair playing field, for which often, collusion could be at the root yet not provable.Anyway, you guys do what you do, and I'll keep doing what I do, but when my $$$ are on the line, I'm not into these haphazard, laissez-faire attitudes when it comes to a fair playing field. In any $500 or more league, I think you'd be crazy to join without a no-trade stipulation in place. And you may all believe this is only to avoid possible collusion, but boneheaded decisions that skew the playing field, deals that can be made quite innocently in fact, are also what this stipulation is meant to avoid. So to me, applying some of the same principles to the lower money leagues should also be considered, and that's why I do what I do even in lesser $$$$ leagues.....as someone else's dollars, big or small in comparison to yours, should be respected and protected just as well.......Just me, I guess, but I'm real serious about this stuff.

FWIW, I agree with the competition angle, but that's why I only join $$$ leagues with good owners I've known for long enough to have little to no doubt that they'll make good decisions. It's not up to me to dictate what fair value for another owner's players is, but it is up to me to play with intelligent owners.As for the "no-trade" stipulation, the only leagues I'll do with those are survivor leagues. I just don't find an inactive league all that fun. (and from my experience, no-trade = little to no activity)

 

[kremenull]

...or, if you haven't had your Draft yet, (which you shouldn't have - no startup Dynasty should have it's initial player disbursement until after the NFL Draft), you can avert all this mess by bringing up the merits of an AUCTION to initially disburse the Players......do a search and find the threads where we've discussed this from one end to the other. You'll find a plenty of thoughts from highly respected longtimers from these parts that overwhelmingly agree that an Auction is a much more equitable way to START UP a Dynasty League, and beats the living daylights out of a Draft.From these threads, you'll have the material you need to form an absolutely bulletproof pitch by which to convince your Leaguemates that this is the way to go.In short, every Owner enters the Auction on equal footing, and has to make economic decisions how to spend their Fantasy Bucks to build their Team to their image and likeness. Every single Owner will have a chance to craft their franchise to their own individual philosophy, and, if they are willing and able to pay for them, acquire ANY AND EVERY Player they want on their roster to implement said strategy.Every Owner has a shot at Tomlinson, Manning, etc., not the guy lucky enough to win whatever contest you formulate to decide your Draft Order...as long as you're willing and able to be the highest bidder!Drafts are a fine way to distribute Rookies, and if you choose, Restricted and Urestricted Free Agents, in future Seasons, if you choose......but at least consider giving your Owners a chance to 'do it their way' right out of the gate - by developing a Team Strategy for the Present and Future, and, if able and willing, to have access to any and every player they choose to acquire, to implement it.When it comes to starting a Dynasty League...Draft: Auction: ...and please feel free to PM if you're interested in any specifics. I'll be happy to link you to the Message Board for my $$$ Dynasty League, now going strong into it's 8th Season.

Excellent contribution my man......and I would not disagree. I just did my first auctions last year, one redraft and one dynasty. I think it will take some time to get the flock to completely abandon these serpentine draft formats though, but frankly, with all these issues, it might be well worth it. In fact, I've been strongly considering starting an auction-style dynasty for this season.

 

[duece2626]

I see no reason why there should be a problem in trading a rookie pick for a vet pick. And some good points were made about being commish..... It's not the commishs job to dictate whether a trade was fair or not, it's his job to prevent collusion, nothing more.

So if I were to trade for S-Jax, and give up B.Marshall and 1.07, let's say......As a commish, you all would allow this deal to be processed??? I don't know what type of leagues you guys play in, but for me, if a one-sided, bonehead move by another owner is the primary culprit for me (and others) not having a viable chance to compete for the top prize, then I'm raising a ruckus.......and not after the fact, but as it happens. Sure, obvious collusion is first and foremost, but also in big $$$$ leagues, severely undervalued deals should also be taken into consideration on whether they should be processed or not. And no matter how this is resolved per your by-laws, league vote, commissioner authority, or whatever, if this isn't in place then I'd think there is a strong potential for disaster, and league anarchy. It has nothing to do with dictating anything, it has to do with a fair playing field, for which often, collusion could be at the root yet not provable.Anyway, you guys do what you do, and I'll keep doing what I do, but when my $$$ are on the line, I'm not into these haphazard, laissez-faire attitudes when it comes to a fair playing field. In any $500 or more league, I think you'd be crazy to join without a no-trade stipulation in place. And you may all believe this is only to avoid possible collusion, but boneheaded decisions that skew the playing field, deals that can be made quite innocently in fact, are also what this stipulation is meant to avoid. So to me, applying some of the same principles to the lower money leagues should also be considered, and that's why I do what I do even in lesser $$$$ leagues.....as someone else's dollars, big or small in comparison to yours, should be respected and protected just as well.......Just me, I guess, but I'm real serious about this stuff.

So then maybe you should have all teams contact you with all their trade offers to make sure they suit your fancy.

 

[kremenull]

FWIW, I agree with the competition angle, but that's why I only join $$$ leagues with good owners I've known for long enough to have little to no doubt that they'll make good decisions. It's not up to me to dictate what fair value for another owner's players is, but it is up to me to play with intelligent owners.

Yeah, no problem with your stance, but maybe I'm not so fortunate in that my habits tend to place me in leagues with several people I'm not all that familiar with in this fantasy game.....Intelligence of an owner could also be subjective based on a given decision ....some people are risk-takers, I know plenty of 'em and could be considered one myself......and with that, who knows what the outcome will be from any given deal, some guys play by the book, which is fine and dandy, only dealing when the perceived value is consensus-wise clearly in their favor....nothing wrong with that, but someone thus has to take the bigger (perceived) risk, and judging the value of that risk is what most of you (as indicated) would choose to ignore.....

As for the "no-trade" stipulation, the only leagues I'll do with those are survivor leagues. I just don't find an inactive league all that fun. (and from my experience, no-trade = little to no activity)

Inactive as in, no waiver wire activity and no trash talk......Cause if you were in any league with me, these things would be what you'd be getting from my franchise.....

 

[kremenull]

I see no reason why there should be a problem in trading a rookie pick for a vet pick. And some good points were made about being commish..... It's not the commishs job to dictate whether a trade was fair or not, it's his job to prevent collusion, nothing more.

So if I were to trade for S-Jax, and give up B.Marshall and 1.07, let's say......As a commish, you all would allow this deal to be processed??? I don't know what type of leagues you guys play in, but for me, if a one-sided, bonehead move by another owner is the primary culprit for me (and others) not having a viable chance to compete for the top prize, then I'm raising a ruckus.......and not after the fact, but as it happens. Sure, obvious collusion is first and foremost, but also in big $$$$ leagues, severely undervalued deals should also be taken into consideration on whether they should be processed or not. And no matter how this is resolved per your by-laws, league vote, commissioner authority, or whatever, if this isn't in place then I'd think there is a strong potential for disaster, and league anarchy. It has nothing to do with dictating anything, it has to do with a fair playing field, for which often, collusion could be at the root yet not provable.Anyway, you guys do what you do, and I'll keep doing what I do, but when my $$$ are on the line, I'm not into these haphazard, laissez-faire attitudes when it comes to a fair playing field. In any $500 or more league, I think you'd be crazy to join without a no-trade stipulation in place. And you may all believe this is only to avoid possible collusion, but boneheaded decisions that skew the playing field, deals that can be made quite innocently in fact, are also what this stipulation is meant to avoid. So to me, applying some of the same principles to the lower money leagues should also be considered, and that's why I do what I do even in lesser $$$$ leagues.....as someone else's dollars, big or small in comparison to yours, should be respected and protected just as well.......Just me, I guess, but I'm real serious about this stuff.

So then maybe you should have all teams contact you with all their trade offers to make sure they suit your fancy.

And maybe you should step up your game and learn from other people's perspectives about this here entity (fantasy game), which might just help you out at some point. I bring a different mindset, I could care less if you or anybody else can't see where I'm coming from. But let the record show, no deal has been vetoed to date in any of the leagues that I have run, and there have been plenty. You just have to set the ground rules from the start as to where you're coming from, and things should (hopefully) move forward w/o problems.

 

[duece2626]

And maybe you should step up your game and learn from other people's perspectives about this here entity (fantasy game), which might just help you out at some point. I bring a different mindset, I could care less if you or anybody else can't see where I'm coming from. But let the record show, no deal has been vetoed to date in any of the leagues that I have run, and there have been plenty. You just have to set the ground rules from the start as to where you're coming from, and things should (hopefully) move forward w/o problems.

LMAO!! Step up my game? WTF are you even talking about? You dont know me from the next guy, yet you run your mouth? Maybe you're the one that needs to learn from other people's perspectives. Seems like you're in the minority here that doesn't allow trading of future rookie picks, for current vet picks, which is what this thread was about in the first place. Congrats to you and your league that you've never vetoed any trades!! Keep up the good work pal!!

 

[comfortably numb]

I have to say kremenull is being narrow-minded here- I would not participate in a league that would veto a trade like this. Not everyone builds their team to win year 1. There was an interesting article on FBG (I forget the author) who makes argument to build for year 2.

I played in 2 stratup 16 team leagues last year, and 2 teams clearly were playing for year 2.2 months before our initial draft half the teams didn't have their 09 picks.I can understand the shifting of balance thought, but I much rather focus on having fun and allowing paid owners to manage their teams however they want.I still think all owners in those leagues are very serious, just a different strategy for different owners.The day a commish tells me I can't make a trade because I am getting ripped off, and shifting the balance of the league is the day I leave that league.To answer the question in would depend, I would offer a 4th-5th, if I really felt that teams 1st few picks were pretty bad, otherwise 6-8.Not to mention, if say I moved my 4,5, and 6th for 09 1st, I could still move those picks in season for players.To me it's all about value.Understanding what is valued highly amongst your league mates.If picks are a hot commodity, I like to accumulate at a lower price, and sell at a higher price. (if/when possible)

 

[duece2626]

I can understand the shifting of balance thought, but I much rather focus on having fun and allowing paid owners to manage their teams however they want.I still think all owners in those leagues are very serious, just a different strategy for different owners.The day a commish tells me I can't make a trade because I am getting ripped off, and shifting the balance of the league is the day I leave that league.

 

[LBH]

in 2 different start up dynasty/idp leagues ive managed to get a 3rd rd pick for my 1st rd pick in the following years rookie draft. There always seems to be someone that will pay at least a 4th rd pick

 

[kremenull]

And maybe you should step up your game and learn from other people's perspectives about this here entity (fantasy game), which might just help you out at some point. I bring a different mindset, I could care less if you or anybody else can't see where I'm coming from. But let the record show, no deal has been vetoed to date in any of the leagues that I have run, and there have been plenty. You just have to set the ground rules from the start as to where you're coming from, and things should (hopefully) move forward w/o problems.

LMAO!! Step up my game? WTF are you even talking about? You dont know me from the next guy, yet you run your mouth? Maybe you're the one that needs to learn from other people's perspectives. Seems like you're in the minority here that doesn't allow trading of future rookie picks, for current vet picks, which is what this thread was about in the first place. Congrats to you and your league that you've never vetoed any trades!! Keep up the good work pal!!

Yeah, we all should take the time to learn from other people's perspectives, and that's why I've been in here discussing with EBF. If you've followed the commentary, then you'd know that I've checked into where this value basis comes from and the points that you guys are defending, and I just don't agree with how it is derived. And in the end, we (EBF and I) didn't have to agree, and you guys' consensus viewpoints on placing values on 1st Rders with respect to vet picks is just that, consensus. I personally don't subscribe to everything that is consensus, if it doesn't make sense, and no matter what anyone says in here about this value basis, it's still just another subjective addition to this fantasy game......one that I could do just fine without. So, your wise-crack comment towards me is what prompted my response, which was not inaccurate nor attacking. Step up your game, just like anyone else, including me, if you're serious, will always be striving to do. Life without progress ain't livin'......

Anyway, it'd be best to stick to the script and help this gent out with regards to his original question since you seem to be so supportive of these types of deals. No need to get sidetracked by me and my opinions as you'll be wrestling this hog for a long time......

 

[duece2626]

So, your wise-crack comment towards me is what prompted my response, which was not inaccurate nor attacking. Step up your game, just like anyone else, including me, if you're serious, will always be striving to do. Life without progress ain't livin'......

Anyway, it'd be best to stick to the script and help this gent out with regards to his original question since you seem to be so supportive of these types of deals. No need to get sidetracked by me and my opinions as you'll be wrestling this hog for a long time......

You're the one that came after me after I simply posted that I don't see anything wrong with trading future rookie picks for current vet picks, and the fact that it's not the commish's job to dictate whether a trade is "fair" or not.And as far as "sticking to the script" of this thread, I was. You are the one that went on a tangent about how you run your leagues as commish ;-)

ETA: So do you also not allow trading '08 rookie picks for '09 rookie picks?

 

[FUBAR]

FWIW, I agree with the competition angle, but that's why I only join $$$ leagues with good owners I've known for long enough to have little to no doubt that they'll make good decisions. It's not up to me to dictate what fair value for another owner's players is, but it is up to me to play with intelligent owners.

Yeah, no problem with your stance, but maybe I'm not so fortunate in that my habits tend to place me in leagues with several people I'm not all that familiar with in this fantasy game.....Intelligence of an owner could also be subjective based on a given decision ....some people are risk-takers, I know plenty of 'em and could be considered one myself......and with that, who knows what the outcome will be from any given deal, some guys play by the book, which is fine and dandy, only dealing when the perceived value is consensus-wise clearly in their favor....nothing wrong with that, but someone thus has to take the bigger (perceived) risk, and judging the value of that risk is what most of you (as indicated) would choose to ignore.....

This is a great argument, but it seems completely contradictory to your stance.

As for the "no-trade" stipulation, the only leagues I'll do with those are survivor leagues. I just don't find an inactive league all that fun. (and from my experience, no-trade = little to no activity)

Inactive as in, no waiver wire activity and no trash talk......Cause if you were in any league with me, these things would be what you'd be getting from my franchise.....

as opposed to just getting beat, as you would be by my franchise.

 

[FUBAR]

And maybe you should step up your game and learn from other people's perspectives about this here entity (fantasy game), which might just help you out at some point. I bring a different mindset, I could care less if you or anybody else can't see where I'm coming from. But let the record show, no deal has been vetoed to date in any of the leagues that I have run, and there have been plenty. You just have to set the ground rules from the start as to where you're coming from, and things should (hopefully) move forward w/o problems.

LMAO!! Step up my game? WTF are you even talking about? You dont know me from the next guy, yet you run your mouth? Maybe you're the one that needs to learn from other people's perspectives. Seems like you're in the minority here that doesn't allow trading of future rookie picks, for current vet picks, which is what this thread was about in the first place. Congrats to you and your league that you've never vetoed any trades!! Keep up the good work pal!!

I'm fairly certain Kremenull is drunk.

 

[kremenull]

I have to say kremenull is being narrow-minded here- I would not participate in a league that would veto a trade like this. Not everyone builds their team to win year 1. There was an interesting article on FBG (I forget the author) who makes argument to build for year 2.

I played in 2 stratup 16 team leagues last year, and 2 teams clearly were playing for year 2.2 months before our initial draft half the teams didn't have their 09 picks.I can understand the shifting of balance thought, but I much rather focus on having fun and allowing paid owners to manage their teams however they want.I still think all owners in those leagues are very serious, just a different strategy for different owners.The day a commish tells me I can't make a trade because I am getting ripped off, and shifting the balance of the league is the day I leave that league.To answer the question in would depend, I would offer a 4th-5th, if I really felt that teams 1st few picks were pretty bad, otherwise 6-8.Not to mention, if say I moved my 4,5, and 6th for 09 1st, I could still move those picks in season for players.To me it's all about value.Understanding what is valued highly amongst your league mates.If picks are a hot commodity, I like to accumulate at a lower price, and sell at a higher price. (if/when possible)

Just for my own information, if you would please......How much are the league fees for this league?

 

[kremenull]

And maybe you should step up your game and learn from other people's perspectives about this here entity (fantasy game), which might just help you out at some point. I bring a different mindset, I could care less if you or anybody else can't see where I'm coming from. But let the record show, no deal has been vetoed to date in any of the leagues that I have run, and there have been plenty. You just have to set the ground rules from the start as to where you're coming from, and things should (hopefully) move forward w/o problems.

LMAO!! Step up my game? WTF are you even talking about? You dont know me from the next guy, yet you run your mouth? Maybe you're the one that needs to learn from other people's perspectives. Seems like you're in the minority here that doesn't allow trading of future rookie picks, for current vet picks, which is what this thread was about in the first place. Congrats to you and your league that you've never vetoed any trades!! Keep up the good work pal!!

I'm fairly certain Kremenull is drunk.

And I'm totally certain that I haven't had an alcoholic beverage in......what is it now, 15 years......."Always sober, never a pushover"......

 

[kremenull]

FWIW, I agree with the competition angle, but that's why I only join $$$ leagues with good owners I've known for long enough to have little to no doubt that they'll make good decisions. It's not up to me to dictate what fair value for another owner's players is, but it is up to me to play with intelligent owners.

Yeah, no problem with your stance, but maybe I'm not so fortunate in that my habits tend to place me in leagues with several people I'm not all that familiar with in this fantasy game.....Intelligence of an owner could also be subjective based on a given decision ....some people are risk-takers, I know plenty of 'em and could be considered one myself......and with that, who knows what the outcome will be from any given deal, some guys play by the book, which is fine and dandy, only dealing when the perceived value is consensus-wise clearly in their favor....nothing wrong with that, but someone thus has to take the bigger (perceived) risk, and judging the value of that risk is what most of you (as indicated) would choose to ignore.....

This is a great argument, but it seems completely contradictory to your stance.

As for the "no-trade" stipulation, the only leagues I'll do with those are survivor leagues. I just don't find an inactive league all that fun. (and from my experience, no-trade = little to no activity)

Inactive as in, no waiver wire activity and no trash talk......Cause if you were in any league with me, these things would be what you'd be getting from my franchise.....

as opposed to just getting beat, as you would be by my franchise.

Not the least bit......what it means is that of course not every deal will be considered equal in value, and I've never stated that they are......the thing that I was commenting on is the statement re trusting of other owners in $$$ leagues, where I feel "anything goes" should never be the mantra...... the premise that I have a problem with in this whole discussion is the future 1st Rd value assessment.......why is this so trusted, very limited data for such a determination, and it's very subjective. With so much subjectivity already imbedded in this fantasy game, why introduce even more that appears to be the most subjective of any type of deal - future pick vs. vet pick??......that's total guesswork on the value assessment. For starters, you have not a single clue indicative as to what the pick will possibly be (1.01-1.12......so you're just averaging it out to be the middle of the round to come up with a 7th Rd value based on some guy's theoretical analysis, as well prepared as it may have been)......and so-on and so-on, the subjectivity increases, introducing even more luck into the game...as many tangibles as you can add into the mix (known player for future draft pick) or by relating apples-to-apples (current draft pick(s) for current draft pick(s)), the smoother the operation and the competitive playing field is not overly altered. Why further convolute such a convoluted entity? That's all I'm asking.FUBAR, I'd run you into the ground from Week 1 to Week 16.......Why don't you join up with the startup league posted by BETHEMATCH in the Leagues forum, and put your $$$$ where your mouth is........All-League weekly play, so it's on every week vs the field....you and me playa!... DON'T BE SKAAAIIIRD NOW!

 

[gianmarco]

FWIW, I agree with the competition angle, but that's why I only join $$$ leagues with good owners I've known for long enough to have little to no doubt that they'll make good decisions. It's not up to me to dictate what fair value for another owner's players is, but it is up to me to play with intelligent owners.

Yeah, no problem with your stance, but maybe I'm not so fortunate in that my habits tend to place me in leagues with several people I'm not all that familiar with in this fantasy game.....Intelligence of an owner could also be subjective based on a given decision ....some people are risk-takers, I know plenty of 'em and could be considered one myself......and with that, who knows what the outcome will be from any given deal, some guys play by the book, which is fine and dandy, only dealing when the perceived value is consensus-wise clearly in their favor....nothing wrong with that, but someone thus has to take the bigger (perceived) risk, and judging the value of that risk is what most of you (as indicated) would choose to ignore.....

This is a great argument, but it seems completely contradictory to your stance.

As for the "no-trade" stipulation, the only leagues I'll do with those are survivor leagues. I just don't find an inactive league all that fun. (and from my experience, no-trade = little to no activity)

Inactive as in, no waiver wire activity and no trash talk......Cause if you were in any league with me, these things would be what you'd be getting from my franchise.....

as opposed to just getting beat, as you would be by my franchise.

Not the least bit......what it means is that of course not every deal will be considered equal in value, and I've never stated that they are......the thing that I was commenting on is the statement re trusting of other owners in $$$ leagues, where I feel "anything goes" should never be the mantra...... the premise that I have a problem with in this whole discussion is the future 1st Rd value assessment.......why is this so trusted, very limited data for such a determination, and it's very subjective. With so much subjectivity already imbedded in this fantasy game, why introduce even more that appears to be the most subjective of any type of deal - future pick vs. vet pick??......that's total guesswork on the value assessment. For starters, you have not a single clue indicative as to what the pick will possibly be (1.01-1.12......so you're just averaging it out to be the middle of the round to come up with a 7th Rd value based on some guy's theoretical analysis, as well prepared as it may have been)......and so-on and so-on, the subjectivity increases, introducing even more luck into the game...as many tangibles as you can add into the mix (known player for future draft pick) or by relating apples-to-apples (current draft pick(s) for current draft pick(s)), the smoother the operation and the competitive playing field is not overly altered. Why further convolute such a convoluted entity? That's all I'm asking.FUBAR, I'd run you into the ground from Week 1 to Week 16.......Why don't you join up with the startup league posted by BETHEMATCH in the Leagues forum, and put your $$$$ where your mouth is........All-League weekly play, so it's on every week vs the field....you and me playa!... DON'T BE SKAAAIIIRD NOW!

You've yet to answer my question. What is the difference between trading my 7th round pick for a 2009 1st round rookie pick and actually selecting, say, Dallas Clark and then trading him for the 2009 1st round pick? Would I not be allowed to trade Clark for a future rookie pick in your league? Would I have to wait to do so until after the draft?

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

...or, if you haven't had your Draft yet, (which you shouldn't have - no startup Dynasty should have it's initial player disbursement until after the NFL Draft), you can avert all this mess by bringing up the merits of an AUCTION to initially disburse the Players......do a search and find the threads where we've discussed this from one end to the other. You'll find a plenty of thoughts from highly respected longtimers from these parts that overwhelmingly agree that an Auction is a much more equitable way to START UP a Dynasty League, and beats the living daylights out of a Draft.From these threads, you'll have the material you need to form an absolutely bulletproof pitch by which to convince your Leaguemates that this is the way to go.In short, every Owner enters the Auction on equal footing, and has to make economic decisions how to spend their Fantasy Bucks to build their Team to their image and likeness. Every single Owner will have a chance to craft their franchise to their own individual philosophy, and, if they are willing and able to pay for them, acquire ANY AND EVERY Player they want on their roster to implement said strategy.Every Owner has a shot at Tomlinson, Manning, etc., not the guy lucky enough to win whatever contest you formulate to decide your Draft Order...as long as you're willing and able to be the highest bidder!Drafts are a fine way to distribute Rookies, and if you choose, Restricted and Urestricted Free Agents, in future Seasons, if you choose......but at least consider giving your Owners a chance to 'do it their way' right out of the gate - by developing a Team Strategy for the Present and Future, and, if able and willing, to have access to any and every player they choose to acquire, to implement it.When it comes to starting a Dynasty League...Draft: Auction: ...and please feel free to PM if you're interested in any specifics. I'll be happy to link you to the Message Board for my $$ Dynasty League, now going strong into it's 8th Season.

 

[GregR_2]

...or, if you haven't had your Draft yet, (which you shouldn't have - no startup Dynasty should have it's initial player disbursement until after the NFL Draft), you can avert all this mess by bringing up the merits of an AUCTION to initially disburse the Players......do a search and find the threads where we've discussed this from one end to the other. You'll find a plenty of thoughts from highly respected longtimers from these parts that overwhelmingly agree that an Auction is a much more equitable way to START UP a Dynasty League, and beats the living daylights out of a Draft....

I just think it is worth stating explicitly, that while auctions are the best way of starting up a league... that is only true if all of the owners have prior experience in auctions. If you have auction novices going up against other owners with a lot of auction experience, it's probably going to be worse than if you did a draft.I'm very much in favor of auctions, but I've seen firsthand how lopsided things can be with a mix of owner experience in them. Especially if you don't play in a standard league setup.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

And maybe you should step up your game and learn from other people's perspectives about this here entity (fantasy game), which might just help you out at some point. I bring a different mindset, I could care less if you or anybody else can't see where I'm coming from. But let the record show, no deal has been vetoed to date in any of the leagues that I have run, and there have been plenty. You just have to set the ground rules from the start as to where you're coming from, and things should (hopefully) move forward w/o problems.

LMAO!! Step up my game? WTF are you even talking about? You dont know me from the next guy, yet you run your mouth? Maybe you're the one that needs to learn from other people's perspectives. Seems like you're in the minority here that doesn't allow trading of future rookie picks, for current vet picks, which is what this thread was about in the first place. Congrats to you and your league that you've never vetoed any trades!! Keep up the good work pal!!

I think you both need to chill out and move on.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Let's go back to the original question, shall we?

I go with the usual rule of thumb, which is that 1 rookie draft slot ~= 1 round.

Since you have no idea how the team with the rookie pick on the market will finish next year, I'd say you put it smack dab in the middle of the # of teams you have.

That would mean for a 12 team league, the pick is worth about a 7th.

14 teams, 8th.

16 teams, 9th.

This is just a guide of course, but 6-9th rounds are certainly within reason. I'd vote 7th.

 

[kremenull]

You've yet to answer my question. What is the difference between trading my 7th round pick for a 2009 1st round rookie pick and actually selecting, say, Dallas Clark and then trading him for the 2009 1st round pick? Would I not be allowed to trade Clark for a future rookie pick in your league? Would I have to wait to do so until after the draft?

You've yet to answer my question. What is the difference between trading my 7th round pick for a 2009 1st round rookie pick and actually selecting, say, Dallas Clark and then trading him for the 2009 1st round pick? Would I not be allowed to trade Clark for a future rookie pick in your league? Would I have to wait to do so until after the draft?

Sorry to keep you waiting, so many detractors I lost track....one at a time.....So, if you're willing to trade (overrated) Dallas Clark for a 1st Rd pick, may your guiding force be with you....Sure, you could trade Dallas Clark for a 1st Rd pick, it's your choice. I guess some people simply don't mind mortgaging their future for players who aren't even close to being a difference-maker.......at least that is a player for a draft pick......Again, let me reiterate for the last time, really, it is....my only problem with these types of trades would be in allowing a trade like this for a Top 40-50 player, as his original poll question mentioned a pick as early as a 4th-5th Rder, which, IMO, would totally skew the fair playing field of the league from it's outset. I just don't see how the best interest of the league, with paying owners, is served by allowing this particular transaction to go down.......Now some of you want to keep debating this future 1s Rd value assessment vs vet picks, which I simply don't believe in all by itself until you add something a bit more tangible to it (ala your Dallas Clark horrible move........ )......nothing more nothing less

Warrick, for real this time...

 

[kremenull]

Let's go back to the original question, shall we?

I go with the usual rule of thumb, which is that 1 rookie draft slot ~= 1 round.

Since you have no idea how the team with the rookie pick on the market will finish next year, I'd say you put it smack dab in the middle of the # of teams you have.

That would mean for a 12 team league, the pick is worth about a 7th.

14 teams, 8th.

16 teams, 9th.

This is just a guide of course, but 6-9th rounds are certainly within reason. I'd vote 7th.

Well, again, one man's OP is another man's ANGST.......Now this makes even less sense now. The more teams you add, the less value the Rd 1 pick becomes??????I dunno about that, but it seems to me that this is counter-intuitive. The more teams in a league, the later the overall selection becomes by the Rd. So for 12 teams, I get a 7th Rd for my future 1st, translating to a #72-#84 overall selection, not the greatest/surest of players, but often a gem can be still gotten.....However, in a 16-team league, my future 1st, which in my estimation is more valuable in a 16-team league as it is (whether it's middle of the 1st or toward the latter), due to the depth drying up quickly in the startup draft, thus (depth) becoming more important going forward, now my future 1st is worth a 9th Rd vet pick, which is #128-#144 overall......This is just not right, IMO......

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Let's go back to the original question, shall we?

I go with the usual rule of thumb, which is that 1 rookie draft slot ~= 1 round.

Since you have no idea how the team with the rookie pick on the market will finish next year, I'd say you put it smack dab in the middle of the # of teams you have.

That would mean for a 12 team league, the pick is worth about a 7th.

14 teams, 8th.

16 teams, 9th.

This is just a guide of course, but 6-9th rounds are certainly within reason. I'd vote 7th.

Well, again, one man's OP is another man's ANGST.......Now this makes even less sense now. The more teams you add, the less value the Rd 1 pick becomes??????I dunno about that, but it seems to me that this is counter-intuitive. The more teams in a league, the later the overall selection becomes by the Rd. So for 12 teams, I get a 7th Rd for my future 1st, translating to a #72-#84 overall selection, not the greatest/surest of players, but often a gem can be still gotten.....However, in a 16-team league, my future 1st, which in my estimation is more valuable in a 16-team league as it is (whether it's middle of the 1st or toward the latter), due to the depth drying up quickly in the startup draft, thus (depth) becoming more important going forward, now my future 1st is worth a 9th Rd vet pick, which is #128-#144 overall......This is just not right, IMO......

Yes it is counter-intuitive, but think about it.With 16 teams the future first could be the 16th rookie. Therefore it is potentially worth less.

In a league with 12 teams, the pick cannot be worse than 12th.

Now, I'll give you that the rounds get bigger so the effect probably cancels out.

I'll go back and say that it is a 7th regardless.

 

[King of the Wolfies]

I wouldnt trade my unknown rookie pick for anything less than a 3rd. A startup draft is not horribly different than a redraft. Just look at any FF mock and tell me at what point the players being selected stop being worth any 1st round pick.

 

[cstu]

Let's go back to the original question, shall we?

I go with the usual rule of thumb, which is that 1 rookie draft slot ~= 1 round.

Since you have no idea how the team with the rookie pick on the market will finish next year, I'd say you put it smack dab in the middle of the # of teams you have.

That would mean for a 12 team league, the pick is worth about a 7th.

14 teams, 8th.

16 teams, 9th.

This is just a guide of course, but 6-9th rounds are certainly within reason. I'd vote 7th.

Well, again, one man's OP is another man's ANGST.......Now this makes even less sense now. The more teams you add, the less value the Rd 1 pick becomes??????I dunno about that, but it seems to me that this is counter-intuitive. The more teams in a league, the later the overall selection becomes by the Rd. So for 12 teams, I get a 7th Rd for my future 1st, translating to a #72-#84 overall selection, not the greatest/surest of players, but often a gem can be still gotten.....However, in a 16-team league, my future 1st, which in my estimation is more valuable in a 16-team league as it is (whether it's middle of the 1st or toward the latter), due to the depth drying up quickly in the startup draft, thus (depth) becoming more important going forward, now my future 1st is worth a 9th Rd vet pick, which is #128-#144 overall......This is just not right, IMO......

Yes it is counter-intuitive, but think about it.With 16 teams the future first could be the 16th rookie. Therefore it is potentially worth less.

In a league with 12 teams, the pick cannot be worse than 12th.

Now, I'll give you that the rounds get bigger so the effect probably cancels out.

I'll go back and say that it is a 7th regardless.

7th/8th is about right and I agree the league size basically cancels out. Anyone expecting to get a high 1st round pick is likely going to be disappointed for the reason I posted earlier. If someone is trading away future draft picks then they are trying to win now and probably will.

 

[Wadsworth]

2 stud-type RBs, 2 stud-type WRs (his original 4 picks). Now, with the extra 4th rounder (for the future 1st), Team 1 selects either another WR2 caliber talent such as D.Bowe, Holmes, or other comparable WR, or a top flight QB (Brees, Palmer, other). Keep in mind, this added selection is on top of the next few round selections where Team 1 essentially still can acquire similar value as the rest of the league in their selections. So, in the end, Team 1 will have a very huge advantage in talent, and depth, vs the rest of the league going into year 1 just by adding the 1 player right now in exchange for a future 1st. Thus, skewing the balance of the league.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that you aren't accounting for the cost of losing the rookie pick. Sure, Team 1 might do better in year one because he had an extra vet pick, but that advantage will be canceled out once the rookie draft comes along and he misses out on the elite prospects. Just because Team 1 gets the immediate benefit and Team 2 gets the deferred benefit doesn't mean Team 1's benefit is greater than Team 2's. We're assuming that the teams are trading assets of equal value. So if we assume that the rookie pick is exactly equal in value to the vet pick then the value ultimately cancels out and neither team has an advantage.

It would be like if you agreed to give me $50 today and I agreed that in five years I would pay you back your $50 plus inflation. We would be both be getting the exact same thing. Hence neither one of us would be winning or losing the exchange.

........but honestly, I really don''t see how anyone can agree with you here, my friend. No disrespect though, it's just that it'd be too much of a hassle to have to determine the fair value of the 1st Rder during the inaugural draft, as well as take into account the league balance and fair play issues. It's just not worth it to me to allow these types of deals. Now if someone wants to wheel and deal the drafted players for the draft picks after the draft is done, so be it. At least the playing field, and opportunity for such a deal, is now open to everyone whereas the possibility of collusion would instantly creep into my mind in the original case (draft pick for future 1st).

This is where I disagree. As a commish, it's not your job to figure out any value or decide if you think the trade is fair. It's none of your business at all unless it's against existing rules or you(or other league members) suspect cheating. I actually made a trade like that a couple years ago in a new dynasty league. I made the playoffs the first season and ended up with 4 first round picks last season. I was collecting first rounders last season because I wanted Peterson. I made the choice that ADP was worth the risk and longterm it was in my best interest. Now I ended up not getting him even with the 4 picks, but such is life. I made the choice as to how to run my team. If the commish asked me to justify what I was doing, I'd tell him that I'm acting in what I believe to be the best interest of my team. I should not have to explain to him that I'm targeting ADP or anything else.To answer the OP's question, there are many variables such as how much respect I have for the other owner's skills and how highly I think of the next seasons draft class. If I consider the other owner weak and the draft class strong I might go as high as a 5th. If the owner is strong and the class weak I might not even offer an 8th.

 

[kremenull]

2 stud-type RBs, 2 stud-type WRs (his original 4 picks). Now, with the extra 4th rounder (for the future 1st), Team 1 selects either another WR2 caliber talent such as D.Bowe, Holmes, or other comparable WR, or a top flight QB (Brees, Palmer, other). Keep in mind, this added selection is on top of the next few round selections where Team 1 essentially still can acquire similar value as the rest of the league in their selections. So, in the end, Team 1 will have a very huge advantage in talent, and depth, vs the rest of the league going into year 1 just by adding the 1 player right now in exchange for a future 1st. Thus, skewing the balance of the league.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that you aren't accounting for the cost of losing the rookie pick. Sure, Team 1 might do better in year one because he had an extra vet pick, but that advantage will be canceled out once the rookie draft comes along and he misses out on the elite prospects. Just because Team 1 gets the immediate benefit and Team 2 gets the deferred benefit doesn't mean Team 1's benefit is greater than Team 2's. We're assuming that the teams are trading assets of equal value. So if we assume that the rookie pick is exactly equal in value to the vet pick then the value ultimately cancels out and neither team has an advantage.

It would be like if you agreed to give me $50 today and I agreed that in five years I would pay you back your $50 plus inflation. We would be both be getting the exact same thing. Hence neither one of us would be winning or losing the exchange.

........but honestly, I really don''t see how anyone can agree with you here, my friend. No disrespect though, it's just that it'd be too much of a hassle to have to determine the fair value of the 1st Rder during the inaugural draft, as well as take into account the league balance and fair play issues. It's just not worth it to me to allow these types of deals. Now if someone wants to wheel and deal the drafted players for the draft picks after the draft is done, so be it. At least the playing field, and opportunity for such a deal, is now open to everyone whereas the possibility of collusion would instantly creep into my mind in the original case (draft pick for future 1st).

This is where I disagree. As a commish, it's not your job to figure out any value or decide if you think the trade is fair. It's none of your business at all unless it's against existing rules or you(or other league members) suspect cheating. I actually made a trade like that a couple years ago in a new dynasty league. I made the playoffs the first season and ended up with 4 first round picks last season. I was collecting first rounders last season because I wanted Peterson. I made the choice that ADP was worth the risk and longterm it was in my best interest. Now I ended up not getting him even with the 4 picks, but such is life. I made the choice as to how to run my team. If the commish asked me to justify what I was doing, I'd tell him that I'm acting in what I believe to be the best interest of my team. I should not have to explain to him that I'm targeting ADP or anything else.

And respectfully, I would tell you why I was vetoing your deal if you were attempting to trade a future 1st Rd for a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, we can go on........in my league. Like I said previously, I don't know the type of culture, $$$ reward, trust, etc. that your league(s) enjoy, but for my situation, I've set the tone from the beginning that competing to win is first and foremost what matters. This msg is built into the league structure and by-laws, and this constant theme is clearly brought to the forefront in communication with the entire league, so the expectations are clearly outlined for my particular situation. So once you all show me a league at $300 or above, where this type of trading takes place during the inaugural draft and everyone is just fine with it, then you'll make a more valid point. Until you walk that there plank and understand the type of competitive landscape I'm talking about, then your reasons really don't hold much weight in my eyes.....Just the reality of the situation, no offense intended. You aren't even consistent with the opposing argument in this thread by your bolded statement. The opposing argument is the one that is assessing a value for a future rook pick vs. a vet pick, so the figuring out the value is the whole purpose of this thread. Are you saying that the rookie pick vs the vet pick has unlimited value, whatever someone is willing to pay? If so, then you don't truly understand the competitive landscape in higher stakes leagues. My take has nothing to do with a fair trade, it has to do with competitive landscape of the league. And yes, these types of trades, for anything better than a 8th Rder, have varying degrees of altering the league all the way up to these (reported by some) 3rd and 4th Rd grabs for future 1sts (insane). Those greatly impact the balance of the league........I'm in this primarily for the competition, money is gravy and adds just that much more competitive fire to the scene, so maybe we're speaking the same language, we're just on different corners of the map as I've clearly stated that I don't have a problem with trades (even particular ones that I'd perceive as unequivalent in value). But several of these responses of draft dealings are just way too skewed for the purposes of high-level competition, allow me illustrate.

Example: Hey Johnny X, my buddy, let's join this $500 dynasty league, and I'll trade you my future 1st for a 3rd Rd current vet pick, thus adding an additional top-notch player (e.g., Steve Smith, Chad, Colston, "place stud player name here please") to my squad, to join an already just as good as anybody else's team (1st year dynasty drafts are usually fairly balanced) in exchange for a non-factor future selection (1.10-1.12 you can best believe this will be). For the kind gesture, my friend, I'll split the league award with you......$2k for me, $1k for you. Oh, we only came in 2nd, OK. $1k for me, $500 for you.

Now you don't really know all of these owners in this league, if you do, more power to you and go forth with what you're doing. So now, as the commish who lets anything and everything go, 'cause remember, it's none of your business, right. Well then, go ahead and prove that this was collusion!! Nice screwing all of you guys who just donated $500 for this unreportable, and more importantly, undetectable, heist.