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

[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.

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 apparently didn't read the paragraph you quoted.

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.

I don't know you.

 

[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)

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

$100

 

[gianmarco]

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.

That's a nice long post and all, but 2 things for you to consider. 1. I play in a league over $300 and that kind of trade supervision does not exist.

2. You didn't like the Dallas Clark example. Let's say I drafted Burress in the 4th. Am I allowed to trade him for a 2009 rookie 1st? What if I took Wes Welker there? Can I trade him for a 2009 rookie 1st?

3. What would you do if I decided to draft Baltimore's defense in the 2nd or 3rd round? Would you tell me I couldn't? Would you make me repick? I mean, that kind of draft pick could "skew the competitive balance". But seriously, who are you to tell me who I can draft or who I can trade? I would argue that the actual draft picks themselves have a far larger impact than a trade would. What would you do to the guy that is a Tenn homer and drafts LenDale White in the 1st round, Vince Young in the 2nd, Alge Crumpler in the 3rd? Do you not allow him since it messes up the competitive balance?

Bottomline, you can run your league however you want and if you have 9 or 11 other owners that like that as well, then fantastic. But you are definitely in the minority on this subject and you're making it sound as if your way is the only way when playing "high stakes" with your tone. It's not and it's absurd to me. If someone felt that trading away their 4th round pick for a 2009 rookie 1st gave them the best chance to be successful, it's not up to you to decide whether that's the case. I'm pretty sure I could give up a 4th vet pick and still compete VERY well. One pick like that won't make or break my team nor will it affect the league. Guaranteed.

 

[Jedimaster21]

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.

Good points. If you truly think this is an unfair deal, you need to stop thinking short-term and open yourself up to other options. Being creative with trades is one of the best aspects of a dynasty league.

 

[RustyFA]

So krem, could you summerize your position in two paragraphs? Thanks.

 

[Jedimaster21]

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!

I think you should really think about the fact that the vast majority of posters don't agree with you here. It is up the individual owners to run their teams, and the commish should not be negating trades he doesn't agree with. For example, an owner in one of my leagues traded Rudi Johnson for MJD and Colston. At the time I was very upset (it was after both of the players had about 3 productive games), because an elite veteran was changing hands for unproven talent. Look how that turned out. If collusion is suspected, then one owner needs to call for a vote and the MAJORITY of the league needs to negate the trade. As commish, your responsibility is to the entire league, and I think you are having trouble being objective about this situation because you are competitive and want to win (which I understand). I would also consider lowering the dues...it seems that the prize money is also shaping your agenda rather than what is in the best interests of the league. I honestly don't see anything wrong with this kind of trading, and wouldn't be part of any league that wouldn't allow me to make the trades I feel would help my team.

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.

This kind of response gives some perspective of how you run things in your league. As commish, you need to listen to all angles and make the best decision. You don't want to attack other owners with different opinions. You have a greater responsibility, and I don't think you are meeting those expectations. It may be a snap judgement on my part, but I wouldn't be interested in this kind of league at all. I am not trying to attack you here...generally I agree with most of your fantasy opinions. You just need to think about the value of other perspectives...

 

[GregR_2]

Rather than continue to hijack Rusty's thread, why not go make your own to discuss this other topic?

 

[kremenull]

Jedi, yeah, you're right. You are making a snap judgment about me in how I operate my leagues that you have no basis for. And the mistake that you, and everyone in here, keeps making is that you're not even responding with the numerous examples that I've provided as to what it means to 'skew' the competitive balance of the league during the inaugural draft. This is a vehicle for possible collusion, and where there is smoke, there usually is fire. So why not just eliminate that from the equation. If some owner is so gung-ho to throw in the towel for the 1st year, then why can't he at least what till he drafts a known player before trading him for future picks......feel free. But the perception, and perception is more often than not a reality, of someone providing another owner with a huge assist right out the gate, during the startup draft, is just not kosher to me. Say what you will, but my leagues have no issues with trading, some deals that have been consumated (and processed), I definitely wouldn't do personally, that's irrelevant to processing, and I'd be willing to wager that I'm way more liberal with trades than most commissioners posting in this thread even, so speak about what you know first before making any personal judgments. My stance on this will certainly not be altered, as I do what I do ALWAYS, FIRST, AND FOREMOST, IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE LEAGUE.....

PEACE!

 

[FUBAR]

Jedi, yeah, you're right. You are making a snap judgment about me in how I operate my leagues that you have no basis for. And the mistake that you, and everyone in here, keeps making is that you're not even responding with the numerous examples that I've provided as to what it means to 'skew' the competitive balance of the league during the inaugural draft. This is a vehicle for possible collusion, and where there is smoke, there usually is fire. So why not just eliminate that from the equation. If some owner is so gung-ho to throw in the towel for the 1st year, then why can't he at least what till he drafts a known player before trading him for future picks......feel free. But the perception, and perception is more often than not a reality, of someone providing another owner with a huge assist right out the gate, during the startup draft, is just not kosher to me. Say what you will, but my leagues have no issues with trading, some deals that have been consumated (and processed), I definitely wouldn't do personally, that's irrelevant to processing, and I'd be willing to wager that I'm way more liberal with trades than most commissioners posting in this thread even, so speak about what you know first before making any personal judgments. My stance on this will certainly not be altered, as I do what I do ALWAYS, FIRST, AND FOREMOST, IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE LEAGUE.....

PEACE!

That part makes no sense. As with all picks, the pick's value is higher than the player he takes. Why handicap his trading, if you're going to allow him to trade the player right after picking?

 

[Keys Myaths]

Jedi, yeah, you're right. You are making a snap judgment about me in how I operate my leagues that you have no basis for. And the mistake that you, and everyone in here, keeps making is that you're not even responding with the numerous examples that I've provided as to what it means to 'skew' the competitive balance of the league during the inaugural draft. This is a vehicle for possible collusion, and where there is smoke, there usually is fire. So why not just eliminate that from the equation. If some owner is so gung-ho to throw in the towel for the 1st year, then why can't he at least what till he drafts a known player before trading him for future picks......feel free. But the perception, and perception is more often than not a reality, of someone providing another owner with a huge assist right out the gate, during the startup draft, is just not kosher to me. Say what you will, but my leagues have no issues with trading, some deals that have been consumated (and processed), I definitely wouldn't do personally, that's irrelevant to processing, and I'd be willing to wager that I'm way more liberal with trades than most commissioners posting in this thread even, so speak about what you know first before making any personal judgments. My stance on this will certainly not be altered, as I do what I do ALWAYS, FIRST, AND FOREMOST, IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE LEAGUE.....PEACE!

Jesus.

 

[duece2626]

That part makes no sense. As with all picks, the pick's value is higher than the player he takes. Why handicap his trading, if you're going to allow him to trade the player right after picking?

Some people just don't get it.

 

[Wadsworth]

Trying to get back to the OP, I'd say that a 7th rounder is about right if you consider the follow seasons draft class average and have no knowledge of the the other owner or consider his chances average in your league. As with so many things in fantasy, you are making a mistake if you stick to a set formula and don't adjust for variable information.