Is Trading Activity Important to Your League? (1 Viewer)

[PhantomJB]

I am Commissioner of 12-team redraft league. As the trade deadline approaches, there have only been 4 trading transactions all year, all of them involving myself. The vast majority of teams choose to draft and then play the waiver wire for the rest of the year.

It seems that most people are risk averse and have trouble letting go of a known quantity for future upside potential, even if it may meet a positional need. Therefore, to get a deal done, I have generally had to significantly overpay on current value (to this point been able to do so due to depth but it is running thin).

This is certainly not a judgement of how people choose to manage their team, but it does make for a very boring league since (a) there is very little interaction among owners and (b) one entire avenue of team improvement strategy is effectively taken out of the equation (e.g monetizing depth as the playoffs approach).

Was just curious what have been others' experience/philosophy before I cut the cord on this league?

 

[jwb]

It's been my experience that redraft leagues in general have very little trading going on. Teams that are still in it would rather not help their main rivals. And teams that are out of it have little to gain by trading.

 

[gonzobill5]

You could limit the number of waiver moves (either by charging a fee or setting a max) to encourage teams to trade. I've played in a few leagues without waivers at all, and that's probably worse than a league that doesn't trade. You lose the Cinderella type players.

I enjoy leagues where there is a lot of trading going on, but a few lopsided trades changes the balance of power in a hurry, so I'm not all that bummed if a league doesn't go all out on the trade front.

 

[habsfan]

I am in a couple leagues with little to no trading. A few things get floated but ultimately go nowhere due to the parties being pretty far apart on valuation. I speculate that for some people it's akin to the old saying "better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt". They aren't comfortable with their own evaluation skills so it's just safer to get by without trading.

 

[FantasyTrader]

Very. This year there were 11 trades at the draft alone. Dynasty.

 

[FFdork]

In my experience most teams in a redraft league only want to trade if it is clearly in their favor and they tend to overvalue their own players. Since there are two parties involved (obviously) that makes it very hard to get something done.

The main way I've been able to get trades done is to build massive depth at a one position (RB is usually easiest to trade) and then move one of those players at less than market value to get a position of need.

 

[ft_ball_fan]

twelve team redraft.. in the last 8 years... I think there have been 4 trades--two were obviously one person helping another by giving him a great player for nothing (and taking money in return).

I'm trying to swing some trades this year... but as others have stated--you have to so hugely overpay its not worth it

 

[Sarnoff]

In a keeper league that usually has one trade a year. Only one this year, done at the deadline. Four years ago there were three trades in the same year, everyone commented how busy it was.

Everyone pretty much sucks at valuation. No one wants to trade a "starter" for a "backup", even if the "backup" is WR13 on a loaded team and the "starter" is RB40 on a team with a lousy corps. QBs are heavily overvalued but no one a) wants to move theirs since they treasure their guys, or b) has any need since they spent a 2nd, 4th, and 7th on QBs. So you can't trade for a QB and any decent drafter doesn't have depth to spare since he waited for the guppy run of top QBs to pass and instead only has 1 solid guy with a fill-in, so he can't trade a QB away.

League also has short benches--start 8, reserve 6. So there's mediocre options on the waiver wire.

But pretty much it comes down to "if he's offering me a trade, he must think my player is worth more than he's giving up, so why should I accept?"

 

[FantasyTrader]

In my experience, most dynasty owners woefully miscalculate the values of age, future opportunity, draft picks and system among other things. All of which is either non-existent in redraft or magnified greatly the more years you add to the equation. More variables for less knowledgable owners to miscalculate = more trades.

 

[brindrod]

The problem with leagues that trade is that you always one or two morons that make trades that destroy a decent parity. I've seen instances where due to such an imbecilic trade that offset the balance of power, teams will start to 'merge' and GMs will split the winnings.

In my league, one GM made such a foolish trade that bolstered my division rival that I turned around and bolstered his divisional rival with a lopsided trade myself.

Casino Fantasy Football League

I could afford to give up Marshall since I own Andre Johnson, Miles Austin & N. Burleson. I didn't lose too much at WR because of my depth and upgraded at QB (Rivers > McNabb).

For the other team, obtaining Marshall is a huge boost that will allow him the possibility of catching up to the pinhead who strengthened my rival.

 

[HULLOBUDMAN]

In my keep 2 player league I have complete 3 deals for future #1 draft picks this year.

In a redraft I have better luck pulling trades off in leagues with large rosters. When there is less on te wire people are more willing to trade.

 

[lyon812]

I've only been in a few redraft leagues, but trading always died down after the initial couple of weeks. In dynasty, there tends to be a lot of activity twice a year: First before the season, and second around week 9-10 (i.e. now) as people make stretch run moves or start playing for next year.

I'm very active. Each of my leagues is different, though. In one league, young players are tremendously valuable, and hard to get without giving up the farm. It has more blockbuster trades than anything else because it's easier to equate value. In another, those same young players are basically ignored, or given away for nothing if they struggle early (like Wells). A few teams know this and capitalize.

Then there's another league which almost never has trades. It has salaries and limited cuts (two) each week, which makes it rough for struggling franchises because it’s very hard to do multiple-for-single trades. So you can’t trade the expensive top talent because no one has cap room and can’t cut players to make room. Because of that, no one wants to get rid of any cheap/reasonably priced young talent at all. The result is a league that’s pretty frozen, and not really fun to play in.

 

[The Kansas Comet]

12 team league - we're transitioning from redraft to 1 keeper for next year. We've had 7 trades to this point of the season, which is a high number for this league. I think part of the increased action is the influx of 3-4 new owners who are more active than the ones they replaced.

 

[Da Guru]

In my 14 team league there have been a total of two trades all year.

 

[Kitrick Taylor]

I play in two leagues. One dynasty one redraft. Trades do happen in both, but they are rare.

One trade so far in my redraft. Its usually better than that, but so far it that's it.

Dynasty, I find guys so overvalue youth its tough to make a move. Nobody wants to give up on a young player and watch them develop into a stud on another roster.

I have MJD and have tried twice to trade for Rashad Jennings just to get his backup. At this point, I think I'd have to offer him MJD to get Jennings.

 

[PhantomJB]

I play in two leagues. One dynasty one redraft. Trades do happen in both, but they are rare.

One trade so far in my redraft. Its usually better than that, but so far it that's it.

Dynasty, I find guys so overvalue youth its tough to make a move. Nobody wants to give up on a young player and watch them develop into a stud on another roster.

I have MJD and have tried twice to trade for Rashad Jennings just to get his backup. At this point, I think I'd have to offer him MJD to get Jennings.

Good point above and many others throughout the thread.Interesting to note that in my aforementioned league with 4 trades, there have been a total of 276 waiver wire moves/free agent transactions. So people are definitely involved and engaged.

Just looks like most need to wait until a player obviously has little or no value left before they feel comfortable making a move. By then it's a no-brainer either due to a positional need or the weekly waiver wire wonder (e.g. MSW, Miles Austin) vs. the dropped player.

 

[Da Guru]

What I have learned about FF is that owners always over-value their own players. That being the case it is tough to trade.

I love trading and have made some blockbusters over the years..some good..some bad. I just like the action.

 

[Birdie048]

My leagues are at the other end of the spectrum....

12 Team 3 Player Keeper League (5th year). Note: Trade Deadline is Kickoff Week 10

Total # of Trades each Year

2009 - 38

2008 - 28

2007 - 29

2006 - 27

2005 - 24

10 Team Dynasty League (my 1st year involved in this league)

2009 - 154 trades

Yeah, 154 trades is a lot.... by any measure, but it's fun and lots of activity!

Yet, a friend at work in his 10 Team 2 Player Keeper league has had 1 trade (a 2nd trade was vetoed by the Commish - don't know the details).

 

[tigerz]

yup, in any redraft league with experienced players i tend to see less trades as well. It's either they believe in their draft strategy, have been burned in the past via trades and don't want to anymore, or believe that their studs will remain studs and their underperforming studs will turn it around. It's very hard when you go heavy WR and have one more stud than slots available. Even then I can't convince people to take two studs for a slightly better one. Even if they are losing they would rather sink with their ship.

 

[cubbie5150]

There's very little trading in my 12 team redraft (only 2 trades, one involving me). This league has been together for 14 years now, w/ minimal turnover. I have the same experience as the OP--to get trades done anymore, you have to overpay (for example, before week 9, I traded Ryan Grant & Steve Smith (NYG) for SJax; cost me a win week 9 btw). I know I overpaid, but had to do so in order to get SJax as my RB2. It wasn't always like this, but over the years, owners became content to draft & work the wire. Kind of boring, but at least we don't have to deal w/ collusion either, so there's that.

 

[Sleeping King]

10 team dynasty. 39 trades since April. 19 since Week 1.

 

[FallenHero32]

Only like 8-10 trades a year in my dynasty. It's more the trash talking that makes it fun and watching some of the games with the guys in the league over several beers. Kinda sucks when someone is holding onto a stud, you offer them the world, and they hold onto him for dear life even though their team is crap and you are making a playoff run. But what can you do, all part of wheelin and dealin.

 

[zcher]

10 Team Dynasty League (my 1st year involved in this league)

2009 - 154 trades

154 trades! holy, that's.....pretty awesome. wow. this is my first year in ffb and i've been involved in about 5 of the 8 trades in my redraft league. i too find that owners over-value their players. i have to load up on a position, look for another owner who was weak in that position, then over-pay to complete a trade. but as stated, that gets very costly and becomes impossible to do as the season goes on. i like the action of trading, but i'm also aware that i'm improving my team with every trade.

 

[Kree]

Preseason there are quite a few. From July to Early September we had 20+ (Most of which included me) and even though its a Dynasty, you aren't forsaken to your end of year roster. I upgraded significantly. We've had about 6 inseason trades, but most of them are biggun' types, which are always harder to get through (Most of the league thinks the applies for aplles types of trades are pointless). Trades are rarer in my 3 keeper league, and non-existent in my redraft (Though that is partially because its no-bench and there is always something available on the waivers).

 

[Donsmith753]

16 team re-draft league, i've been involved in 3 of the 5 trades this year.

Similar to comments above. People are just unrealistic about valuing players.

 

[LionOfGosforth]

Played in the same 12 team redraft league for around 9 years now. This year 1 trade so far, I gave Mcgahee after his hot start for 85. That's it, no other trades and none more likely either. It's boring but whatever. Typically the people just simply are too scared to gamble and/or value their own players to such a degree that they can't bring themselves to trade. It's like this every year but i'm just now used to it.

 

[theplayer11]

If you're not trading, you're not trying..

 

[wolfie]

15 team redraft, 69 trades. ADP changed hands 3 times last week. Everything goes, league has been around for 19 years, don't have to worry about collusion. Have about 3 teams that hardly ever trade, the black holes. We do an auction draft, so all owners know if you like a guy, don't let him go to one of the black holes, otherwise they will let that player go at or below value, figuring they can get him in trade later.

 

[comfortably numb]

It is the most important aspect of FF to me.

I really don't care to be in an extremely competitive league where only 2 trades are made per year.

Just not fun to me.

Granted competitive and active is perfect combo.

In my 3 leagues

(16 team IDP dynasty)

in the last 90 days there have been

56

73

46

trades in each league respectably

 

[Badm]

Very. This year there were 11 trades at the draft alone. Dynasty.

same here!!

 

[fightingillini]

I am certainly amazed at the number of trades some your leagues do. Wow. Trading is never easy.

To me, it's important. I am not a huge trade guy....usually 1 or 2 trades, depending on the situation. But trading is still a vital part of roster management.

In my main 10 team redraft, we have made 8 trades. One year we made 15 trades, and some of the biggest names were traded, like Manning and Priest Holmes, McNabb was traded 3 times. Trading deadline is Thursday before the CHI-SF game, so I expect 2-3 more trades.

My other leagues don't trade much, and it can get somewhat boring. So it depends on the dynamics of the league. Some owners will never trade unless it's so lopsided in their favor. Others have no problem mixing it up.

Not only trading is important, but league dialogue. My main league, 8 of the 10 guys regularly talk and send smack talk emails....makes the league fun.

 

[belljr]

In Dynasty it's the only way to improve your team quickly so we have a few trades.

We don't have many in my redraft leagues. The rosters are big and even though we have only 2 pickups max a week there are never a lot of trades. It doesn't bother me really. I don't care if there are no trades.

I think sometimes people trade jsut because they enjoy "the wheeling and dealing".

 

[lafan68]

This is certainly not a judgement of how people choose to manage their team, but it does make for a very boring league since (a) there is very little interaction among owners and (b) one entire avenue of team improvement strategy is effectively taken out of the equation (e.g monetizing depth as the playoffs approach).Was just curious what have been others' experience/philosophy before I cut the cord on this league?

I am in 2 redraft $$ leagues. One has been in place for 15 years and the other for 20. Trading has never been allowed and I would not play in any $$ league where it was allowed. It is no coincidence that these 2 leagues have survived this long. I would venture to say that the #1 factor in a league disbanding is a perception that something occurred that was unfair.I am likely in the minority on this issue, but while I can deal with luck, injuries as external factors, I could not deal with watching 1 or more league owners destroy the competitive balance of the league with a trade. Some argue that vetos and/or votes can provide a "fair" way to manage trades. Yet, I see thread after thread where that does not seem to be the case. I laugh at threads that suggest trades where collusion is evident should be vetoed. "Collusion" or perhaps more accurately, intention, can't be proven. Period. Unless you want to use waterboarding. Then maybe....So that leaves those with veto power having to make a judgement. And, in most cases, those with veto power are also owners so there is a question of bias no matter what they may say. Are there cases where a trade is "fair" and wouldn't pose a competitive balance issue? Probably. But all it takes is the PERCEPTION that it is unfair and the league will have a problem. Far more trouble than it is worth to me, at least.If i played in a no or low money league, then I wouldnt probably wouldnt mind trades. Some people feel like they are a mandatory part of leagues. That their absence makes such leagues "boring". I prefer boring to potentially unfair when money is involved.On the other hand, the existance of trading in so many leagues makes for interesting reading here WHEN (not if) things go wrong. I will admit, I don't think trading can work long term (e.g. 5+ years) in a $$ league, but I am sure there are instances where it has. Be nice to read about them on occasion. Feel free to share. Helps pass time in my boring league.LAfan68

 

[FantasyTrader]

This is certainly not a judgement of how people choose to manage their team, but it does make for a very boring league since (a) there is very little interaction among owners and (b) one entire avenue of team improvement strategy is effectively taken out of the equation (e.g monetizing depth as the playoffs approach).Was just curious what have been others' experience/philosophy before I cut the cord on this league?

I am in 2 redraft $$ leagues. One has been in place for 15 years and the other for 20. Trading has never been allowed and I would not play in any $$ league where it was allowed. It is no coincidence that these 2 leagues have survived this long. I would venture to say that the #1 factor in a league disbanding is a perception that something occurred that was unfair.I am likely in the minority on this issue, but while I can deal with luck, injuries as external factors, I could not deal with watching 1 or more league owners destroy the competitive balance of the league with a trade. Some argue that vetos and/or votes can provide a "fair" way to manage trades. Yet, I see thread after thread where that does not seem to be the case. I laugh at threads that suggest trades where collusion is evident should be vetoed. "Collusion" or perhaps more accurately, intention, can't be proven. Period. Unless you want to use waterboarding. Then maybe....So that leaves those with veto power having to make a judgement. And, in most cases, those with veto power are also owners so there is a question of bias no matter what they may say. Are there cases where a trade is "fair" and wouldn't pose a competitive balance issue? Probably. But all it takes is the PERCEPTION that it is unfair and the league will have a problem. Far more trouble than it is worth to me, at least.If i played in a no or low money league, then I wouldnt probably wouldnt mind trades. Some people feel like they are a mandatory part of leagues. That their absence makes such leagues "boring". I prefer boring to potentially unfair when money is involved.On the other hand, the existance of trading in so many leagues makes for interesting reading here WHEN (not if) things go wrong. I will admit, I don't think trading can work long term (e.g. 5+ years) in a $$ league, but I am sure there are instances where it has. Be nice to read about them on occasion. Feel free to share. Helps pass time in my boring league.LAfan68

I've been in the same $ league for 16 years with trades and there have never been any problems. But that's because we're all adults about it. We understand that what every team is trying to do, first and foremost, through trades is improve his own team. Just like any other FF transaction.

 

[Literary Reference]

Playing 5 redraft leagues of 10 or 12 teams this year. Two leagues have no trades this season, the others maybe 2 or 3 trades each for the season as we approach deadlines.

 

[One]

Trading is up this year with 6 total trades to date. I have no idea why.

The league has been around since '96, 14 teams, we usually average 1-3 per year.

I've noticed in both of my older leagues that once noobs are weeded out and most owners only trade if it's heavily in their favor or well-aligned with byes or position deficiencies (like WR for RB swaps).

I think people get gun-shy with trades so that they don't become 'that guy' who made the bad trade that made someone's team stacked.

 

[SuperJohn96]

3 Keeper League (14 teams):

2009: 8 Trades; 3 involving my team

2008: 4 Trades; 3 involving my team

2007: 9 Trades; 3 involving my team

 

[PhantomJB]

This is certainly not a judgement of how people choose to manage their team, but it does make for a very boring league since (a) there is very little interaction among owners and (b) one entire avenue of team improvement strategy is effectively taken out of the equation (e.g monetizing depth as the playoffs approach).Was just curious what have been others' experience/philosophy before I cut the cord on this league?

I am in 2 redraft $$ leagues. One has been in place for 15 years and the other for 20. Trading has never been allowed and I would not play in any $$ league where it was allowed. It is no coincidence that these 2 leagues have survived this long. I would venture to say that the #1 factor in a league disbanding is a perception that something occurred that was unfair.I am likely in the minority on this issue, but while I can deal with luck, injuries as external factors, I could not deal with watching 1 or more league owners destroy the competitive balance of the league with a trade. Some argue that vetos and/or votes can provide a "fair" way to manage trades. Yet, I see thread after thread where that does not seem to be the case. I laugh at threads that suggest trades where collusion is evident should be vetoed. "Collusion" or perhaps more accurately, intention, can't be proven. Period. Unless you want to use waterboarding. Then maybe....So that leaves those with veto power having to make a judgement. And, in most cases, those with veto power are also owners so there is a question of bias no matter what they may say. Are there cases where a trade is "fair" and wouldn't pose a competitive balance issue? Probably. But all it takes is the PERCEPTION that it is unfair and the league will have a problem. Far more trouble than it is worth to me, at least.If i played in a no or low money league, then I wouldnt probably wouldnt mind trades. Some people feel like they are a mandatory part of leagues. That their absence makes such leagues "boring". I prefer boring to potentially unfair when money is involved.On the other hand, the existance of trading in so many leagues makes for interesting reading here WHEN (not if) things go wrong. I will admit, I don't think trading can work long term (e.g. 5+ years) in a $$ league, but I am sure there are instances where it has. Be nice to read about them on occasion. Feel free to share. Helps pass time in my boring league.LAfan68

I've been in the same $ league for 16 years with trades and there have never been any problems. But that's because we're all adults about it. We understand that what every team is trying to do, first and foremost, through trades is improve his own team. Just like any other FF transaction.

Very interesting.Looks like there is definitely a "feedback loop" component to FF trading, which makes sense when you think about it. The more leagues trade, the more the trade market becomes "liquid," which provides better info on valuation, as well as what the rules and etiquette. As people become more comfortable with trading, they do more of it, which feeds back into more trades. On the other hand, if people are have initially developed an aversion to trading for whatever reason (maybe the first clumsy efforts involved collusion or massive fleecing?), then the more "illiquid" the market becomes, the less info there is on valuation, etc., which naturally feeds back in the other direction and fuels progressively fewer trades.This might explain why there are so many "extremes" in the postings, usually either very low or high volumes.Also looks very much like today's credit markets for any bizness geeks in the house...

 

[FantasyTrader]

Very interesting.Looks like there is definitely a "feedback loop" component to FF trading, which makes sense when you think about it. The more leagues trade, the more the trade market becomes "liquid," which provides better info on valuation, as well as what the rules and etiquette. As people become more comfortable with trading, they do more of it, which feeds back into more trades. On the other hand, if people are have initially developed an aversion to trading for whatever reason (maybe the first clumsy efforts involved collusion or massive fleecing?), then the more "illiquid" the market becomes, the less info there is on valuation, etc., which naturally feeds back in the other direction and fuels progressively fewer trades.This might explain why there are so many "extremes" in the postings, usually either very low or high volumes.Also looks very much like today's credit markets for any bizness geeks in the house...

I think you hit the nail on the head right here. There's also another, more subtle reason in dynasty. In leagues without much trading, it's not at all uncommon to own players for their careers. And I do think there's something to the fact that the longer you own a player the more married you get to them. Owning Aaron Rodgers and Clinton Portis begins to define your fantasy experience. Your Sunday ritual at that point becomes more about rooting for Rodgers than it does getting 20FP from your QB1. A trade is extremely unlikely.But the more turnover you have the more you view your players as poker chips. Some are blues, some reds, some black. But none untouchable - at the right price. I also think it's easier to see players for what they are in these leagues.

 

[lafan68]

I've been in the same $ league for 16 years with trades and there have never been any problems. But that's because we're all adults about it. We understand that what every team is trying to do, first and foremost, through trades is improve his own team. Just like any other FF transaction.

Very interesting.

Looks like there is definitely a "feedback loop" component to FF trading, which makes sense when you think about it. The more leagues trade, the more the trade market becomes "liquid," which provides better info on valuation, as well as what the rules and etiquette. As people become more comfortable with trading, they do more of it, which feeds back into more trades.

On the other hand, if people are have initially developed an aversion to trading for whatever reason (maybe the first clumsy efforts involved collusion or massive fleecing?), then the more "illiquid" the market becomes, the less info there is on valuation, etc., which naturally feeds back in the other direction and fuels progressively fewer trades.

This might explain why there are so many "extremes" in the postings, usually either very low or high volumes.

Also looks very much like today's credit markets for any bizness geeks in the house...

I'm willing to buy the argument that increased volumes of successful trades may create a better atmosphere for it.

So, I would like to see more on the "rules and etiquette" aspect. I was serious about wanting to see positive instances/systems for trading. I have pointed out a few aspects about trading (vetoes, voting, and definitions of collusion) that can impact perceptions of fairness and where so many issues develop. How are successful trading environments structured to avoid these pitfalls?

LAfan68

 

[fsufan]

My main dynasty league of 11 years has had about 20 trades this year, offseason and regular season. Past years we averaged about 5 to 8 a year