What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

I've always wondered why there's not more same position trades in FF (1 Viewer)

Football Jones

Footballguy
I guess I'm talking more about dynasty here, but it would essentially be impossible for somebody not to like my guy better than their guy (with players in the same tier) given the typical 12 or 14-team league with 24 to 28 roster spots or so. Therefore, theoritically, all it should take to get a deal done is me liking your guy better than my guy.

You can't tell me there wouldn't be matches if everybody made a list & ranked players by position who are rostered in your league. I'm betting there would be quite a few matches, especially with lower-tier guys.

Anybody ever wonder about that?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Smile
Reactions: ZWK

shadyridr

Footballguy
I pulled one of these off this year for the first time ever in a redraft league. Two weeks ago I traded away Zeke for Barkley straight up. Simply because me and my tradng partner liked the other guy better. Felt weird. 

 

Jello_Biafra

Footballguy
In dynasty, if someone gets offered a RB1 for another RB1, or any position, you will know that your trade partner will give up a little more to get his guy, thus not many 1 for 1 deals. In a contract league, I have Hopkins, and another guy has OBJ. Both players have 2 yr contracts. I offered him Hopkins for Beckham straight up and he rejected the trade. I had put in the comments that I thought Hopkins would be steadier due to QB play, but he knew I wanted Beckham because I'm a Giants fan and he's my favorite player. He said that after that week's games, we would do something if I sweeten the deal. Well Hopkins explodes and OBJ had an average game and now this guy will have to sweeten the pot to get Hopkins. He liked Hopkins better, but blew it by not accepting the 1 for 1 offer, and instead trying to squeeze me. So the moral is, if someone offers you a player that you like better than the one you're giving up, hit accept and stop playing games.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

DropKick

Footballguy
In dynasty, if someone gets offered a RB1 for another RB1, or any position, you will know that your trade partner will give up a little more to get his guy, thus not many 1 for 1 deals. In a contract league, I have Hopkins, and another guy has OBJ. Both players have 2 yr contracts. I offered him Hopkins for Beckham straight up and he rejected the trade. I had put in the comments that I thought Hopkins would be steadier due to QB play, but he knew I wanted Beckham because I'm a Giants fan and he's my favorite player. He said that after that week's games, we would do something if I sweeten the deal. Well Hopkins explodes and OBJ had an average game and now this guy will have to sweeten the pot to get Hopkins. He liked Hopkins better, but blew it by not accepting the 1 for 1 offer, and instead trying to squeeze me. So the moral is, if someone offers you a player that you like better than the one you're giving up, hit accept and stop playing games.
Needs a "I'll sweeten the deal for ya" accompanied by a crotch grab..

 

ZWK

Footballguy
This generalizes into an argument that there should be way more trades, period. If two owners each made their own rankings of all the players on either of their rosters, they would probably find at least a couple mutually beneficial swaps (across positions as well as within a position). And if they could each input all of their views on players and roster construction into a computer, then the computer could probably find a whole bunch of more complicated trades (involving multiple players & draft picks) which both owners would see as a win.

I think that the biggest part of why these trades don't happen by default is the amount of effort required to get enough information to make these win-win deals. I'm one of the more active traders in most of my dynasty leagues, and it's mainly because I put in the effort to let people know (via trade offers, conversations, my trade bait) which of their players I would be buy at or above "consensus dynasty ranking" value and which of the players on my roster I'd be most willing to sell at around "consensus dynasty ranking" value.

There are also some strategic considerations and some biases which hinder trading, but this thing about transaction costs seems like the biggest part of it.

 

zftcg

Footballguy
Endowment effect 
This, plus loss aversion. I think people don't feel the need to win trades as much as they want to avoid losing them. When you make a complex trade you can convince yourself that it's win-win. But if you do a straight up position trade then almost by definition it's zero sum (not always, especially in dynasty, but mostly).

If the trade is zero sum, that means there's a 50 percent chance you could lose it. And I think that's way too risky for most people.

 

FF Ninja

Footballguy
Ilov80s said:
Endowment effect 


zftcg said:
 loss aversion
These two things plus most people don't just randomly get players on their team. They got these guys because they targeted them and hand picked them. If that player has a slow start, the person who liked them the most (i.e. the person who drafted him) is going to be most confident in that player turning it around and unlikely to sell low when others are looking to buy low. Likewise, if that player is off to a hot start, the owner is likely to assume he was correct and more good things are to come so it would take a lot to pry that player away.

It doesn't seem weird to me at all that we rarely see same position trades. It would require two teams with roughly the same ranked player somehow liking the other player more. 

The biggest push for trading will always be need. Everyone tries to draft a balanced team, but a few weeks into a season things can get really shaken up and teams will find themselves with voids and surpluses at various positions. If you want to see a lot of trades, make sure the leagues you join have fewer flex positions. These wacky leagues with start 1RB, 1WR, and like 4 flex spots are less likely to have trades than a league with 3WR/2RB/1flex. Same number of starters, but need will dictate more trades. 

 

Gally

Footballguy
These two things plus most people don't just randomly get players on their team. They got these guys because they targeted them and hand picked them. If that player has a slow start, the person who liked them the most (i.e. the person who drafted him) is going to be most confident in that player turning it around and unlikely to sell low when others are looking to buy low. Likewise, if that player is off to a hot start, the owner is likely to assume he was correct and more good things are to come so it would take a lot to pry that player away.

It doesn't seem weird to me at all that we rarely see same position trades. It would require two teams with roughly the same ranked player somehow liking the other player more. 

The biggest push for trading will always be need. Everyone tries to draft a balanced team, but a few weeks into a season things can get really shaken up and teams will find themselves with voids and surpluses at various positions. If you want to see a lot of trades, make sure the leagues you join have fewer flex positions. These wacky leagues with start 1RB, 1WR, and like 4 flex spots are less likely to have trades than a league with 3WR/2RB/1flex. Same number of starters, but need will dictate more trades. 
I believe this is the biggest factor.  People always value the players on their own team higher because they chose them at some point.  They had a reason for taking them and believe they will succeed.  Very rarely do people get so disenfranchised with a chosen player they are willing to swap a 1 for 1 for a player they didn't choose.  Generally the thought is if I wanted that other guy I would have drafted him instead of the guy I did draft.

Another thing that is a major factor is insecurity.  If  you are not confident in your talent evaluation it is more difficult to pull a trigger on a trade because they other guy must know something I don't (insecurity).  So the trade never happens.  I think this is a bigger factor than most people realize.

 

zftcg

Footballguy
These two things plus most people don't just randomly get players on their team. They got these guys because they targeted them and hand picked them. If that player has a slow start, the person who liked them the most (i.e. the person who drafted him) is going to be most confident in that player turning it around and unlikely to sell low when others are looking to buy low. Likewise, if that player is off to a hot start, the owner is likely to assume he was correct and more good things are to come so it would take a lot to pry that player away.
That's what the Endowment Effect is.

 

Ilov80s

Footballguy
These two things plus most people don't just randomly get players on their team. They got these guys because they targeted them and hand picked them. If that player has a slow start, the person who liked them the most (i.e. the person who drafted him) is going to be most confident in that player turning it around and unlikely to sell low when others are looking to buy low. Likewise, if that player is off to a hot start, the owner is likely to assume he was correct and more good things are to come so it would take a lot to pry that player away.

It doesn't seem weird to me at all that we rarely see same position trades. It would require two teams with roughly the same ranked player somehow liking the other player more. 

The biggest push for trading will always be need. Everyone tries to draft a balanced team, but a few weeks into a season things can get really shaken up and teams will find themselves with voids and surpluses at various positions. If you want to see a lot of trades, make sure the leagues you join have fewer flex positions. These wacky leagues with start 1RB, 1WR, and like 4 flex spots are less likely to have trades than a league with 3WR/2RB/1flex. Same number of starters, but need will dictate more trades. 
I agree but there can also be a level of frustration/disappointment an owner has that has a non-owner doesn't. Now this more for dealing disappointing players- say a Drake for Henry or Fitzgerald for Hogan style trade. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Skoo

Footballguy
I think the biggest reason for this is that people generally trade for NEED, so trading 1 for 1 of the same position doesn't make a ton of sense.

Like last week I was trying to pull off a trade for a WR because I'm really weak behind Hopkins. But if I trade one of my lesser WRs for a WR of similar caliber, where does that leave me? Right back where I started.

 

Football Jones

Footballguy
I think the biggest reason for this is that people generally trade for NEED, so trading 1 for 1 of the same position doesn't make a ton of sense.

Like last week I was trying to pull off a trade for a WR because I'm really weak behind Hopkins. But if I trade one of my lesser WRs for a WR of similar caliber, where does that leave me? Right back where I started.
I think that's likely the case in redraft, but with bigger rosters in dynasty & all levels of player tiers, there should be quite a few matches.

 

Football Jones

Footballguy
These two things plus most people don't just randomly get players on their team. They got these guys because they targeted them and hand picked them. If that player has a slow start, the person who liked them the most (i.e. the person who drafted him) is going to be most confident in that player turning it around and unlikely to sell low when others are looking to buy low. Likewise, if that player is off to a hot start, the owner is likely to assume he was correct and more good things are to come so it would take a lot to pry that player away.

It doesn't seem weird to me at all that we rarely see same position trades. It would require two teams with roughly the same ranked player somehow liking the other player more. 

The biggest push for trading will always be need. Everyone tries to draft a balanced team, but a few weeks into a season things can get really shaken up and teams will find themselves with voids and surpluses at various positions. If you want to see a lot of trades, make sure the leagues you join have fewer flex positions. These wacky leagues with start 1RB, 1WR, and like 4 flex spots are less likely to have trades than a league with 3WR/2RB/1flex. Same number of starters, but need will dictate more trades. 
Valid point, but in dynasty leagues where multiple seasons run together, values & opinions can move big-time.

Theoritically, there will always be matches in dynasty leagues. Finding them is the issue.

 

tangfoot

Living Slackmaster
I find it far easier to swing a WR/RB-for-WR/RB trade than a 1-for-1 positional trade. 

It's exceedingly rare to both find a player that you value more than their current owner AND a player that another owner values more highly than you do. 

I'm in several dynasty leagues with some of the same people, and I tend to see the same players owned by the same owners across multiple leagues.

 

Flying Elvis

Footballguy
I think the biggest reason for this is that people generally trade for NEED, so trading 1 for 1 of the same position doesn't make a ton of sense.

Like last week I was trying to pull off a trade for a WR because I'm really weak behind Hopkins. But if I trade one of my lesser WRs for a WR of similar caliber, where does that leave me? Right back where I started.
I agree that endowment & aversion come into play but I think trading to fill needs is the main reason why same position trades are rare. It's less rare in keeper/dynasty where trading an older player to a win-now team may yield a younger player at the same position with better long term value.

 

Mr. Irrelevant

IBL Representative
Valid point, but in dynasty leagues where multiple seasons run together, values & opinions can move big-time.

Theoritically, there will always be matches in dynasty leagues. Finding them is the issue.
I feel like finding them is still only half the issue, even in this case. I don't play dynasty any more, but I'm in a couple of keeper leagues and I find it nearly as challenging to swing 1-1 same-position trades in those as I do in redraft.

The root of the problem is that if I'm out of it, I want to build keeper value for future years by trading away short-term studs for guys performing well above their draft-round cost. But invariably guys performing well above cost are already every-week starters for my potential trading partner ... so from her side, why would she trade away a large amount of potential future value for a couple of points a week in present value? I mean, that's exactly what I'm trying to get her to do, but a 1-1 trade offer lays that motivation out pretty bare.

Invariably I've found it takes multiple short-term upgrades to buy a starter with significant incremental keeper value (and/or a package of a couple bench fliers with lesser keeper value).

 

Football Jones

Footballguy
I feel like finding them is still only half the issue, even in this case. I don't play dynasty any more, but I'm in a couple of keeper leagues and I find it nearly as challenging to swing 1-1 same-position trades in those as I do in redraft.

The root of the problem is that if I'm out of it, I want to build keeper value for future years by trading away short-term studs for guys performing well above their draft-round cost. But invariably guys performing well above cost are already every-week starters for my potential trading partner ... so from her side, why would she trade away a large amount of potential future value for a couple of points a week in present value? I mean, that's exactly what I'm trying to get her to do, but a 1-1 trade offer lays that motivation out pretty bare.

Invariably I've found it takes multiple short-term upgrades to buy a starter with significant incremental keeper value (and/or a package of a couple bench fliers with lesser keeper value).
Yeah, I think most of the matches are with lower tier players. 

In those kinds of deals, it doesn't really matter where you are in the standings & there's not a lot of strategy effect.

 

FreeBaGeL

Footballguy
I feel like finding them is still only half the issue, even in this case. I don't play dynasty any more, but I'm in a couple of keeper leagues and I find it nearly as challenging to swing 1-1 same-position trades in those as I do in redraft.

The root of the problem is that if I'm out of it, I want to build keeper value for future years by trading away short-term studs for guys performing well above their draft-round cost. But invariably guys performing well above cost are already every-week starters for my potential trading partner ... so from her side, why would she trade away a large amount of potential future value for a couple of points a week in present value? I mean, that's exactly what I'm trying to get her to do, but a 1-1 trade offer lays that motivation out pretty bare.

Invariably I've found it takes multiple short-term upgrades to buy a starter with significant incremental keeper value (and/or a package of a couple bench fliers with lesser keeper value).
Why would you necessarily be trading for every week starters, compared to younger player swith potential?

James White for Ronald Jones, for instance.

 

ZWK

Footballguy
Looking at the trades I've made in my dynasty leagues this year (including the offseason), about 1/4 of them were primarily based on a player-for-player swap at the same position. Almost all of them also involved something more than that, usually one side getting an extra player / pick / trade-up to help balance things out.

 

Elevencents

Footballguy
I’m confused. You’re saying RB for RB and WR for WR are rare trades? It’s normally a WR for RB or vice versa. Or TE for RB, etc? I find it to be the exact opposite. I have made maybe 2 trades that were not same position in the 10 years our league has been around. Maybe because we have roster limits so adding a WR and subtracting a RB messes up your roster numbers. 

I just traded CMC for OBJ last week. That was the second, lol. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mr. Irrelevant

IBL Representative
Why would you necessarily be trading for every week starters, compared to younger player swith potential?

James White for Ronald Jones, for instance.
Yeah, that's fair, although Jones might not be the best example since (at least in my leagues) keeper cost is directly related to draft round, and Jones' value right now is most likely way underwater compared to his draft cost. Of all the rookie backs, I think Chubb and (maybe, in PPR) Hines are the only ones who hit the parlay of "not start-worthy today" and "high potential compared to draft cost". Which I think kinda reinforces my point, maybe.

ETA: Definitely Guice as well, if your league happened to draft after his ACL tear but, again, that's kinda a one-off example.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Hu-Tang Clan

Footballguy
A few years ago I actually asked another owner in our contract keeper league to rank his WRs and mine and he did, which surprised me. We both found a player on the other roster we preferred and straight up traded one WR for another. I've never actually seen or heard of anyone doing that before but it worked out perfectly.

 

Football Jones

Footballguy
I’m confused. You’re saying RB for RB and WR for WR are rare trades? It’s normally a WR for RB or vice versa. Or TE for RB, etc? I find it to be the exact opposite. I have made maybe 2 trades that were not same position in the 10 years our league has been around. Maybe because we have roster limits so adding a WR and subtracting a RB messes up your roster numbers. 

I just traded CMC for OBJ last week. That was the second, lol. 
It might be league dependent like you explained, but typically (in most leagues), straight-up RB for RB, WR for WR, etc., deals are rare.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Deamon

Footballguy
I’m confused. You’re saying RB for RB and WR for WR are rare trades? It’s normally a WR for RB or vice versa. Or TE for RB, etc? I find it to be the exact opposite. I have made maybe 2 trades that were not same position in the 10 years our league has been around. Maybe because we have roster limits so adding a WR and subtracting a RB messes up your roster numbers. 

I just traded CMC for OBJ last week. That was the second, lol. 
Weird.  I actually usually see different positions being traded.  I actually don't understand position for position trades very much.  When I go looking for a trade, it's usually based on NEED.  That's where you get the best trades... when BOTH teams improve.  Position for Position, only 1 team is improving.  No such thing as a good position for position trade once it's all said and done. 

Also, when someone offers you a position for position trade, you're typically going to think the person is just trying to rip you off.  Someone else thinks that your player X is better than their player Y.  That's going to make people gun shy to accept, think the other knows something they don't, or wonder why the offer was made.

I much prefer trades for need that can possibly improve both teams.

 

solorca

Footballguy
I have made plenty of same position trades over the years in Dynasty.  I rarely am able to get them done in redraft, but in dynasty (especially in the offseason) making these trades have never been too much trouble.  I am the type of person who usually will trade when hype gets super high on someone based on something that isn't performance related.  Still remember trading off Cordarelle Patterson for Alshon Jeffrey when his hype was at it's highest.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top