Thanks for taking the time to spell that out. I see things similarly, with some minor differences.
Whether in redraft or keeper or dynasty, I want a "starter" at every position. If my team is going to make the playoffs, I need my starters to be above average. In a 12 team league where six teams make the playoffs, that might mean a top 6 QB, a top 6 RB1, a top 18 RB2, a top 30 RB3, a top 6 WR1, etc. More likely, you'll be stronger at some spots and weaker than others. something like the #2 QB, the #4 and #6 RBs, the #10, #14 and #40 WRs, etc. And your WR3 might not be one guy, but a bunch of guys you cobble together into a WR3BC throughout the year.
Of course, if that were easy to do, everyone would do it. In a redraft, you usually end up picking a spot where you're going to be weak. Say you like the late round talent at QB this year, and plan to start a guy like Wilson or Romo. Now you can punt at QB and take better RBs and WRs, and grab your QB late. You might love Jimmy Graham, and take him with an early pick, locking up your above average play at TE. Now you have a little more wiggle room at another position because you're dominant at TE.
In a dynasty, though, you need to readjust those baselines, because some teams will be loaded, and other teams will be rebuilding. So in a 12 man dynasty league, simply having the #6 QB won't be enough to contend with the 10 teams that are going for it this year because everybody will beat the two teams that are rebuilding. Now you need a top 5 QB, and a top 5 RB1, and a top 15 RB2, and so on. Having one stud isn't going to do it, you need lots of studs - what you call your "core guys".
Also, it takes a lot of luck to have all of your starters stay healthy for a full season. So you can't just roll out a stud QB, two stud RBs, two stud WRs, and a stud TE, with no other depth, and expect to win it all. You need depth to cover bye weeks, injuries, etc. And even if they do play 16 games, they also have bad matchups, or play through an undisclosed injury, or get covered by opponents' #1 corner until the guy across from them proves he can do something, or whatever. If you don't have depth, you'll need to be SO much better than every other team that it's not funny.
Obviously if you owned all of the top 5 QBs, all of the top 10 RBs, all of the top 10 WRs, etc., you'd be an overwhelming favorite to win the league. But that's clearly not practical. So the next best thing is to have more guys who can contribute to winning THIS year. It's almost impossible to (re)draft a team that is deep with "starter quality" players. It's difficult but not impossible to do in a competitive dynasty league. But every year, somebody is going to win it all. and in hindsight, most league winners will have had their "core guys" - their starters at each position - who they ended up replacing or supplementing with backups, trades, and waiver wire adds.
Again, you can't predict which of those waiver adds, or trades, or backup guys is going to be the key to the champion's season. Which means you need those roster spots we've been discussing, to give yourself a chance to "get lucky" on a waiver wire pickup who can fill a spot for you this year, or you need one or more of your developmental guys to develop this year.
In theory, the most efficient use of your dynasty roster for winning THIS year would be to have all players who were doing well THIS year. And that means that prospects who aren't expected to contribute until 2015 put you at some kind of disadvantage against guys who don't have those prospects As we discussed earlier, the deeper the rosters, the less disadvantage there is.
But unlike redraft leagues, the expected value of your entry fee this year is not entirely made up of your EV of winning this year. It's a function of EV2013 + EV2014 + EV2015 and so on. This should be self evident - and it should also be self-evident that more of the EV of your 2013 entry fee is determined by your EV in 2013 than by 2014 and beyond.
What that should tell you, then, is that the value of a player is similarly made up of EV2013 + EV2014 + EV2015 and so on. Tony Gonzalez has high value in 2013, but none in 2014 and beyond. Steven Jackson has high value in 2013, lower value in 2014, and very little value if any in 2015. Chris Harper has virtually no value in 2013, but has some value in 2014 and most of his value is in 2015 and beyond. If we're appropriately valuing a prospect like Harper (or Cordarelle, or Lattimore, or Geno Smith), then we have to account for their value over many years, as opposed to Gonzo's value which is entirely and only this year. But we also have to account for their lack of value this year, and the cost of a roster spot.
So what I'm thinking is, if I have 24 roster spots, then a hypothetical team might look something like this:
Name ---------- 2013 EV ---- 2014 EV ----- 2015 EV ----- 2016+ EV ---- CHURNABLE?Peyton Manning...320..........300...........100...........0................NGeno Smith.......110..........180...........200..........240...............NChase Daniel.....50...........50............100..........100...............YSteven Jackson...250..........210...........50............0................NMarcus Lattimore..0...........100...........200..........250...............NJoique Bell......100..........100...........150..........150...............YTOTAL*...........670..........610...........550..........640...............2* Total value of your starters, plus the 2 churnable roster spots which might net you starters for this year
Looking at this view, is 670 points from your QB and RBs enough to compete this year? If not, then can you maximize your total EV by trading for someone who can contribute more this year? Or by trading away Manning and Jackson and getting guys who can contribute next year and beyond? It looks like 2015 is going to be a rebuild year, unless you make some moves, so maybe you start planning around that. And so on.
Then we add in the depth factor - the "churnable" column is a pretty blunt instrument, but it'll do - and we start looking at the value that you're getting from assets like Lattimore, or 2014 draft picks, or scrubs who you're OK dropping, and so on.
When you consider the shelf life of RBs, you'll net results which are similar to the core player idea, but instead of looking for guys who are going to be awesome for years, you start looking for guys who match your team's makeup. If you're expected to score a bunch this year, then you devalue Harper and value Tony Gonzalez. If you have Tony Gonzalez on a team that's going nowhere, then you consider their exit value.
So maybe what we really have is something more like:
Code:
Name ---------- 2013 EV ---- 2013 Exit Value -- 2014 EV --- 2014 Exit Value -- 2015 EV --- 2015 Exit Value -Peyton Manning...320..........Mid first .........300.........Early second........100.........0.. Joique Bell......100..........Waivers............100.........Waivers.............200........2nd rounder