Amendola will break all time records this season. you heard it here first
This is a great example. There are few players less likely to be on my roster than Chris Harper. Don't get me wrong, I'd take him if he slipped to me. But he won't, and if he did, I'd shop him around to somebody who was buying into the hype for a 2014 draft pick or a player that I liked more.There are more Chris Harpers than roster spots. You mentioned Cecil Shorts, but he was a waiver wire pickup in most leagues. He had very little hype and was on a terrible passing team. And he panned out quickly, and has immediate trade value. That's a great deal for someone who likes to flip players like I do.Consider someone like Chris Harper. I think he's a pretty good long term prospect, but I don't think he will have a big rookie year in Seattle. They have a lot of options at WR and they're a veteran team with serious playoff ambitions. There's no reason for them to rush him onto the field. So should I pass on him and buy him a year from now for cheaper when his owners have given up on him? I don't think so. There's always the risk that he exceeds expectations and thrives right away. It's unlikely, but possible that he will get on the field early and create a huge buzz. If you wait to acquire him, you run the risk of losing out altogether.
I think you've outlined the basic dilemma that owners face when they decide to use a draft pick on a long term prospect. The equation basically boils down to...You might say that my Chris Harper is less likely to hit than your Chris Harper (the actual Chris Harper). But while you sit on yours for three years, maybe longer, I'll be picking up several guys who have the potential to break out or flame out. The cumulative odds of one of my Chris Harpers panning out may actually be better than your Chris Harper having a great season, because I'm always looking for guys with the opportunity to produce right away, dumping them quickly if they don't, and trading them quickly if they can net me a more reliable player. Do that enough times, and you'll give up some decent talent, but you'll be able to ladder up your players at key positions and acquire surer things.
Hi fred. Great post btw I agree with a lot of what you said about how one could use a roster spot. This thread seems to be in full on but who wants to talk about the Patriots some more again right now? I even like talking about them, but its a bit played out right now. So instead lets keep talking about foosball stratemegy.bostonfred said:I am starting to question the strategy Bia mentioned, of building around your stud QBs and WRs and then filling in the RBs when you're ready to make your run. If your league has active traders, the theoretical best strategy would be to try to assemble the best possible redraft team every year until you can't, then take your lumps for a year or two, and start the process over. For example, if you think Harvin or Mike Wallace are in for down years, and you can move them for WRs who are likely to have good years this year, then you should generally be willing to pay a premium to do it (by accepting less in trade than you think your "anchor WR" is worth). Hanging on to that stud talent year after year may not maximize the value of your window of contending, and that's inefficient roster management.
Talk to me about core WRs and QBs. Are you looking for starter quality seasons? Or guys whose VBD numbers are higher than 0? And to answer that question, I think we need to talk about how you determine VBD in a dynasty league.VBD in dynasty seems like a vastly different thing than in a redraft. Worst starter in a 12 team redraft will generally be the 12th QB, maybe the 14th or something since some guys might draft more than one top 12 guy and others will be left in the cold. But in a dynasty league, it's very possible that some people have 3 top 12 QBs, and others don't have any top 20 guys. So the baseline there is skewed substantially.A core player is not a RB. Most RB will only have 2-3 seasons playing at a high level before they fade, get injured, situation changes, what have you. It is very difficult for a RB to string together much more than this in their careers. The few who do are golden and perhaps should be considered core players, but generally I try to treat the RB position closer to redraft type valuation. They are still very valuable of course. I just do not think it is very helpful adding 5 years of expected value for a player that is not likely to achieve that. The other positions are different, you can expect 5 years from a top WR or QB. A QB like Luck may be a QB1 for you for longer than 10 years. I think that is worth considering with these players, not so much RBs.
Thanks for asking this as I do think I need to be a bit more clear on what I consider to be a core player.bostonfred said:Talk to me about core WRs and QBs. Are you looking for starter quality seasons? Or guys whose VBD numbers are higher than 0? And to answer that question, I think we need to talk about how you determine VBD in a dynasty league.VBD in dynasty seems like a vastly different thing than in a redraft. Worst starter in a 12 team redraft will generally be the 12th QB, maybe the 14th or something since some guys might draft more than one top 12 guy and others will be left in the cold. But in a dynasty league, it's very possible that some people have 3 top 12 QBs, and others don't have any top 20 guys. So the baseline there is skewed substantially.A core player is not a RB. Most RB will only have 2-3 seasons playing at a high level before they fade, get injured, situation changes, what have you. It is very difficult for a RB to string together much more than this in their careers. The few who do are golden and perhaps should be considered core players, but generally I try to treat the RB position closer to redraft type valuation. They are still very valuable of course. I just do not think it is very helpful adding 5 years of expected value for a player that is not likely to achieve that. The other positions are different, you can expect 5 years from a top WR or QB. A QB like Luck may be a QB1 for you for longer than 10 years. I think that is worth considering with these players, not so much RBs.
But then there's the other side of it, where the guy with the bottom of the barrel QB probably isn't going anywhere this season, and so he begins operation "pretend I'm not tanking", and starts trading his players away for picks. Which means that that guy really doesn't belong in the baseline conversation at all, since we're all kind of given an auto win when we play him (at least those of us who play him later in the season).
When we're talking about VBD for contending teams, we're comparing our QB to the QBs of all the other contending teams - and maybe some of the teams which aren't going to contend but don't know it yet. It seems like the baseline should slide higher and higher as the season goes on, starting with most of the league, then just the guys who still think they're contending at the trade deadline, then just the guys fighting for the last playoff spot, and eventually just the playoff teams. Because really, that's who you're competing against when you're a contender.
And it that's the case, your "core QB" is rarely going to be good enough year in, year out to consistently be top 5 or better, which is what it takes to really get an advantage at the position.
So when you talk about core QBs and WRs, are you talking about guys who are going to give you a VBD advantage against other contenders? Or guys who are good enough to start for you for many years, even if they might be a little below par VBD wise one year, and a little above the next?
This is the part I am interested in. How and when do you identify these so called core players? Calvin Johnson may have been a can't miss prospect, but so were Big Mike Williams, and Roy Williams, and so on. In fact, Roy Williams really was semi-studly for a little bit. How do you work with that?Speaking of receivers named Williams, how about Tampa Mike? He had a studly rookie season. Is that a guy you draft hoping to build around him? Or acquire and plan to build around him? Or dump when VJax comes to town? Or do you still try to build around him? He's had 1000 yards/10 TDs in two of his three years in the league. But his upside seems limited.For the most part core players would be top 12-16 type baseline depending on the number of teams competing. Some of the QB2 and WR2 might be considered core players if you expect them to be able to solidly maintain that QB2 or WR2 performance and they have the upside to become QB1 WR1 for a season, even if you do not expect them to solidly perform as a "1" consistently as long as you do think they can remain a 2. I used Steve Smith as an example of this. I had him as a core player even though for the most part he has been a WR2 during his career with a few break out years. Another example would be Reggie Wayne. Not always considered a WR1 (especially while Harrison was across from him) but most of his career he has been a solid 2 with 1 upside. Core player.
For the TE position a core player are very few. Gonzalez, Vernon Davis, Shannon Sharpe, Jason Witten, Gates, Graham, Gronkowski. I did have Dallas Clark as a core player also. His career has been up and down, but he did have the ability to put together a few top seasons, a lot of that was situational but Clark did have enough talent, combined with the situation for me to consider him a core player. Players like Heap and so on have been good at times but if you are not a elite TE (few are) it is not enough to be considered a core player. It needs to be a player who can sustain top performance for more than 1 season.
Right. Imagine a six man roster. Rookie picks would be worth almost nothing unless they were superstars because your roster would be filled with great guys already. As you increase the roster size, the rookies, compared to the guys at the end of your roster and the FA's, become more valuable because they are better than anyone you would pick up off the wire and better than the guys at the end of your bench, and you now have room to keep them and develop them for the future.I would like to refine this valuation of a roster spot somewhat. ZWK and I were talking about that a bit in his rankings thread. How does one value a roster spot? How does the number of roster spots change this value? How are these values related to rookie draft picks? One could just use the historical VBD performance of draft position to this, however I think it would be more accurate to tie the draft pick value with the roster slot value. A rookie pick is more valuable in a deeper league because the talent pool of free agents is a lower baseline than it would be in a more shallow league. For example if your league is 24 roster spots compared to 48 roster spots? The value of a roster spot in a league with 24 spots would be twice as much as the spot in a 48 spot league. Your baselines should be deeper in the 48 spot league than the 24. A rookie pick would need to be from a much higher baseline to roster in a 24 spot league than it would for a 48. Your opportunity lost from rostering a player who does not perform is half as much for the 48 spot league than it is the 24 where you likely only need 2 rounds for rookies. The later picks will not be better than the free agents available.
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