*** OFFICIAL *** 13/14 Off-Season Dynasty Trade Thread (1 Viewer)

[EBF]

Reasonable chance that Michael > Forte as far as dynasty is concerned. Jumping up from 1.04 to 1.01 is a nice added bonus.

Probably a good example of why that owner has the 1.01 pick in the first place.

I do like the value that the Forte owner go in the subsequent trade though. 1.03, 1.11, and 2.11 is a good haul for a guy who will probably be roster poison soon.

 

[jwb]

12 team ppr. Start qb, 2rb, 3wr, te, 1 rb/wr/te flex

Give: Gordon, Trent, 2nd

Get: Calvin

 

[Adam Harstad]

12 team ppr. Start qb, 2rb, 3wr, te, 1 rb/wr/te flex

Give: Gordon, Trent, 2nd

Get: Calvin

Ouch. That's an absolute steal for Calvin.

 

[dewmass]

12 team ppr. Start qb, 2rb, 3wr, te, 1 rb/wr/te flex

Give: Gordon, Trent, 2nd

Get: Calvin

Dear me thats shocking

 

[Coeur de Lion]

12 team ppr. Start qb, 2rb, 3wr, te, 1 rb/wr/te flex

Give: Gordon, Trent, 2nd

Get: Calvin

Ooooooof for the other guy.

 

[Jrodicus]

Reasonable chance that Michael > Forte as far as dynasty is concerned. Jumping up from 1.04 to 1.01 is a nice added bonus.

.....

I do like the value that the Forte owner go in the subsequent trade though. 1.03, 1.11, and 2.11 is a good haul for a guy who will probably be roster poison soon.

Woah. I'm not saying it's impossible that Michael will go on to have a long, productive career, but are you implying that you'd rather have Michael than Forte right now? Right now FBG has Forte at RB7 (Tied with AP) and Michael at RB23 (tied with Hyde).

Probably a good example of why that owner has the 1.01 pick in the first place.

Probably not. The 1.01 was acquired via trade last off season:

Olsen, 3.12 (Burleson)

for

2.04 (Wheaton), 2014 1st (1.01)

 

[EBF]

Reasonable chance that Michael > Forte as far as dynasty is concerned. Jumping up from 1.04 to 1.01 is a nice added bonus.

.....

I do like the value that the Forte owner go in the subsequent trade though. 1.03, 1.11, and 2.11 is a good haul for a guy who will probably be roster poison soon.

Woah. I'm not saying it's impossible that Michael will go on to have a long, productive career, but are you implying that you'd rather have Michael than Forte right now? Right now FBG has Forte at RB7 (Tied with AP) and Michael at RB23 (tied with Hyde).

I don't put much stock in the FBG rankings or any consensus rankings for that matter, as they tend to be rooted in past production and avoid making concrete assessments of developing assets. I only use them as a guide to tell me where players can be expected to be valued by the market, not to tell me what they're actually worth. So if you say they have Forte at RB7 and Michael at RB23, I say who cares? Where did they have Hakeem Nicks and Michael Floyd last season?

Forte will turn 29 late this season. I believe that it's better to sell a year too early than a year too late. His value is right on the precipice of total collapse. The argument is that you might get 1-2 really good years from him and that's worth more than a risky prospect. Even if I buy that his performance EV is the same as Michael's, the future market value favors Michael in a landslide. He's about to become a player that everyone wants whereas Forte is about to become a player that nobody wants.

Unless I absolutely needed him for a title chase, I would be thrilled to get a package like 1.03, 1.11, and 2.11 for Forte. That's an excellent exit price for an old soldier on the backslope of his prime. Even if I needed the production, I could probably do that deal and then just move the 1.11 and 2.11 for a cheaper stopgap like Gerhart.

I think Forte is a good piece if you're right on the cusp and he might put you over the edge this year or next. In general, he's an undesirable asset to me in dynasty. Limited shelf-life and guaranteed cliff drop in his market value. Not the kind of pieces I like to collect when I'm trying to grow a team's value.

Probably a good example of why that owner has the 1.01 pick in the first place.

Probably not. The 1.01 was acquired via trade last off season:

Olsen, 3.12 (Burleson)

for

2.04 (Wheaton), 2014 1st (1.01)

Okay, now THAT is a good example of how you wind up with the 1.01 rookie pick.

 

[squistion]

Reasonable chance that Michael > Forte as far as dynasty is concerned. Jumping up from 1.04 to 1.01 is a nice added bonus.

.....

I do like the value that the Forte owner go in the subsequent trade though. 1.03, 1.11, and 2.11 is a good haul for a guy who will probably be roster poison soon.

Woah. I'm not saying it's impossible that Michael will go on to have a long, productive career, but are you implying that you'd rather have Michael than Forte right now? Right now FBG has Forte at RB7 (Tied with AP) and Michael at RB23 (tied with Hyde).

I don't put much stock in the FBG rankings or any consensus rankings for that matter, as they tend to be rooted in past production and avoid making concrete assessments of developing assets. I only use them as a guide to tell me where players can be expected to be valued by the market, not to tell me what they're actually worth. So if you say they have Forte at RB7 and Michael at RB23, I say who cares? Where did they have Hakeem Nicks and Michael Floyd last season?

Forte will turn 29 late this season. I believe that it's better to sell a year too early than a year too late. His value is right on the precipice of total collapse. The argument is that you might get 1-2 really good years from him and that's worth more than a risky prospect. Even if I buy that his performance EV is the same as Michael's, the future market value favors Michael in a landslide. He's about to become a player that everyone wants whereas Forte is about to become a player that nobody wants.

Unless I absolutely needed him for a title chase, I would be thrilled to get a package like 1.03, 1.11, and 2.11 for Forte. That's an excellent exit price for an old soldier on the backslope of his prime. Even if I needed the production, I could probably do that deal and then just move the 1.11 and 2.11 for a cheaper stopgap like Gerhart.

I think Forte is a good piece if you're right on the cusp and he might put you over the edge this year or next. In general, he's an undesirable asset to me in dynasty. Limited shelf-life and guaranteed cliff drop in his market value. Not the kind of pieces I like to collect when I'm trying to grow a team's value.

Forte has always been an undesirable asset to you in dynasty and everyone knows where you stand with Michael. And, if the future market value favors Michael in a landslide (as you contend) then it should be reflected in the startup draft thread, but I have yet to see one startup draft where Michael was drafted ahead of Forte. Besides the FBGs' rankings (which you are dismissive of) it is also reflected in DFL's May ADP in which Forte was #21 overall and Michael was #61 http://dynastyleaguefootball.com/adpdata/?month=5.

While you would probably trade Forte straight up for Michael, you are in a distinct minority as far as current actual market value goes, according to any guide one can point to.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

Assuming typical PPR settings with 2 RBs and a flex, Matt Forte put up over 190 points over baseline last year alone. 2nd round RBs generically have a 29% chance of accumulating 50 points over baseline over their entire career. Just to illustrate exactly how high some people are on Michael.

 

[Jrodicus]

I think Forte is a good piece if you're right on the cusp and he might put you over the edge this year or next. In general, he's an undesirable asset to me in dynasty. Limited shelf-life and guaranteed cliff drop in his market value. Not the kind of pieces I like to collect when I'm trying to grow a team's value.

I don't mean to derail the thread...but to play Devil's advocate: yes, you are guaranteed that Forte's value will eventaully fall (but you'll get production out of him during that time, which is what FF is all about), but what guarantee do you have that Michael will ever actually be a productive player and worthy of being in your starting lineup? You will lose value eventually with Forte, but you risk never actually having any production with Michael.

 

[EBF]

Assuming typical PPR settings with 2 RBs and a flex, Matt Forte put up over 190 points over baseline last year alone. 2nd round RBs generically have a 29% chance of accumulating 50 points over baseline over their entire career. Just to illustrate exactly how high some people are on Michael.

How many points do you get for what happened last season?

The dynasty RB climate is strange right now. There aren't a lot of established elite young players. That means guys like Peterson, Forte, and Lynch are ranked almost scarily high on RB lists because the alternatives are either inferior young players or total mysteries. To me, all of those players are to be avoided at their market price. They are a few dynasty blinks of the eye away from becoming Steven Jackson and MJD, which to me just isn't worth the price of acquisition unless you just absolutely know they can put you over the top this year or maybe next.

I would trade any one of those three veteran backs for that 1.03, 1.11, and 2.11 package. I usually try to sell players before they decline and buy players before they ascend, and keeping those gray-hairs around past their expiration date when you've got a good chance to cash out isn't how you do that. Obviously when it comes down to these debates there's always going to be a side that takes the opposite stance and feels more comfortable with the proven production.

I'm just offering my opinion.

 

[EBF]

I think Forte is a good piece if you're right on the cusp and he might put you over the edge this year or next. In general, he's an undesirable asset to me in dynasty. Limited shelf-life and guaranteed cliff drop in his market value. Not the kind of pieces I like to collect when I'm trying to grow a team's value.

I don't mean to derail the thread...but to play Devil's advocate: yes, you are guaranteed that Forte's value will eventaully fall (but you'll get production out of him during that time, which is what FF is all about), but what guarantee do you have that Michael will ever actually be a productive player and worthy of being in your starting lineup? You will lose value eventually with Forte, but you risk never actually having any production with Michael.

Sure. The flipside is that at 23 years old for Michael compared to 28 years old for Forte, the potential yield is far greater in the event that he pans out.

From my experience, some owners are more obsessed with risk and some are more obsessed with upside.

I think if you're wired to think in terms of fear and security, you're generally going to like the veteran side of these deals.

However, it's as easy to underrate future production as it is to overrate it. Likewise, it's as easy to overrate past production as it is to underrate it.

I think that gets lost in these discussions sometimes.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

Assuming typical PPR settings with 2 RBs and a flex, Matt Forte put up over 190 points over baseline last year alone. 2nd round RBs generically have a 29% chance of accumulating 50 points over baseline over their entire career. Just to illustrate exactly how high some people are on Michael.

How many points do you get for what happened last season?

The dynasty RB climate is strange right now. There aren't a lot of established elite young players. That means guys like Peterson, Forte, and Lynch are ranked almost scarily high on RB lists because the alternatives are either inferior young players or total mysteries. To me, all of those players are to be avoided at their market price. They are a few dynasty blinks of the eye away from becoming Steven Jackson and MJD, which to me just isn't worth the price of acquisition unless you just absolutely know they can put you over the top this year or maybe next.

I would trade any one of those three veteran backs for that 1.03, 1.11, and 2.11 package. I usually try to sell players before they decline and buy players before they ascend, and keeping those gray-hairs around past their expiration date when you've got a good chance to cash out isn't how you do that. Obviously when it comes down to these debates there's always going to be a side that takes the opposite stance and feels more comfortable with the proven production.

I'm just offering my opinion.

In a total rebuild, if that was the best I could manage after some aggressive shopping, maybe. But not at this time of year when everyone feels good about their chances. Midway through the season is usually a much better time to generate value when people need to shore up holes to make a run.

As for the bolded, putting actual historical numbers on the EV of those picks vs the EV of even a relatively pessimistic outlook for the stud veterans is usually HUGELY slanted in favor of the veteran. I'm a big fan of trusting math over nebulous stuff potential future market value and "but this guy is shiny and new." YMMV.

 

[EBF]

Forte has always been an undesirable asset to you in dynasty and everyone knows where you stand with Michael. And, if the future market value favors Michael in a landslide (as you contend) then it should be reflected in the startup draft thread, but I have yet to see one startup draft where Michael was drafted ahead of Forte. Besides the FBGs' rankings (which you are dismissive of) it is also reflected in DFL's May ADP in which Forte was #21 overall and Michael was #61 http://dynastyleaguefootball.com/adpdata/?month=5.
While you would probably trade Forte straight up for Michael, you are in a distinct minority as far as current actual market value goes, according to any guide one can point to.

As a predictive tool of performance and future value, current market value isn't that "valuable."

This is especially true with binary young players who could be really valuable if they pan out and really worthless if they don't. The market typically treats them like a compromise between those two outcomes when in reality they're more like "all-or-nothing" propositions. Look at Jon Baldwin and Michael Floyd. One guy panned out and is worth a lot. The other guy flopped and is worth nothing. Because the market will usually treat young prospects like a hybrid of those two outcomes, the market will pretty much constantly underrate eventual successes and overrate eventual busts.

The consequence of this is that I essentially don't care what market value says about an unproven young player valued in between the two poles of superstar and scrub. It's an opinion that doesn't really offer an opinion. Because a guy like Justin Hunter or Christine Michael likely will be either a consensus top 25-30 player in a couple years or nearly worthless. Saying right now that he's #60 doesn't make an estimate either way about the outcome. It just treats him like a coin flip.

Consensus rankings have almost no value regardless of that. They are basically a summary of what the average FF player thinks at a given moment in time. If you only earn profits in FF by buying players for less than they're truly worth and selling them for more than they're truly worth then how exactly are consensus rankings going to serve that? The truth is that if consensus rankings represent the thinking of the average player then drafting according to those rankings will only result in you assembling an average team. So to me the only value in consensus rankings is in telling me what the average owner thinks, which then allows me to identify players who I think are worth far more/less than that so that I can act accordingly and gain an edge for my teams.

So the fact that the average owner is only lukewarm on a guy like Michael is not a stop sign to me. More like a green light. If they think he's a 6th round pick and I think he's a 3rd round pick, I'm going to act accordingly rather than defer to the wisdom of the crowd, which if taken as your cover-all strategy would only see you emerge from your drafts and trades with average results.

 

[gianmarco]

12 team ppr. Start qb, 2rb, 3wr, te, 1 rb/wr/te flex

Give: Gordon, Trent, 2nd

Get: Calvin

Ouch. That's an absolute steal for Calvin.

I wonder if the same thing is said before the suspension talk.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

12 team ppr. Start qb, 2rb, 3wr, te, 1 rb/wr/te flex

Give: Gordon, Trent, 2nd

Get: Calvin

Ouch. That's an absolute steal for Calvin.

I wonder if the same thing is said before the suspension talk.

By most people, no. A few of us were waiving the caution flag on his drug history though. Whatever amount of games he's suspended this year isn't the issue -- it's the two recent incidents back to back and what that says about his chances of ever staying clean moving forward that's the value killer.

 

[Concept Coop]

Group think has its pros and cons.

As for Michael and Forte--it comes down to how much you're willing to invest in your personal call. I think EBF is investing more in his than most of us would be comfortable doing. Late 2nd round RBs bust at 60+% rate. Treating Michael as anything more than a coinflip is a heavy investment in your ability to seperate the two outcomes. Most of us value Michael as a prospect with a wide range of outcomes. EBF has made his call and is valuing Michael accordingly. In otherwords, we're debating different assets.

Also, EBF has suggested that his roster management is based on eventually acquiring the perfect roster. I think that's pretty common on this forum. Perhaps more common--those of us trying to win championships in 1-3 year windows. I've seen both methods work, but the two parties rarely agree on the value of unproven assets in relation to older assets.

 

[Scooby]

Team A gave up:

Bryant, Dez DAL WR

Floyd, Michael ARI WR

Cole, Audie MIN LB

Laurinaitis, James STL LB

Rey, Vincent CIN LB

Year 2014 Draft Pick 3.02

Year 2014 Draft Pick 5.14

Year 2014 Draft Pick 6.16

Year 2014 Draft Pick 8.14

$5 in blind bidding

Team B gave up:

Johnson, Calvin DET WR

Burfict, Vontaze CIN LB

Not sure about the idp players but I would take Dez/Floyd

Same for me

 

[Adam Harstad]

12 team ppr. Start qb, 2rb, 3wr, te, 1 rb/wr/te flex

Give: Gordon, Trent, 2nd

Get: Calvin

Ouch. That's an absolute steal for Calvin.

I wonder if the same thing is said before the suspension talk.

I would have been strongly on the Calvin side even before the suspension, although I wouldn't have prefaced my thoughts with an "ouch". I've been adamant since the middle of last season that people weren't properly pricing the suspension risk on Blackmon and Gordon.

 

[coolnerd]

Group think has its pros and cons.

As for Michael and Forte--it comes down to how much you're willing to invest in your personal call. I think EBF is investing more in his than most of us would be comfortable doing. Late 2nd round RBs bust at 60+% rate. Treating Michael as anything more than a coinflip is a heavy investment in your ability to seperate the two outcomes. Most of us value Michael as a prospect with a wide range of outcomes. EBF has made his call and is valuing Michael accordingly. In otherwords, we're debating different assets.

Also, EBF has suggested that his roster management is based on eventually acquiring the perfect roster. I think that's pretty common on this forum. Perhaps more common--those of us trying to win championships in 1-3 year windows. I've seen both methods work, but the two parties rarely agree on the value of unproven assets in relation to older assets.

I know this is the "trade" thread but the perfect situation would be having both Michael a talent guy who I need to wait on for his situation to takeover for a guy who is highly productive but i can see the realistic end.

In terms of roster management, I believe the best teams i have seen (and owned) along with the most consistent owners i have observed, work both "sides" Current production (Forte) and future potential (Michael)...honestly, i think this middle ground (lacking better phrase) actually is easier than trying for some mystical "perfect" squad full of elite players or trading away all my future picks guys who might have a year or two left.

 

[maf005]

Team A:

Ben Tate

Jared Cook

2015 3rd round pick (probable playoff team)

Team B:

Jordan Cameron

 

[cdubz]

Team A:

Ben Tate

Jared Cook

2015 3rd round pick (probable playoff team)

Team B:

Jordan Cameron

Cameron

 

[One More Rep]

Team A:

Ben Tate

Jared Cook

2015 3rd round pick (probable playoff team)

Team B:

Jordan Cameron

Cameron

X2

 

[ghostguy123]

14 team PPR, QRRWWWF

Michael Floyd + Bryce Brown + David Wilson + Marquess Wilson + Quincy Enunwa

for

Marshawn Lynch + Arian Foster + Stevan Ridley + Andrew Hawkins + Dennis Pitta

One team is rebuilding and the other is trying to win now.

Like Floyd but that is too much to give up for Floyd and some prospects in my eyes.

It is a lot but I would be okay giving it for Floyd

Seems like the team with Lynch and foster should be able to compete, though I don't know the whole roster......but no matter the situation that is a lopsided deal.

Relevant: Team trading for Foster+Lynch was previously slated to start Ivory+____ at RB (Bryce Brown, David Wilson, Jacquizz Rodgers...) and still has Julio+Watkins+Cruz+Randle at WR. Didn't want to color the trade evaluation with that, but it certainly makes that team a contender.

I meant the team trading away Lynch and foster. Seems he could contend now, but overpaid for a rebuild player.

 

[SproutDaddy]

12 team IDP/PPR can start 3-4 WRs

Gave 2014 2.10

Got Maclin

Maclin is now my WR4

 

[Spike]

Zealots Field (non-PPR dynasty); 12 teams; 53 man rosters; start 1/1/3/1 2 flex (not at QB) and 3/3/3 at IDP positions with 1 flex.

Traded Mark Ingram and Trent Richardson to arguably the worst team in the league for his 2015 1st, 3rd and 5th round rookie picks and Daryl Smith (LB for the Ravens).

Gotta figure the picks will be top 3 in each round.

(Trade was offered to me.)

 

[SproutDaddy]

Zealots Field (non-PPR dynasty); 12 teams; 53 man rosters; start 1/1/3/1 2 flex (not at QB) and 3/3/3 at IDP positions with 1 flex.

Traded Mark Ingram and Trent Richardson to arguably the worst team in the league for his 2015 1st, 3rd and 5th round rookie picks and Daryl Smith (LB for the Ravens).

Gotta figure the picks will be top 3 in each round.

(Trade was offered to me.)

Has to be a Bama fan.

 

[cstu]

12 team IDP/PPR can start 3-4 WRs

Gave 2014 2.10

Got Maclin

Maclin is now my WR4

That's cheap.

 

[ghostguy123]

12 team PPR (1.5 for TE) FFPC dynasty

Christine Michael

2015 2015 1st (SHOULD be a non playoff pick, which puts this pick anywhere from 1-6)

2015 4th

for

Josh Gordon

2015 3rd

2015 5th

This is a weird one. Essentially none of the pieces help anyone THIS year (unless Lynch gets hurt, and I don't buy this "committee" crap in Seattle, Lynch is getting the bulk of the carries/touches).

I can't help but think next year at this time Michael and a high 1st will be worth as much as Gordon even if he is active and not suspended. I mean, if there was no suspension risk with Gordon then he is the #1 dynasty WR, but wow, not now after all that has happened.

 

[cdubz]

12 team PPR (1.5 for TE) FFPC dynasty

Christine Michael

2015 2015 1st (SHOULD be a non playoff pick, which puts this pick anywhere from 1-6)

2015 4th

for

Josh Gordon

2015 3rd

2015 5th

This is a weird one. Essentially none of the pieces help anyone THIS year (unless Lynch gets hurt, adn I don't by this "committee" crap in Seattle, Lynch is getting the bulk of the carries/touches).

I can't help but think next year at this time Michael and a high 1st will be worth as much as Gordon even if he is active and not suspended. I mean, if there was no suspension risk with Gordon then he is the #1 dynasty WR, but wow, not now after all that has happened.

At this point, would definitely prefer the Michael/1st side.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Zealots Field (non-PPR dynasty); 12 teams; 53 man rosters; start 1/1/3/1 2 flex (not at QB) and 3/3/3 at IDP positions with 1 flex.

Traded Mark Ingram and Trent Richardson to arguably the worst team in the league for his 2015 1st, 3rd and 5th round rookie picks and Daryl Smith (LB for the Ravens).

Gotta figure the picks will be top 3 in each round.

(Trade was offered to me.)

I would have liked it a lot better for him if he'd gotten you to throw in Lacy, too.

 

[LususV]

Hmm. 14 team PPR, QRRWWWTF

Shane Vereen+James White

for

Teddy Bridgewater+Knowshon Moreno+2015 3rd (should be mid-late)

I consistently see Teddy Bridgewater sold much more richly than 2014 mid-2nds, which is where you can land Teddy Bridgewater.

 

[Denver724]

12 Team PPR. Team A owner has Charles.

• Team A gave up Tate, Ben CLE RB
• Team B gave up Davis, Knile KCC RB; Year 2015 Round 2 Draft Pick

 

[Archer]

12 team PPR

Gave: Richardson, M. Lee, and E. Sanders

Got: Shady McCoy

Took a hit with my WR depth but needed the RB upgrade badly.

 

[LususV]

12 team PPR

Gave: Richardson, M. Lee, and E. Sanders

Got: Shady McCoy

Wow. Cheap buy of the stud.

 

[ghostguy123]

12 team PPR

Gave: Richardson, M. Lee, and E. Sanders

Got: Shady McCoy

Took a hit with my WR depth but needed the RB upgrade badly.

A year ago I still take Mccoy

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Oof. Both of those last two are pretty bad.

 

[Jrodicus]

So the fact that the average owner is only lukewarm on a guy like Michael is not a stop sign to me. More like a green light. If they think he's a 6th round pick and I think he's a 3rd round pick, I'm going to act accordingly rather than defer to the wisdom of the crowd, which if taken as your cover-all strategy would only see you emerge from your drafts and trades with average results.

The problem with this thinking is that in a start-up, it's not the average owner that takes him - it's the guy in the league who is the highest on him. It's true of any player; whoever drafts a player considers him to be the most valuable player on the board at that time.

Michael's "average" value is going to be lower than his current ADP because 11 other owners still were passing on him until finally someone decided he was the best OTB. Who knows how many more rounds he would last until 1/2 of the league would agree he was the best player available?

If his ADP is a 6th round pick, but you consider him to be worth a 3rd, not only are you higher on him than most, but you are higher on him than almost everyone else who is high on him. You literally may be higher on him than anyone else in entire fantasy football community.

I'm not saying that is a good or bad thing, just that it's something to keep in mind. I might think that the value of gold will triple in 2 years, but that doesn't mean I should pay much over current market value to buy it now.

 

[squistion]

12 Team PPR. Team A owner has Charles.

• Team A gave up Tate, Ben CLE RB
• Team B gave up Davis, Knile KCC RB; Year 2015 Round 2 Draft Pick

Obviously.

 

[EBF]

The problem with this thinking is that in a start-up, it's not the average owner that takes him - it's the guy in the league who is the highest on him. It's true of any player; whoever drafts a player considers him to be the most valuable player on the board at that time.

Michael's "average" value is going to be lower than his current ADP because 11 other owners still were passing on him until finally someone decided he was the best OTB. Who knows how many more rounds he would last until 1/2 of the league would agree he was the best player available?

This is pretty much completely irrelevant to the point of my post, which was that consensus rankings shouldn't be taken as a valuable resource in isolation since all they provide is the average opinion. It stands to reason that following them to a T will, by definition, only result in average performance.

Here's a quick analogy. Let's say you are seated at a poker table playing against average players. Let's say that instead of making your own decisions, you poll a committee of average poker players and whatever decision they vote on is what you do. Are you going to win any money in the long run? No, because the "consensus decisions" will merely be average decisions. And average decisions at a table of average players won't result in a profit.

It's only when you start making BETTER decisions than your competition that you actually start to win.

In FF, consensus rankings just reflect average thinking. So saying that Michael has less future EV than Forte because the consensus says so isn't ultimately a very strong argument. It's like saying that a poker player shouldn't make a particular play because it's not what the average player would do. You don't gain an edge by doing what everyone else is doing. You only gain an edge by playing more optimally. So in FF it's really more about creating your own rankings, comparing them with consensus rankings, and exploiting the gaps than it is about treating the consensus rankings as gospel. You're looking to exploit average thinking, not practice it.

 

[cdubz]

So the fact that the average owner is only lukewarm on a guy like Michael is not a stop sign to me. More like a green light. If they think he's a 6th round pick and I think he's a 3rd round pick, I'm going to act accordingly rather than defer to the wisdom of the crowd, which if taken as your cover-all strategy would only see you emerge from your drafts and trades with average results.

The problem with this thinking is that in a start-up, it's not the average owner that takes him - it's the guy in the league who is the highest on him. It's true of any player; whoever drafts a player considers him to be the most valuable player on the board at that time.

Michael's "average" value is going to be lower than his current ADP because 11 other owners still were passing on him until finally someone decided he was the best OTB. Who knows how many more rounds he would last until 1/2 of the league would agree he was the best player available?

If his ADP is a 6th round pick, but you consider him to be worth a 3rd, not only are you higher on him than most, but you are higher on him than almost everyone else who is high on him. You literally may be higher on him than anyone else in entire fantasy football community.

I'm not saying that is a good or bad thing, just that it's something to keep in mind. I might think that the value of gold will triple in 2 years, but that doesn't mean I should pay much over current market value to buy it now.

If you had near 100% conviction in that and there was only 1 source to buy gold from, then buying at double "market" and selling at triple still nets you a profit.

Not speaking to specific valuations on anyone, but fantasy football is a different entity than most market based transactions in that there is only 1 copy of each underlying asset.

 

[cdubz]

The problem with this thinking is that in a start-up, it's not the average owner that takes him - it's the guy in the league who is the highest on him. It's true of any player; whoever drafts a player considers him to be the most valuable player on the board at that time.

Michael's "average" value is going to be lower than his current ADP because 11 other owners still were passing on him until finally someone decided he was the best OTB. Who knows how many more rounds he would last until 1/2 of the league would agree he was the best player available?

This is pretty much completely irrelevant to the point of my post, which was that consensus rankings shouldn't be taken as a valuable resource in isolation since all they provide is the average opinion. It stands to reason that following them to a T will, by definition, only result in average performance.

Here's a quick analogy. Let's say you are seated at a poker table playing against average players. Let's say that instead of making your own decisions, you poll a committee of average poker players and whatever decision they vote on is what you do. Are you going to win any money in the long run? No, because the "consensus decisions" will merely be average decisions. And average decisions at a table of average players won't result in a profit.

It's only when you start making BETTER decisions than your competition that you actually start to win.

In FF, consensus rankings just reflect average thinking. So saying that Michael has less future EV than Forte because the consensus says so isn't ultimately a very strong argument. It's like saying that a poker player shouldn't make a particular play because it's not what the average player would do. You don't gain an edge by doing what everyone else is doing. You only gain an edge by playing more optimally. So in FF it's really more about creating your own rankings, comparing them with consensus rankings, and exploiting the gaps than it is about treating the consensus rankings as gospel. You're looking to exploit average thinking, not practice it.

I agree with this. Though I also understand the wisdom of the crowds angle, i.e. just because you have different valuation than market doesn't make it right. Effectively, the market might not be efficient, but good luck exploiting it consistently. I think the truth is somewhere in the middle, and it is a difficult trade-off to navigate.

 

[Jrodicus]

So the fact that the average owner is only lukewarm on a guy like Michael is not a stop sign to me. More like a green light. If they think he's a 6th round pick and I think he's a 3rd round pick, I'm going to act accordingly rather than defer to the wisdom of the crowd, which if taken as your cover-all strategy would only see you emerge from your drafts and trades with average results.

The problem with this thinking is that in a start-up, it's not the average owner that takes him - it's the guy in the league who is the highest on him. It's true of any player; whoever drafts a player considers him to be the most valuable player on the board at that time.

Michael's "average" value is going to be lower than his current ADP because 11 other owners still were passing on him until finally someone decided he was the best OTB. Who knows how many more rounds he would last until 1/2 of the league would agree he was the best player available?

If his ADP is a 6th round pick, but you consider him to be worth a 3rd, not only are you higher on him than most, but you are higher on him than almost everyone else who is high on him. You literally may be higher on him than anyone else in entire fantasy football community.

I'm not saying that is a good or bad thing, just that it's something to keep in mind. I might think that the value of gold will triple in 2 years, but that doesn't mean I should pay much over current market value to buy it now.

If you had near 100% conviction in that and there was only 1 source to buy gold from, then buying at double "market" and selling at triple still nets you a profit.

Not speaking to specific valuations on anyone, but fantasy football is a different entity than most market based transactions in that there is only 1 copy of each underlying asset.

But having 100% conviction doesn't mean that it will triple. If I've paid a lot over market price, I'm already in the hole and may never be able to break even, let alone make a profit.

 

[5Rings]

Zealots Field (non-PPR dynasty); 12 teams; 53 man rosters; start 1/1/3/1 2 flex (not at QB) and 3/3/3 at IDP positions with 1 flex.

Traded Mark Ingram and Trent Richardson to arguably the worst team in the league for his 2015 1st, 3rd and 5th round rookie picks and Daryl Smith (LB for the Ravens).

Gotta figure the picks will be top 3 in each round.

(Trade was offered to me.)

I'm starting to think you play with fools or you have a silver tongue. Every trade you post here is brutal.

 

[Jrodicus]

The problem with this thinking is that in a start-up, it's not the average owner that takes him - it's the guy in the league who is the highest on him. It's true of any player; whoever drafts a player considers him to be the most valuable player on the board at that time.

Michael's "average" value is going to be lower than his current ADP because 11 other owners still were passing on him until finally someone decided he was the best OTB. Who knows how many more rounds he would last until 1/2 of the league would agree he was the best player available?

This is pretty much completely irrelevant to the point of my post, which was that consensus rankings shouldn't be taken as a valuable resource in isolation since all they provide is the average opinion. It stands to reason that following them to a T will, by definition, only result in average performance.

Here's a quick analogy. Let's say you are seated at a poker table playing against average players. Let's say that instead of making your own decisions, you poll a committee of average poker players and whatever decision they vote on is what you do. Are you going to win any money in the long run? No, because the "consensus decisions" will merely be average decisions. And average decisions at a table of average players won't result in a profit.

It's only when you start making BETTER decisions than your competition that you actually start to win.

In FF, consensus rankings just reflect average thinking. So saying that Michael has less future EV than Forte because the consensus says so isn't ultimately a very strong argument. It's like saying that a poker player shouldn't make a particular play because it's not what the average player would do. You don't gain an edge by doing what everyone else is doing. You only gain an edge by playing more optimally. So in FF it's really more about creating your own rankings, comparing them with consensus rankings, and exploiting the gaps than it is about treating the consensus rankings as gospel. You're looking to exploit average thinking, not practice it.

We were talking about ADP data, not consensus rankings (these are two vastly different things). Again, ADP is not the average opinion. It is not a population sample.

To use the poker analogy, imagine that you are an aggressive player and that you believe aggression is the key to winning. You go to the poker room, and you select the most aggressive player from each table and ask them a question.

If you take the average of their answers, you aren't getting the answer from the "average" poker player; you're getting the average answer from the most aggressive players. The aggressive players will answer differently than the conservative players.

So when you look at ADP, you aren't looking at the "average" of where a guy is ranked, you're looking at the highest he is ranked. It's giving you an idea of how late you could potentially wait to draft a player before someone else in your league snatches him up.

Drafting Michael in the 3rd if you are high on him is fine. Getting another guy that you like just as much as Michael in the 3rd and drafting Michael in the 5th (a round above his ADP) is even better.

 

[EBF]

From what I've seen, Michael's ADP is pretty much on par with his consensus ranking. Not really sure what your point is here. My initial point was that I like him more than Forte and that I don't see consensus rankings as a compelling reason to change my mind.

It is common sense to wait as long as possible to draft a player you're targeting. If I value him as a 3rd rounder and everyone else values him as a 6th rounder, that doesn't mean I'm going to take him exactly where I have him valued. Likewise, if you're trading Forte for Michael then you should look to get some extra value added in even if you actually like Michael more because that's what the market price dictates. The deal I was initially responding to was basically Michael + 1.01 for Forte + 1.04. I like Michael > Forte and that side is also getting a 1.04 -> 1.01 upgrade to compensate for the lower market value. In my opinion that's enough of a bump to make this a pretty proftable exchange, even if it represents "paying over the odds" based on where these players are supposed to be valued.

 

[cdubz]

So the fact that the average owner is only lukewarm on a guy like Michael is not a stop sign to me. More like a green light. If they think he's a 6th round pick and I think he's a 3rd round pick, I'm going to act accordingly rather than defer to the wisdom of the crowd, which if taken as your cover-all strategy would only see you emerge from your drafts and trades with average results.

The problem with this thinking is that in a start-up, it's not the average owner that takes him - it's the guy in the league who is the highest on him. It's true of any player; whoever drafts a player considers him to be the most valuable player on the board at that time.

Michael's "average" value is going to be lower than his current ADP because 11 other owners still were passing on him until finally someone decided he was the best OTB. Who knows how many more rounds he would last until 1/2 of the league would agree he was the best player available?

If his ADP is a 6th round pick, but you consider him to be worth a 3rd, not only are you higher on him than most, but you are higher on him than almost everyone else who is high on him. You literally may be higher on him than anyone else in entire fantasy football community.

I'm not saying that is a good or bad thing, just that it's something to keep in mind. I might think that the value of gold will triple in 2 years, but that doesn't mean I should pay much over current market value to buy it now.

If you had near 100% conviction in that and there was only 1 source to buy gold from, then buying at double "market" and selling at triple still nets you a profit.

Not speaking to specific valuations on anyone, but fantasy football is a different entity than most market based transactions in that there is only 1 copy of each underlying asset.

But having 100% conviction doesn't mean that it will triple. If I've paid a lot over market price, I'm already in the hole and may never be able to break even, let alone make a profit.

I am not saying it will. Not saying it is a good strategy, just that your gold analogy isn't applicable when you can still make a profit when paying significantly above market.

You think the market is smarter than EBF on Michael's value, EBF believes the opposite. Only time will tell, but I don't see how you are persuading anyone that didn't already think the "market" price on Michael was appropriate.

 

[ghostguy123]

I am not saying it will. Not saying it is a good strategy, just that your gold analogy isn't applicable when you can still make a profit when paying significantly above market.

You think the market is smarter than EBF on Michael's value, EBF believes the opposite. Only time will tell, but I don't see how you are persuading anyone that didn't already think the "market" price on Michael was appropriate.

Agreed.

What was the market price on Lamar Miller and David Wilson last february?

What was their market price at the start of the season??

HUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGEEEEEEEEEEEEEE change, when really nothing had even happened, just hype hype hype hype hype.........

I think in Michaels case people are willing to pay above his "market value" because they believe he has a better than normal chance of increasing that value to more than what you would be paying to get him currently, even if it's overpaying right now.

Last year, people were going after Miller and Wilson early on because they felt their market values would drastically increase, and they did. The fact that they sucked is pretty irrelevant, but you get the idea. A blurb in rotoworld about Seattle wanting to use a committee approach raised Michaels market value, even though nothing happened and that was very likely just a BS coach speak thing to say.

The market value "now" doesnt mean that is what it will be when it actually matters.

That, and some people are just generally better at this fantasy game than others, and rank players on their own without looking at other rankings, and act accordingly. Over time those owners separate themselves from the pack.

 

[EBF]

I agree with this. Though I also understand the wisdom of the crowds angle, i.e. just because you have different valuation than market doesn't make it right. Effectively, the market might not be efficient, but good luck exploiting it consistently. I think the truth is somewhere in the middle, and it is a difficult trade-off to navigate.

If you don't believe that you can exploit the market consistently, why are you playing this game? I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but to me that's like admitting that you have no edge. I would never sit down at a poker table if I didn't think I had an edge or I didn't think it was possible for me to eventually gain one with experience and learning. Likewise, I wouldn't play FF if I didn't believe that it was possible to gain an edge over the average owner.

In FF, 3-4 good calls can make the difference between having an average roster and a great roster. That is kind of emblematic of the strategy I've been shifting towards over the last year or two. If I can basically operate at an average level with most of my roster moves and then occasionally find specific instances where I can get a player for well below what he's truly worth or sell a player for far above what he's really worth, that should be enough to elevate my team into the playoff picture.

So it's not necessarily about knowing the true value of every single player far better than the wisdom of the crowd, but more about identifying a small handful of spots where the crowd gets it very wrong. So basically playing an ABC style and then finding that small handful of high-certainty spots where you're convinced that you can make a move for high EV. I think that's an achievable goal.

As far as the wisdom of the crowd goes, I think the crowd is far better at assessing certain types of players than others. I think there's relatively little ambiguity with players like Graham, Dez, and McCoy who are established commodities in their prime. Any significant deviations in their valuation among owners are probably just a result of failures to understand scoring systems and relative value. However, many players are a lot more ambiguous. Is Bryce Brown a future NFL starter or just a career backup? Is Tyler Eifert a future top 5 TE or just another serviceable mediocrity? Will Paul Richardson be a 1000+ yard receiver in the NFL? Is Trent Richardson a permanent bust or will he bounce back and have a good career?

I don't think the consensus is well-equipped to handle ambiguity for the reasons I mentioned previously. It treats players as a compromise between their potential career outcomes when in reality most players will break more sharply in one direction or the other. So I think if there's a big edge to be gained in FF, much of it lies in answering questions of this variety rather than drafting robotically off the same cheatsheets as everyone else. You don't need to be Miss Cleo with every single player out there, but if you can get even 2-3 of these questions right in a big way per season and then just have average team management in every other respect then you will actually stack up a pretty big advantage over time. Consensus rankings aren't going to serve that end because by definition all they tell is what everyone thinks, not whether or not that thinking might be off-target in specific cases.

 

[ghostguy123]

I agree with this. Though I also understand the wisdom of the crowds angle, i.e. just because you have different valuation than market doesn't make it right. Effectively, the market might not be efficient, but good luck exploiting it consistently. I think the truth is somewhere in the middle, and it is a difficult trade-off to navigate.

If you don't believe that you can exploit the market consistently, why are you playing this game?

This is probably why. It's a game, and it's fun.

Though I realize some people view it to be far more serious than that.

I do, but not nearly to the level of some people.

It's also a hobby. WHo says you HAVE to be good to enjoy your hobby, right?