*** OFFICIAL *** 13/14 Off-Season Dynasty Trade Thread (2 Viewers)

[bostonfred]

I would sell charles in a heartbeat. He's getting old, he's had injuries in the past, and the chiefs lost o linemen. I love veteran studs, and generally view draft picks as trade bait only, but the haul you get in dynasty for charles right now is well worth it for a guy who could legitimately be a redraft bust.

 

[ghostguy123]

I would sell charles in a heartbeat. He's getting old, he's had injuries in the past, and the chiefs lost o linemen. I love veteran studs, and generally view draft picks as trade bait only, but the haul you get in dynasty for charles right now is well worth it for a guy who could legitimately be a redraft bust.

Only part of this I agree with is the idea that this is a good time to get a "haul" for charles.

If you consistently sell stud RBs who will be 28 in the coming year and get a huge haul, you will have a very successful dynasty team over a very long period of time.

There have been some deals I have seen for Charles that were just too good to pass up no matter what the makeup of your team is.

But if you aren't getting that huge haul, then I woudnt sell if you are competing now.

 

[Winning IS Everything]

1.9

for

Justin Blackmon

PPR

any other thoughts on this?

give me the 1.9.

I would take the 1.9 also. Blackmon is a great talent, but we are not even sure he will be reinstated or even have more games added on if he is reinstated. Give me the 1.9 where I might land one of Cooks/Beckham or that tier of WR or one of the RB's. I would even consider using that 1.9 on Ebron in a PPR if he gets drafted by GB over Blackmon.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

I would sell charles in a heartbeat. He's getting old, he's had injuries in the past, and the chiefs lost o linemen. I love veteran studs, and generally view draft picks as trade bait only, but the haul you get in dynasty for charles right now is well worth it for a guy who could legitimately be a redraft bust.

Charles is 27, and aside from blowing out his knee (which can happen to anyone) has played in 78 of 80 games since entering the league. He's also been remarkably consistent in terms of effectiveness with multiple coaching staffs, good and bad teams, and behind good and bad lines.

If by "bust," you actually mean "unlikely to repeat 2013" then sure, regression bites everyone. If you are projecting him as a true bust, your reasoning is flimsy at best.

 

[bostonfred]

There's a big difference between projecting him to bust, and saying a guy with three quality years remaining is a bust risk this year. He is. And not just for simple regression. The chiefs lost both starting guards and their left tackle. To replace their left tackle, they're moving the number one pick from last year from right tackle to left, and replacing him with a journeyman. The broncos and chargers both should be much better on d this year. Instead of the nfc east, they play the nfc west. Their field position should suffer some with the loss of their best return man. And yes, regression.

If charles isn't worth the number one pick this year, and he only has two years left after this, then you should be thrilled to get number one pick compensation for him while its still possible. The rb landscape changes quickly. Look at arian foster, trent richardson and cj spiller, all consensus top ten backs headed into last year. You can't get nearly the value for them this year. That doesn't mean you should never roster a running back, of course, but when you can trade charles for an elite prospect and additional quality prospects, I think you have to cash in.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I would sell charles in a heartbeat. He's getting old, he's had injuries in the past, and the chiefs lost o linemen. I love veteran studs, and generally view draft picks as trade bait only, but the haul you get in dynasty for charles right now is well worth it for a guy who could legitimately be a redraft bust.

Charles is 27, and aside from blowing out his knee (which can happen to anyone)

...and that blown knee may be the most unlikely/unlucky injury in NFL history.

 

[Concept Coop]

Look at arian foster, trent richardson and cj spiller...

...and Charles Rogers, Roy Williams, Braylon Edwards, Troy Williamson, David Terrell...

 

[Coeur de Lion]

There's a big difference between projecting him to bust, and saying a guy with three quality years remaining is a bust risk this year. He is. And not just for simple regression. The chiefs lost both starting guards and their left tackle. To replace their left tackle, they're moving the number one pick from last year from right tackle to left, and replacing him with a journeyman. The broncos and chargers both should be much better on d this year. Instead of the nfc east, they play the nfc west. Their field position should suffer some with the loss of their best return man. And yes, regression.

If charles isn't worth the number one pick this year, and he only has two years left after this, then you should be thrilled to get number one pick compensation for him while its still possible. The rb landscape changes quickly. Look at arian foster, trent richardson and cj spiller, all consensus top ten backs headed into last year. You can't get nearly the value for them this year. That doesn't mean you should never roster a running back, of course, but when you can trade charles for an elite prospect and additional quality prospects, I think you have to cash in.

I wouldn't ever be opposed to moving any player for a king's ransom -- but 1.01, 1.11, and 2.01 doesn't come remotely close to qualifying, unless I had a horrible team and that was the best I could do after shopping around.

As always this time of year, people fall in love with the next batch of shiny new toys and wildly over rate the actual value of the incoming rookie class. Watkins is a great prospect, no doubt. But 1st round NFL WRs still carry a > 50% chance to bust outright -- along with an expected career value of 119 points over baseline. The later picks are pretty impossible to project at this point until May, but it is certain that their value will be much lower than that. Charles, by comparison, was 150 points over the least favorable realistic baseline (10 teams, no flex, no PPR) just last year, and obviously concentrated value is worth more than diffused value. His value was as high as 250+ VBD in larger leagues with multiple flex spots -- so last year alone from Charles was worth significantly more than you should expect from the entire careers of the three picks in question.

Now obviously, any player is pretty unlikely to repeat Charles' 2013, but we're talking about a HOF level talent in a perfect system here -- he's not going to fall off of the map and even giving him a major 20% drop off and only two years of career left, he's worth more than the three rookie picks combined. If you have any intention of trying to win the next few years, it's a huge fail to trade him for those three picks.

 

[Concept Coop]

But 1st round NFL WRs still carry a > 50% chance to bust outright -- along with an expected career value of 119 points over baseline.

I think we'd need to fitler down further than that, in which case Watkins' chances look better (top 5-10 vs. top 32). I don't think it's a bad trade for a rebuilding team. If you're not competing in 2014--I don't think you can afford to sit on Charles and waste 33-50% of his projectable value.

ETA: That said, I'd much rather move Charles for a proven asset. Cobb+, Marshall+, Allen+, Alshon, Julio, Thomas, Dez, Green, etc. I'd add a first to Charles to get Dez or Green, before accepting this deal.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

But 1st round NFL WRs still carry a > 50% chance to bust outright -- along with an expected career value of 119 points over baseline.

I think we'd need to fitler down further than that, in which case Watkins' chances look better (top 5-10 vs. top 32). I don't think it's a bad trade for a rebuilding team. If you're not competing in 2014--I don't think you can afford to sit on Charles and waste 33-50% of his projectable value.

Agreed -- just not going to crunch a bunch of numbers on my phone or until we have an actual draft position for the guy. Either way I'm not opposed to trading Charles if I'm rebuilding -- just not a fan of this deal in particular or the "trade him now period and regardless" sentiment expressed by BF.

 

[doowain]

14 Team PPR (1.5 for TEs) with developmental players (watered down rookie pool)

Start 1/2/2 and 2 flex (WR/TE occupy the same starting slot)

Gave:

Ryan Griffin

Brandon Bostick

2015 1st (had the 1.13 this year)

Got:

Ray Rice

I'm not looking to buy Rice anywhere but felt this was a very low risk acquisition. Sure, Griffin and Bostick could earn starting jobs, but neither is likely to start for me and/or be a world beater. The 1st will be late again (hopefully). The rules for developmental players in this league allow for any college player to be rostered (they don't have to be draft eligible the following year), so guys like Gurley and Yeldon are already rostered.

 

[cdubz]

12 team. 1/1/1.5 PPR

QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, TE, 2 FLEX

Julio Jones

Rob Gronkowski

for

AJ Green

Michael Floyd

Ladarius Green

 

[MattFancy]

12 team. 1/1/1.5 PPR

QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, TE, 2 FLEX

Julio Jones

Rob Gronkowski

for

AJ Green

Michael Floyd

Ladarius Green

This one is tough. I'm gonna say the Gree/Floyd/Green side. Very close though.

 

[Denver724]

12 team. 1/1/1.5 PPR

QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, TE, 2 FLEX

Julio Jones

Rob Gronkowski

for

AJ Green

Michael Floyd

Ladarius Green

Green side for me.

 

[Concept Coop]

12 team. 1/1/1.5 PPR

QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, TE, 2 FLEX

Julio Jones

Rob Gronkowski

for

AJ Green

Michael Floyd

Ladarius Green

Green side for me.

In a 1.5 PPR(TE) league?! The new Green ownver got worked. Gronk is the biggest part in the deal.

 

[maxhyde]

12 team. 1/1/1.5 PPR

QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, TE, 2 FLEX

Julio Jones

Rob Gronkowski

for

AJ Green

Michael Floyd

Ladarius Green

This one is tough. I'm gonna say the Gree/Floyd/Green side. Very close though.

+1

 

[Coeur de Lion]

12 team. 1/1/1.5 PPR

QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, TE, 2 FLEX

Julio Jones

Rob Gronkowski

for

AJ Green

Michael Floyd

Ladarius Green

Green side for me.

In a 1.5 PPR(TE) league?! The new Green ownver got worked. Gronk is the biggest part in the deal.

 

[gchip]

12 team. 1/1/1.5 PPR

QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, TE, 2 FLEX

Julio Jones

Rob Gronkowski

for

AJ Green

Michael Floyd

Ladarius Green

This one is tough. I'm gonna say the Gree/Floyd/Green side. Very close though.

Tough call but I like the Greens side as well.

 

[bostonfred]

You guys are too used to arguing with hyperbole. I never said trade him at all costs. I never even said I liked that specific trade. I don't even like draft picks, except that they're like cash I can spend on veterans later. But I do think charles owners should look to trade him right now.

I think its important to identify players who will get more in trade than they are worth right now. That's charles. I think its important to identify players whose value will increase if you acquire them right now. Those are rare, because most times it costs you too much to acquire them. Older veterans give you some good arbitrage opportunities. Roddy white is a bargain right now. You can trade for him relatively cheap, get a good year out of him, and unless he busts, you'll get as much for him at the end of the year as you gave up for him now. Maybe more because I expect big things from him this year. That's a great value play. Now look at christine michael. People want full price for what he might become. There's no discount there. In my league he was drafted in the mid first and his price has actually gone up. And we don't even know for sure if he will ever start a game in the nfl. That's terrible value right there. I understand that reasonable minds differ on this subject. You may now resume putting words in my mouth.

 

[bostonfred]

And give me the julio/gronk side. If I could take julio and green out of the deal I would. Floyd and ladarius for gronk is an easy choice for me, especially in te premium.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

You guys are too used to arguing with hyperbole. I never said trade him at all costs. I never even said I liked that specific trade. I don't even like draft picks, except that they're like cash I can spend on veterans later. But I do think charles owners should look to trade him right now.

I think its important to identify players who will get more in trade than they are worth right now. That's charles. I think its important to identify players whose value will increase if you acquire them right now. Those are rare, because most times it costs you too much to acquire them. Older veterans give you some good arbitrage opportunities. Roddy white is a bargain right now. You can trade for him relatively cheap, get a good year out of him, and unless he busts, you'll get as much for him at the end of the year as you gave up for him now. Maybe more because I expect big things from him this year. That's a great value play. Now look at christine michael. People want full price for what he might become. There's no discount there. In my league he was drafted in the mid first and his price has actually gone up. And we don't even know for sure if he will ever start a game in the nfl. That's terrible value right there. I understand that reasonable minds differ on this subject. You may now resume putting words in my mouth.

Guess I misinterpreted "I'd trade Charles in a heartbeat," "you should be thrilled to get number one pick compensation for him," and "when you can trade Charles for an elite prospect and additional quality prospects, I think you have to cash in." Although I'm genuinely not quite sure how else any of that could be taken -- seriously and no snark.

 

[maxhyde]

And give me the julio/gronk side. If I could take julio and green out of the deal I would. Floyd and ladarius for gronk is an easy choice for me, especially in te premium.

Except it is Floyd Ladarius and you upgrade Julio to AJG...probably a 1st round pick equivalent. There has got to be more than a straight swap for someone to move from Green to Julio...I think the owner acquiring Green was thinking that way

Then you have to take into account Gronk and his injuries. I assume he will come back after a start on the PUP list but will he be the same fearless beast he always has been after that awful hit?

Anyway it is close and Gronk's return to health and continued dominance is required for the Julio side to "win". Adequate return if you are uncertain about that

 

[Dr. Octopus]

And give me the julio/gronk side. If I could take julio and green out of the deal I would. Floyd and ladarius for gronk is an easy choice for me, especially in te premium.

Except it is Floyd Ladarius and you upgrade Julio to AJG...probably a 1st round pick equivalent. There has got to be more than a straight swap for someone to move from Green to Julio...I think the owner acquiring Green was thinking that way

Then you have to take into account Gronk and his injuries. I assume he will come back after a start on the PUP list but will he be the same fearless beast he always has been after that awful hit?

Anyway it is close and Gronk's return to health and continued dominance is required for the Julio side to "win". Adequate return if you are uncertain about that

What if you don't think Jones to AJG Green is an upgrade? I sure don't. I think at best it's a lateral move.

 

[Concept Coop]

Anyway it is close and Gronk's return to health and continued dominance is required for the Julio side to "win".

But if he does return to dominance--given the format--he's worth Green+Green+Floyd on his own, at least. If he comes back and can produce 80% of his peak production, for 80% of each season--it's still a big win for the new Gronk owner.

 

[maxhyde]

Anyway it is close and Gronk's return to health and continued dominance is required for the Julio side to "win".

But if he does return to dominance--given the format--he's worth Green+Green+Floyd on his own, at least. If he comes back and can produce 80% of his peak production, for 80% of each season--it's still a big win for the new Gronk owner.

That is optimistic.

65% of his production and he is still elite...I like Gronk but I am going to say even at 80% his advantage being massively better than the pack is gone. Still better than the pack though.

 

[EBF]

There's a big difference between projecting him to bust, and saying a guy with three quality years remaining is a bust risk this year. He is. And not just for simple regression. The chiefs lost both starting guards and their left tackle. To replace their left tackle, they're moving the number one pick from last year from right tackle to left, and replacing him with a journeyman. The broncos and chargers both should be much better on d this year. Instead of the nfc east, they play the nfc west. Their field position should suffer some with the loss of their best return man. And yes, regression.

If charles isn't worth the number one pick this year, and he only has two years left after this, then you should be thrilled to get number one pick compensation for him while its still possible. The rb landscape changes quickly. Look at arian foster, trent richardson and cj spiller, all consensus top ten backs headed into last year. You can't get nearly the value for them this year. That doesn't mean you should never roster a running back, of course, but when you can trade charles for an elite prospect and additional quality prospects, I think you have to cash in.

I wouldn't ever be opposed to moving any player for a king's ransom -- but 1.01, 1.11, and 2.01 doesn't come remotely close to qualifying, unless I had a horrible team and that was the best I could do after shopping around.

As always this time of year, people fall in love with the next batch of shiny new toys and wildly over rate the actual value of the incoming rookie class. Watkins is a great prospect, no doubt. But 1st round NFL WRs still carry a > 50% chance to bust outright -- along with an expected career value of 119 points over baseline. The later picks are pretty impossible to project at this point until May, but it is certain that their value will be much lower than that. Charles, by comparison, was 150 points over the least favorable realistic baseline (10 teams, no flex, no PPR) just last year, and obviously concentrated value is worth more than diffused value. His value was as high as 250+ VBD in larger leagues with multiple flex spots -- so last year alone from Charles was worth significantly more than you should expect from the entire careers of the three picks in question.

Now obviously, any player is pretty unlikely to repeat Charles' 2013, but we're talking about a HOF level talent in a perfect system here -- he's not going to fall off of the map and even giving him a major 20% drop off and only two years of career left, he's worth more than the three rookie picks combined. If you have any intention of trying to win the next few years, it's a huge fail to trade him for those three picks.

I had the opportunity to get Charles for the 1.03 and 1.10 and passed.

A big part of that is because that particular team has a really young WR group (Blackmon, Randle, Hunter, Wright) and I didn't think they would produce enough to make the acquisition of Charles worthwhile. It's also a start 1 RB league (with flex spots) where there isn't as much pressure to hoard backs. The other part is that I've almost never not regretted it when I've paid a high price for an older player on the back of a monster season. The drop can come pretty quickly and suddenly you've got a guy who offers minimal on-field production and is totally untradeable (Chris Johnson, Ray Rice, MJD, Arian Foster). Not that I'm predicting imminent demise for Charles, but he probably has 1.5-2.5 years of peak production left and his market value will never be higher than it is right now.

I can see pulling the trigger if you think you're already a playoff team and you want that extra shot in the arm, but in general I'd say buying high on these great backs deep into their careers is more risky than people might make it out to be. Charles is all speed, so I don't see him aging quite as gracefully as Steven Jackson or Frank Gore. When he loses half a step, the decline will be immediate and severe. I think he's highly likely to have at least one more big season, but I don't think he's a guy you should obviously break the bank for in a vacuum.

 

[cstu]

12 team. 1/1/1.5 PPR

QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, TE, 2 FLEX

Julio Jones

Rob Gronkowski

for

AJ Green

Michael Floyd

Ladarius Green

Green side for me.

In a 1.5 PPR(TE) league?! The new Green ownver got worked. Gronk is the biggest part in the deal.

Maybe until next year when Floyd is the #1 in AZ after the Cards cut Fitz and Green is the starting TE for the Chargers taking over for Gates. Not to mention Gronk will probably be injured again.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

12 team. 1/1/1.5 PPR

QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, TE, 2 FLEX

Julio Jones

Rob Gronkowski

for

AJ Green

Michael Floyd

Ladarius Green

Green side for me.

In a 1.5 PPR(TE) league?! The new Green ownver got worked. Gronk is the biggest part in the deal.

Maybe until next year when Floyd is the #1 in AZ after the Cards cut Fitz and Green is the starting TE for the Chargers taking over for Gates. Not to mention Gronk will probably be injured again.

I'm higher than most on Floyd, and absolutely love LaDarius Green. But Gronk is a top 2 player (along with Graham) in this format. Way too many "ifs" involved with Floyd and Green matching his value.

 

[Concept Coop]

Maybe until next year when Floyd is the #1 in AZ after the Cards cut Fitz and Green is the starting TE for the Chargers taking over for Gates. Not to mention Gronk will probably be injured again.

It's a start 2 WR format and the flex spots are flooded by TEs. Unless Floyd goes on to be a top 10 WR--I don't think he matters much in this deal.

Gronk has never missed an NFL game due to his back. And I don't think a broken arm, bone infection, or torn ACL are indicators of future injuries. I understand the concerns, but in this format, Gronk is one of only a few major difference makers. Awful trade, imo.

 

[Concept Coop]

Anyway it is close and Gronk's return to health and continued dominance is required for the Julio side to "win".

But if he does return to dominance--given the format--he's worth Green+Green+Floyd on his own, at least. If he comes back and can produce 80% of his peak production, for 80% of each season--it's still a big win for the new Gronk owner.

That is optimistic.

65% of his production and he is still elite...I like Gronk but I am going to say even at 80% his advantage being massively better than the pack is gone. Still better than the pack though.

Run a quick VBD calc for this format and get back to me.

 

[EBF]

On the topic of Charles, I just saw this graph posted elsewhere:

http://a.espncdn.com/photo/chartbuilder/Age-vs-Production-Running-Backs-Receivers1396880190285.png

Not sure what numbers they're using, but that paints a pretty grim picture for RBs in the 27-28 age group (i.e. Charles, Lynch, Rice, MJD).

 

[thriftyrocker]

On the topic of Charles, I just saw this graph posted elsewhere:

http://a.espncdn.com/photo/chartbuilder/Age-vs-Production-Running-Backs-Receivers1396880190285.png

Not sure what numbers they're using, but that paints a pretty grim picture for RBs in the 27-28 age group (i.e. Charles, Lynch, Rice, MJD).

Full article: http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/123542/inside-slant-running-back-cliff-after-age-27

The decline is inevitable, but isn't the ascent equally an issue? A 29 yo RB is a bit worthless, but not much different than a 22-23 yo RB. "Prime" is a very narrow window.

 

[EBF]

On the topic of Charles, I just saw this graph posted elsewhere:

http://a.espncdn.com/photo/chartbuilder/Age-vs-Production-Running-Backs-Receivers1396880190285.png

Not sure what numbers they're using, but that paints a pretty grim picture for RBs in the 27-28 age group (i.e. Charles, Lynch, Rice, MJD).

Full article: http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/123542/inside-slant-running-back-cliff-after-age-27

The decline is inevitable, but isn't the ascent equally an issue? A 29 yo RB is a bit worthless, but not much different than a 22-23 yo RB. "Prime" is a very narrow window.

I think the question is whether or not it ever makes sense to pay premium prices for a 27-28 year old back. Paying mid-late round value is one thing, but spending a top 15-20 startup pick or equivalent value is another matter entirely. By the time a RB has reached that age, most of his athletic prime has already come and gone. If I can't find an elite young RB, I would rather invest that value at other positions and take a bargain bin approach at RB.

I've done quite a few startup drafts over the years and I feel like the guys who have gone with aging high ppg RBs in the first round (i.e. Faulk, Tomlinson, Westbrook) usually haven't seen those picks work out very well. I don't think Peterson will repay his 2013 offseason market price and I kind of doubt Charles will be worth his 2014 offseason market price in hindsight. You are buying these guys at the peak of that mountain in terms of production and skills. It's all downhill from here on out.

Charles is going 6th overall in March mock drafts on DLF. Do I take him over Eddie Lacy and LeVeon Bell? Yea, I probably do. Do I take him over Julio Jones, Demaryius Thomas, and Jimmy Graham? In a balanced format, definitely not. Just because he makes sense as the RB2 in dynasty rankings doesn't mean he's worth anywhere near what people are paying for him.

But you definitely touched on a tricky point, which is that by the time a RB reaches his peak level of performance, his market value will probably already be on the slide. So it's tricky to navigate that dilemma if you're sitting on a 25-26 star RB and wondering if you should cash out before the drop or keep him with the knowledge that you might not see his best season of production for another year or two. I usually look at 26-27 as the sweet spot for selling a RB. At that age a lot of his career value will be dead and dusted, but people generally won't start significantly discounting his dynasty market value for another year or two.

One last thing I'll say is that players like Charles and Peterson tend to appeal to a certain type of owner, but they don't necessarily have great trade value to every owner (because the age will scare away a lot of people). So even though they might go at X spot in drafts, that doesn't mean they'll trade as well as the other players in that range. In the case of Charles, I think you'd find that he's harder to trade than Julio, Graham, or Demaryius. In the league where I passed on Charles for 1.03 and 1.10, I offered 1.02 AND 1.03 for Julio or Demaryius (to two different owners) and was rejected without much interest.

 

[cstu]

12 team. 1/1/1.5 PPR

QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, TE, 2 FLEX

Julio Jones

Rob Gronkowski

for

AJ Green

Michael Floyd

Ladarius Green

Green side for me.

In a 1.5 PPR(TE) league?! The new Green ownver got worked. Gronk is the biggest part in the deal.

Maybe until next year when Floyd is the #1 in AZ after the Cards cut Fitz and Green is the starting TE for the Chargers taking over for Gates. Not to mention Gronk will probably be injured again.

I'm higher than most on Floyd, and absolutely love LaDarius Green. But Gronk is a top 2 player (along with Graham) in this format. Way too many "ifs" involved with Floyd and Green matching his value.

It's a big if that Gronk will be a Patriot in 2015. If they decline his $10M option bonus he could end up with a much worse situation. I expect Gronk to have a huge year this year but I'm less optimistic of his future.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

Charles is an outlier in so many ways that I'd question the value of comparing him to NFL RBs as a whole, or even to guys like Ray Rice and Marshawn Lynch, for that matter. Considering the situation he's been in (until this year) his production has been pretty jaw dropping -- 5.6 career YPC is really absurd. He's a HOF level, generational talent IMO, and he's finally got the perfect system -- I think he's a guy you just ride into the ground, winning titles along the way, unless you get something you just can't say no to. And in my case that would be another cornerstone player +; draft picks wouldn't be getting it done unless we're talking something like the top two, or four random 1sts, or something equally ridiculous. I can't fathom moving him for 1.03 & 1.10.

 

[Concept Coop]

It's a big if that Gronk will be a Patriot in 2015. If they decline his $10M option bonus he could end up with a much worse situation. I expect Gronk to have a huge year this year but I'm less optimistic of his future.

I think that's a rational stance or concern. I view Gronk as a special talent--likely to produce top 2 numbers in most situations. Thus, it's not a huge concern for me, personally. But I certainly understand it.

 

[EBF]

Charles is an outlier in so many ways that I'd question the value of comparing him to NFL RBs as a whole, or even to guys like Ray Rice and Marshawn Lynch, for that matter. Considering the situation he's been in (until this year) his production has been pretty jaw dropping -- 5.6 career YPC is really absurd. He's a HOF level, generational talent IMO, and he's finally got the perfect system -- I think he's a guy you just ride into the ground, winning titles along the way, unless you get something you just can't say no to. And in my case that would be another cornerstone player +; draft picks wouldn't be getting it done unless we're talking something like the top two, or four random 1sts, or something equally ridiculous. I can't fathom moving him for 1.03 & 1.10.

It might work out that way, but that's the same story people told themselves about guys like Faulk, Tomlinson and Westbrook.

I'd guess that we'll probably get one more elite season from Charles, one more solid season, and then maybe another mediocre season or two.

The problem from my perspective is that his value is totally front-loaded, so you'll get what you get in 2014 and 2015, and that's pretty much it. If you don't win anything in that two year window, your first round pack his disintegrated in your palm. If he were going in the 30-40 range of drafts then maybe that gamble would be worth it, but when you can pick other guys like Graham and Julio who can potentially make just as big of a ppg difference (depending your format) while also having a more favorable long term outlook, it's a pretty easy decision to pass.

I'd be curious to see a generic analysis of 1.03 and 1.10 vs. a random 27 year old elite RB. I really don't know which side would be favored there, but I know that my personal preference (unless I had an old team right on the cusp) would be to keep the picks and try my luck with the next generation.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

Charles is an outlier in so many ways that I'd question the value of comparing him to NFL RBs as a whole, or even to guys like Ray Rice and Marshawn Lynch, for that matter. Considering the situation he's been in (until this year) his production has been pretty jaw dropping -- 5.6 career YPC is really absurd. He's a HOF level, generational talent IMO, and he's finally got the perfect system -- I think he's a guy you just ride into the ground, winning titles along the way, unless you get something you just can't say no to. And in my case that would be another cornerstone player +; draft picks wouldn't be getting it done unless we're talking something like the top two, or four random 1sts, or something equally ridiculous. I can't fathom moving him for 1.03 & 1.10.

It might work out that way, but that's the same story people told themselves about guys like Faulk, Tomlinson and Westbrook.

I'd guess that we'll probably get one more elite season from Charles, one more solid season, and then maybe another mediocre season or two.

The problem from my perspective is that his value is totally front-loaded, so you'll get what you get in 2014 and 2015, and that's pretty much it. If you don't win anything in that two year window, your first round pack his disintegrated in your palm. If he were going in the 30-40 range of drafts then maybe that gamble would be worth it, but when you can pick other guys like Graham and Julio who can potentially make just as big of a ppg difference (depending your format) while also having a more favorable long term outlook, it's a pretty easy decision to pass.

I'd be curious to see a generic analysis of 1.03 and 1.10 vs. a random 27 year old elite RB. I really don't know which side would be favored there, but I know that my personal preference (unless I had an old team right on the cusp) would be to keep the picks and try my luck with the next generation.

I wouldn't take him ahead of the elite young WRs in a startup either, but there's a massive gulf in value between Julio Jones and the 1.03 / 1.10 -- they don't belong in the same discussion at all man.

 

[EBF]

Charles is an outlier in so many ways that I'd question the value of comparing him to NFL RBs as a whole, or even to guys like Ray Rice and Marshawn Lynch, for that matter. Considering the situation he's been in (until this year) his production has been pretty jaw dropping -- 5.6 career YPC is really absurd. He's a HOF level, generational talent IMO, and he's finally got the perfect system -- I think he's a guy you just ride into the ground, winning titles along the way, unless you get something you just can't say no to. And in my case that would be another cornerstone player +; draft picks wouldn't be getting it done unless we're talking something like the top two, or four random 1sts, or something equally ridiculous. I can't fathom moving him for 1.03 & 1.10.

It might work out that way, but that's the same story people told themselves about guys like Faulk, Tomlinson and Westbrook.

I'd guess that we'll probably get one more elite season from Charles, one more solid season, and then maybe another mediocre season or two.

The problem from my perspective is that his value is totally front-loaded, so you'll get what you get in 2014 and 2015, and that's pretty much it. If you don't win anything in that two year window, your first round pack his disintegrated in your palm. If he were going in the 30-40 range of drafts then maybe that gamble would be worth it, but when you can pick other guys like Graham and Julio who can potentially make just as big of a ppg difference (depending your format) while also having a more favorable long term outlook, it's a pretty easy decision to pass.

I'd be curious to see a generic analysis of 1.03 and 1.10 vs. a random 27 year old elite RB. I really don't know which side would be favored there, but I know that my personal preference (unless I had an old team right on the cusp) would be to keep the picks and try my luck with the next generation.

I wouldn't take him ahead of the elite young WRs in a startup either, but there's a massive gulf in value between Julio Jones and the 1.03 / 1.10 -- they don't belong in the same discussion at all man.

For reference, here are the 1.03/1.10 picks from that league over the years:

2013 - Tyler Eifert/LeVeon Bell

2012 - Justin Blackmon/Rueben Randle

2011 - Mark Ingram/Shane Vereen

2010 - CJ Spiller/Sam Bradford

2009 - Beanie Wells/Percy Harvin

2008 - Rashard Mendenhall/Jamaal Charles

2007 - Marshawn Lynch/Anthony Gonzalez

I don't think any of those hauls would be too bad for even the best 27 year old RB.

If it was just the 1.03 then it would be more lopsided, but having two darts instead of one makes a huge difference.

 

[bostonfred]

You guys are too used to arguing with hyperbole. I never said trade him at all costs. I never even said I liked that specific trade. I don't even like draft picks, except that they're like cash I can spend on veterans later. But I do think charles owners should look to trade him right now.

I think its important to identify players who will get more in trade than they are worth right now. That's charles. I think its important to identify players whose value will increase if you acquire them right now. Those are rare, because most times it costs you too much to acquire them. Older veterans give you some good arbitrage opportunities. Roddy white is a bargain right now. You can trade for him relatively cheap, get a good year out of him, and unless he busts, you'll get as much for him at the end of the year as you gave up for him now. Maybe more because I expect big things from him this year. That's a great value play. Now look at christine michael. People want full price for what he might become. There's no discount there. In my league he was drafted in the mid first and his price has actually gone up. And we don't even know for sure if he will ever start a game in the nfl. That's terrible value right there. I understand that reasonable minds differ on this subject. You may now resume putting words in my mouth.

Guess I misinterpreted "I'd trade Charles in a heartbeat," "you should be thrilled to get number one pick compensation for him," and "when you can trade Charles for an elite prospect and additional quality prospects, I think you have to cash in." Although I'm genuinely not quite sure how else any of that could be taken -- seriously and no snark.

Ah. I see the confusion and I caused it. My bad. What I meant - and this isn't backpedaling, just what I honestly meant - is getting compensation commensurate with the number one overall redraft pick and occasionally number one overall dynasty startup pick. I wasn't talking about the specific compensation in that trade, I was talking about getting compensation for him that's in line with his stock being at its absolute peak. Which is why I would trade him in a heartbeat right now. Not because I think he sucks, but because I think that, in general, you'll get so much more for him than he's worth. And the elite prospect comment wasn't intended to mean a draft pick, or that specific trade. I just meant a really good guy and a couple other good guys. I can totally see why you thought that I specifically meant 1.1 and the other picks that were involved in that trade. I wasn't even thinking of that trade so it didn't register with me that that's what you'd think. I should be more precise with my language if I'm going to get snippy. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Gawain]

Charles is an outlier in so many ways that I'd question the value of comparing him to NFL RBs as a whole, or even to guys like Ray Rice and Marshawn Lynch, for that matter. Considering the situation he's been in (until this year) his production has been pretty jaw dropping -- 5.6 career YPC is really absurd. He's a HOF level, generational talent IMO, and he's finally got the perfect system -- I think he's a guy you just ride into the ground, winning titles along the way, unless you get something you just can't say no to. And in my case that would be another cornerstone player +; draft picks wouldn't be getting it done unless we're talking something like the top two, or four random 1sts, or something equally ridiculous. I can't fathom moving him for 1.03 & 1.10.

It might work out that way, but that's the same story people told themselves about guys like Faulk, Tomlinson and Westbrook.

I'd guess that we'll probably get one more elite season from Charles, one more solid season, and then maybe another mediocre season or two.

The problem from my perspective is that his value is totally front-loaded, so you'll get what you get in 2014 and 2015, and that's pretty much it. If you don't win anything in that two year window, your first round pack his disintegrated in your palm. If he were going in the 30-40 range of drafts then maybe that gamble would be worth it, but when you can pick other guys like Graham and Julio who can potentially make just as big of a ppg difference (depending your format) while also having a more favorable long term outlook, it's a pretty easy decision to pass.

I'd be curious to see a generic analysis of 1.03 and 1.10 vs. a random 27 year old elite RB. I really don't know which side would be favored there, but I know that my personal preference (unless I had an old team right on the cusp) would be to keep the picks and try my luck with the next generation.

I wouldn't take him ahead of the elite young WRs in a startup either, but there's a massive gulf in value between Julio Jones and the 1.03 / 1.10 -- they don't belong in the same discussion at all man.

For reference, here are the 1.03/1.10 picks from that league over the years:

2013 - Tyler Eifert/LeVeon Bell

2012 - Justin Blackmon/Rueben Randle

2011 - Mark Ingram/Shane Vereen

2010 - CJ Spiller/Sam Bradford

2009 - Beanie Wells/Percy Harvin

2008 - Rashard Mendenhall/Jamaal Charles

2007 - Marshawn Lynch/Anthony Gonzalez

I don't think any of those hauls would be too bad for even the best 27 year old RB.

If it was just the 1.03 then it would be more lopsided, but having two darts instead of one makes a huge difference.

SSOG did a ton of work a while back to show the value of 4 random first round rookie picks. I don't think there's a player worth 4 picks by himself.

That being said, I'm not sure any of the packages (outside of 2008) you posted are hands-down better than Charles.

 

[EBF]

Charles is an outlier in so many ways that I'd question the value of comparing him to NFL RBs as a whole, or even to guys like Ray Rice and Marshawn Lynch, for that matter. Considering the situation he's been in (until this year) his production has been pretty jaw dropping -- 5.6 career YPC is really absurd. He's a HOF level, generational talent IMO, and he's finally got the perfect system -- I think he's a guy you just ride into the ground, winning titles along the way, unless you get something you just can't say no to. And in my case that would be another cornerstone player +; draft picks wouldn't be getting it done unless we're talking something like the top two, or four random 1sts, or something equally ridiculous. I can't fathom moving him for 1.03 & 1.10.

It might work out that way, but that's the same story people told themselves about guys like Faulk, Tomlinson and Westbrook.

I'd guess that we'll probably get one more elite season from Charles, one more solid season, and then maybe another mediocre season or two.

The problem from my perspective is that his value is totally front-loaded, so you'll get what you get in 2014 and 2015, and that's pretty much it. If you don't win anything in that two year window, your first round pack his disintegrated in your palm. If he were going in the 30-40 range of drafts then maybe that gamble would be worth it, but when you can pick other guys like Graham and Julio who can potentially make just as big of a ppg difference (depending your format) while also having a more favorable long term outlook, it's a pretty easy decision to pass.

I'd be curious to see a generic analysis of 1.03 and 1.10 vs. a random 27 year old elite RB. I really don't know which side would be favored there, but I know that my personal preference (unless I had an old team right on the cusp) would be to keep the picks and try my luck with the next generation.

I wouldn't take him ahead of the elite young WRs in a startup either, but there's a massive gulf in value between Julio Jones and the 1.03 / 1.10 -- they don't belong in the same discussion at all man.

For reference, here are the 1.03/1.10 picks from that league over the years:

2013 - Tyler Eifert/LeVeon Bell

2012 - Justin Blackmon/Rueben Randle

2011 - Mark Ingram/Shane Vereen

2010 - CJ Spiller/Sam Bradford

2009 - Beanie Wells/Percy Harvin

2008 - Rashard Mendenhall/Jamaal Charles

2007 - Marshawn Lynch/Anthony Gonzalez

I don't think any of those hauls would be too bad for even the best 27 year old RB.

If it was just the 1.03 then it would be more lopsided, but having two darts instead of one makes a huge difference.

SSOG did a ton of work a while back to show the value of 4 random first round rookie picks. I don't think there's a player worth 4 picks by himself.

That being said, I'm not sure any of the packages (outside of 2008) you posted are hands-down better than Charles.

I'd take Lynch or Harvin's entire NFL career over a 27 year old star RB. Spiller is more of a coin flip and the jury is very much out on the 2012 and 2013 groups.

The only package there that I strongly dislike is the Ingram/Vereen one, and even then there are people who think Vereen is worth a lot.

The point is that it's easy to think about 1.03/1.10 being worth less than a proven veteran when the picks are just an abstract concept, but in reality you're going to take a decent prospect with those picks and between the two of them there's a pretty good chance that you'll get at least one high level player.

I think the 1.01/1.11/2.01 deal for Charles posted on the last page is pretty similar. Between those three picks, you should be able to walk away with 1-2 strong pieces. That might be worth more than the backslope of Charles's prime.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

Charles is an outlier in so many ways that I'd question the value of comparing him to NFL RBs as a whole, or even to guys like Ray Rice and Marshawn Lynch, for that matter. Considering the situation he's been in (until this year) his production has been pretty jaw dropping -- 5.6 career YPC is really absurd. He's a HOF level, generational talent IMO, and he's finally got the perfect system -- I think he's a guy you just ride into the ground, winning titles along the way, unless you get something you just can't say no to. And in my case that would be another cornerstone player +; draft picks wouldn't be getting it done unless we're talking something like the top two, or four random 1sts, or something equally ridiculous. I can't fathom moving him for 1.03 & 1.10.

It might work out that way, but that's the same story people told themselves about guys like Faulk, Tomlinson and Westbrook.

I'd guess that we'll probably get one more elite season from Charles, one more solid season, and then maybe another mediocre season or two.

The problem from my perspective is that his value is totally front-loaded, so you'll get what you get in 2014 and 2015, and that's pretty much it. If you don't win anything in that two year window, your first round pack his disintegrated in your palm. If he were going in the 30-40 range of drafts then maybe that gamble would be worth it, but when you can pick other guys like Graham and Julio who can potentially make just as big of a ppg difference (depending your format) while also having a more favorable long term outlook, it's a pretty easy decision to pass.

I'd be curious to see a generic analysis of 1.03 and 1.10 vs. a random 27 year old elite RB. I really don't know which side would be favored there, but I know that my personal preference (unless I had an old team right on the cusp) would be to keep the picks and try my luck with the next generation.

I wouldn't take him ahead of the elite young WRs in a startup either, but there's a massive gulf in value between Julio Jones and the 1.03 / 1.10 -- they don't belong in the same discussion at all man.

For reference, here are the 1.03/1.10 picks from that league over the years:

2013 - Tyler Eifert/LeVeon Bell

2012 - Justin Blackmon/Rueben Randle

2011 - Mark Ingram/Shane Vereen

2010 - CJ Spiller/Sam Bradford

2009 - Beanie Wells/Percy Harvin

2008 - Rashard Mendenhall/Jamaal Charles

2007 - Marshawn Lynch/Anthony Gonzalez

I don't think any of those hauls would be too bad for even the best 27 year old RB.

If it was just the 1.03 then it would be more lopsided, but having two darts instead of one makes a huge difference.

SSOG did a ton of work a while back to show the value of 4 random first round rookie picks. I don't think there's a player worth 4 picks by himself.

That being said, I'm not sure any of the packages (outside of 2008) you posted are hands-down better than Charles.

I'd take Lynch or Harvin's entire NFL career over a 27 year old star RB. Spiller is more of a coin flip and the jury is very much out on the 2012 and 2013 groups.

The only package there that I strongly dislike is the Ingram/Vereen one, and even then there are people who think Vereen is worth a lot.

The point is that it's easy to think about 1.03/1.10 being worth less than a proven veteran when the picks are just an abstract concept, but in reality you're going to take a decent prospect with those picks and between the two of them there's a pretty good chance that you'll get at least one high level player.

I think the 1.01/1.11/2.01 deal for Charles posted on the last page is pretty similar. Between those three picks, you should be able to walk away with 1-2 strong pieces. That might be worth more than the backslope of Charles's prime.

It's still anecdotal evidence -- and in this case there's really no reason to use it. We have hard data on what it's reasonable to expect value over baseline-wise out of those picks, and that can be compared easily to what we expect out of Charles. A single #1 overall lap the field season like Charles just had last year is absolutely worth more, a lot more, in terms of delivering a title, than almost any amout of "useful." In terms of raw value over baseline, Charles was worth 2.5 x Marshawn Lynch last year. In reality -- he single handedly won people titles. Now obviously we can't just assume a repeat of that in 2014 -- but you're definitely underselling the value of a short window of truly great vs a long window of merely good.

 

[bostonfred]

One last thing I'll say is that players like Charles and Peterson tend to appeal to a certain type of owner, but they don't necessarily have great trade value to every owner (because the age will scare away a lot of people). So even though they might go at X spot in drafts, that doesn't mean they'll trade as well as the other players in that range. In the case of Charles, I think you'd find that he's harder to trade than Julio, Graham, or Demaryius. In the league where I passed on Charles for 1.03 and 1.10, I offered 1.02 AND 1.03 for Julio or Demaryius (to two different owners) and was rejected without much interest.

This is a good point. But I don't think it's just his position. It's true that a lot of owners have figured out that overpaying for veteran RBs is a mistake, but that doesn't mean there isn't a market. You just might have to offer a selling price to make the move.One of the things I've learned in trading is that there's a selling price and a buying price. If the Charles owner wants to move him, you'll get a better price than if you inquire about Charles from someone who doesn't want to trade him but will listen to offers. So in your case, he came to you with a pretty cheap offer - 1.3 and 1.10 seems way low - but you weren't interested because you weren't selling your picks. I'm sure you'd listen to an offer for 1.3, but you'd want more for it than most owners. On the other hand, if I had 1.3, I'd be looking for opportunities to get value for it. I wouldn't hate making the pick, but I'd rather trade it for a known commodity and let someone else chase the shiny new penny. So even though I think Charles is a sell high, I would still make that trade, because I'm offering a selling price for my picks, and I'm getting a selling price for Charles.

You can add a lot of value to your team through trades by always getting a selling price for whoever you acquire. Just keep trading and trading and always get the better end of the trade. You'll end up with a lot of good stuff, but it won't be the guys you specifically like. I don't really like players. I like bargains. I've only traded up once to get a player I liked in the draft - and that was a guy who had slid beyond where he was supposed to (Montee Ball at 1.10 last year, after Franklin, Michael and Lattimore, among others). So while I paid the full buying price for 1.10, I still paid less for him than I believed he was worth.

You should only pay the buying price for guys you believe are underrated. Julio and Demaryius Thomas aren't underrated. The picks you have aren't overrated. So in my mind, you were offering close to the maximum price for them. It's not a bad trade, but it's not a trade you needed to make, either. Fortunately for you, they were asking for the maximum buying price, because they didn't want to sell. And I don't blame them for that, either. Like the Charles owner, they've probably built their teams around the idea that they'd have an elite WR now and for years to come. Starting fresh probably doesn't fit their team.

Which is why, if you're ambivalent to which WR you get in a tier (maybe Julio, DT, Green, etc.) then your first offer should be to the guy whose receiver is the worst fit for his team. A rebuilding guy obviously could take the draft picks. But a veteran team in win now mode might not want to start over at WR. The thing is, he might be willing to take a veteran WR and 1.2 for Green, while the Julio owner might be building around him as a cornerstone of his team and just bought a Julio Jones jersey. So before I offered 1.2 and 1.3 for Julio, I might look at the Green owner and say hey what would you think about 1.2 and Andre Johnson? Meanwhile I'm floating an offer of 1.10 for Andre and a second, and haggling with that owner in case the Julio owner says yes. Now instead of offering 1.2 and 1.3 for Julio and getting turned down, I'm paying 1.2 and 1.10 for Green and a second. And who knows, you might be able to offer Green for Julio straight up if that's what you really want.

Which is why I think it's a mistake to pay the buying price for anyone that you don't think is significantly undervalued. Add the talent first, as cheaply as possible, then move it around to assemble the team you really like.

 

[EBF]

It's still anecdotal evidence -- and in this case there's really no reason to use it. We have hard data on what it's reasonable to expect value over baseline-wise out of those picks, and that can be compared easily to what we expect out of Charles. A single #1 overall lap the field season like Charles just had last year is absolutely worth more, a lot more, in terms of delivering a title, than almost any amout of "useful." In terms of raw value over baseline, Charles was worth 2.5 x Marshawn Lynch last year. In reality -- he single handedly won people titles. Now obviously we can't just assume a repeat of that in 2014 -- but you're definitely underselling the value of a short window of truly great vs a long window of merely good.

That's the key point. When a player has a monster season, people buy him expecting a repeat of that. Look at Peyton after 2004, Tomlinson after 2006, Westbrook after 2007, Moss after 2007, Chris Johnson after 2009, and Peterson after 2013. Those players were all coming off massive difference maker seasons and were valued as if they were going to provide that same level of performance the next year. Many of those guys had some good seasons left in the tank, but apart from Peyton none of them ever hit those heights again (or even that close). What Charles did in 2013 wasn't quite as flukey. I think it's a more repeatable FF season than obvious "career years" like LT in 2006 or Randy in 2007.

All the same, you can't assume that he's going to come in and score at that level again when he's only done it once in his career. Even with Reid as his coach, there's no guarantee that the stars will align like that again. Part of the problem with Charles right now is that his price tag assumes that he's going to provide a huge edge over the field. If it wasn't assumed that he was going to provide a huge edge in the short-term, his value would be a lot lower because he doesn't offer much on the back end. So if you buy him and he doesn't deliver on that promise, but instead gives you a more middling season (like Westbrook or Moss in 2008), you're pretty well screwed. You have a guy who not only isn't winning you the title on his own, but now is that much harder to trade because he's not only old, but also no longer viewed as a bulletproof difference maker.

Chasing last year's numbers makes a little bit of a sense because guys who have shown that they can be elite in the past are more likely to do it again than guys who have never done it, but nothing is guaranteed and just from personal experience as an owner and observer, I don't think being the guy who takes 27-28 year old Tomlinson/Westbrook/Peterson/Charles in the 1st round usually works out.

Finally, your post comes with the assumption that the picks are only going to net you "good" performance when that's not the case. There's also a probability of landing a legitimate difference maker and of course a 22-23 year old Portis/Martin/LT/Peterson/Charles/CJ2K is worth exponentially more than a 27-28 year old version. All of those guys began their careers as rookie picks and the next generation of stars will be had the same way.

 

[EBF]

Which is why I think it's a mistake to pay the buying price for anyone that you don't think is significantly undervalued. Add the talent first, as cheaply as possible, then move it around to assemble the team you really like.

Personally, I have an aversion to acquiring players that I don't like, even if I suspect that I might be able to flip them for a profit. My nightmare scenario would be giving up those picks for Charles with the plan to trade him only to discover that there's no market for him. Then you're stuck with a guy you didn't even want. I've had that happen to me before.

I'm all for playing the market, but at some point the whole purpose of that is to accumulate the wealth that you need in order to acquire the players you actually want. So if I have the opportunity to put together a few picks for a cornerstone player like Julio or Graham, I'm probably going to take it, even if I'm not "winning" the trade in terms of getting the player below sticker price. The difference with Charles is that I see him as more of a short-term play and I don't want to give up massive value for that. Just like I wouldn't pay through the nose for Brandon Marshall or Peyton Manning. If I'm going to pay a massive price, it has to be for a young cornerstone player.

If the player doesn't fit that description, then he needs to be cheap. I'm not going to pay a massive price for 1.5 years of anybody, no matter how good.

 

[32 Counter Pass]

One last thing I'll say is that players like Charles and Peterson tend to appeal to a certain type of owner, but they don't necessarily have great trade value to every owner (because the age will scare away a lot of people). So even though they might go at X spot in drafts, that doesn't mean they'll trade as well as the other players in that range. In the case of Charles, I think you'd find that he's harder to trade than Julio, Graham, or Demaryius. In the league where I passed on Charles for 1.03 and 1.10, I offered 1.02 AND 1.03 for Julio or Demaryius (to two different owners) and was rejected without much interest.

This is a good point. But I don't think it's just his position. It's true that a lot of owners have figured out that overpaying for veteran RBs is a mistake, but that doesn't mean there isn't a market. You just might have to offer a selling price to make the move.One of the things I've learned in trading is that there's a selling price and a buying price. If the Charles owner wants to move him, you'll get a better price than if you inquire about Charles from someone who doesn't want to trade him but will listen to offers. So in your case, he came to you with a pretty cheap offer - 1.3 and 1.10 seems way low - but you weren't interested because you weren't selling your picks. I'm sure you'd listen to an offer for 1.3, but you'd want more for it than most owners. On the other hand, if I had 1.3, I'd be looking for opportunities to get value for it. I wouldn't hate making the pick, but I'd rather trade it for a known commodity and let someone else chase the shiny new penny. So even though I think Charles is a sell high, I would still make that trade, because I'm offering a selling price for my picks, and I'm getting a selling price for Charles.

You can add a lot of value to your team through trades by always getting a selling price for whoever you acquire. Just keep trading and trading and always get the better end of the trade. You'll end up with a lot of good stuff, but it won't be the guys you specifically like. I don't really like players. I like bargains. I've only traded up once to get a player I liked in the draft - and that was a guy who had slid beyond where he was supposed to (Montee Ball at 1.10 last year, after Franklin, Michael and Lattimore, among others). So while I paid the full buying price for 1.10, I still paid less for him than I believed he was worth.

You should only pay the buying price for guys you believe are underrated. Julio and Demaryius Thomas aren't underrated. The picks you have aren't overrated. So in my mind, you were offering close to the maximum price for them. It's not a bad trade, but it's not a trade you needed to make, either. Fortunately for you, they were asking for the maximum buying price, because they didn't want to sell. And I don't blame them for that, either. Like the Charles owner, they've probably built their teams around the idea that they'd have an elite WR now and for years to come. Starting fresh probably doesn't fit their team.

Which is why, if you're ambivalent to which WR you get in a tier (maybe Julio, DT, Green, etc.) then your first offer should be to the guy whose receiver is the worst fit for his team. A rebuilding guy obviously could take the draft picks. But a veteran team in win now mode might not want to start over at WR. The thing is, he might be willing to take a veteran WR and 1.2 for Green, while the Julio owner might be building around him as a cornerstone of his team and just bought a Julio Jones jersey. So before I offered 1.2 and 1.3 for Julio, I might look at the Green owner and say hey what would you think about 1.2 and Andre Johnson? Meanwhile I'm floating an offer of 1.10 for Andre and a second, and haggling with that owner in case the Julio owner says yes. Now instead of offering 1.2 and 1.3 for Julio and getting turned down, I'm paying 1.2 and 1.10 for Green and a second. And who knows, you might be able to offer Green for Julio straight up if that's what you really want.

Which is why I think it's a mistake to pay the buying price for anyone that you don't think is significantly undervalued. Add the talent first, as cheaply as possible, then move it around to assemble the team you really like.

Good posting.

I will take Charles, even at 85% of his 2013 production.

 

[deadlyrange0321]

14 team league 1QB 1RB 1WR 1TE 3FLEX

Team A trades:

1.13

Team B trades:

Tom Brady

 

[Coeur de Lion]

Finally, your post comes with the assumption that the picks are only going to net you "good" performance when that's not the case. There's also a probability of landing a legitimate difference maker and of course a 22-23 year old Portis/Martin/LT/Peterson/Charles/CJ2K is worth exponentially more than a 27-28 year old version. All of those guys began their careers as rookie picks and the next generation of stars will be had the same way.

Assuming "good" is eminently reasonable in terms of mean expectations. Sure, you might get "great." But you might get a pile of crap, too.

 

[ghostguy123]

You turned down Charles and all you had to give was picks 3 and 10????

I prefer to have dollar bills in my wallet, but if someone offers me a piece of gold that is worth a thousand dollars that doesnt fit in my wallet, I would be happy to trade the 100 bucks in cash I have for the silly uncomfortable gold brick.

That would likely have ended up being the cheapest trade for Charles this entire offeason if we combine all leagues.

When a deal is that lopsided, just take it, and deal with it later if you dont want the player.