SproutDaddy
Footballguy
This ghostguy has COMPLETELY ruined THIS thread. Please go AWAY! You're NOT some omniscient power.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
*** OFFICIAL *** 13/14 Off-Season Dynasty Trade Thread (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Concept Coop
- Start date
Dez
Footballguy
You were one of the few who would have chosen a RB coming off a 840 yard rushing 2 rushing TD season who had a pretty big concussion that forced him to miss 4 games. Would have been really hard to find many start ups or ranking where McCoy was ranked ahead of Trent for dynasty at this time last year not to mention Lee was considered one of the top rookie prospect at this time 1 year ago.
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
Oof. McCoy is 25 years old. The same age as Doug Martin and Andre Ellington. How long is this guy planning on rebuilding for? Last year my main dynasty league's championship contained the two teams that finished 11th and 12th the year before (12 team league). I'm all for rebuilding but planning your rebuild to be 4-5 years long is insane.
It seems like we knock down the age at which people try to start selling off running backs every year. We're going to get to a point where a running back is considered old after his rookie year. Heck, if 25 is considered too old for a rebuild then I think we're already there, since it's not that uncommon for some rookies to enter the league at 24.
Skeletore Eh
Footballguy
I value his contributions. I think he is stating what everyone else has albeit slightly more adamant about it
valhallan
Footballguy
My oldest team still has Boldin from the startup draft in 2005. The only guys I drafted as rookies and still have are Britt and Kendall Hunter. All starters from trades or waivers.
I've commented on this phenomenon before. When I started with dynasty in 2007, it seems like everyone was relatively unconcerned with RB age (which, granted, was partially a function of the player pool at the time- prior to the 2008 NFL draft, the league's running back crop was almost as old as it is today). It was not at all uncommon to see 28-year-old RBs littering the top of the rankings. We'd just seen geezers like Curtis Martin, Tiki Barber, and Priest Holmes spitting in the eye of Father Time. 28-year-old LaDainian Tomlinson was the slam-dunk consensus 1.01 pick in startups that year. 28-year-old Brian Westbrook was a consensus first-rounder. 28-year-old Rudi Johnson was going in the 2nd round, along with 26-year-old Clinton Portis and even 30-year-old Shaun Alexander. By and large, people weren't even talking about age much, except to occasionally denigrate a 30-year-old back. And then we saw a couple of high-profile RBs just fall off of a cliff and implode (including all five of those guys), and people started getting freaked out. They started treating 30 as a hard-and-fast rule- don't own RBs over the age of 30. And then they started pushing that down to 28- don't draft a 28 year old RB, because in two years they'll be 30 and their value will tank. At the time, though, 26 was still considered young and safe. And then the value of 28-year-olds started dropping so much that we soon reached a point where people started wanting nothing to do with 27-year-olds, because those 27-year-olds would be 28 in a year, and their value would be gone. And then people started devaluing 26-year-olds, because they were just 2 years removed from being 28, and everyone knew that at 28 an RB only had two years left before they were 30, and everyone knew that RBs sucked at 30. Now we're too the point where people are shying away from LeSean McCoy, who is 25, because pretty soon he's going to be 26, and everyone knows that 26-year-olds are on the cusp of being 28, and 28-year-olds are just barely removed from being 30, and 30-year-olds are worthless, so therefore 25-year-olds are worthless and you should sell them before they fall off the cliff.
Now, the original position- age doesn't matter!- was illogical. Looking back, it was pretty stupid, and we were all due for a course correction. But this is a course overcorrection, and the current position is just as stupid, but for the opposite reason. People have started worshipping too much at the altar of market value, and are terrified of holding on to an asset whose market value might *gasp* actually decline. Even if most of those declines in market value are the result of people selling low because they're trying to get out before a player declines in market value. It's like the opposite of a speculative bubble.
Would it be better if LeSean McCoy was 23 instead of 25? Yeah, that'd be nice. Am I thrilled that he's about to celebrate his 26th birthday in the coming months? Not exactly. But at the same time, by any measure imaginable we're still projecting several years' worth of high-end production left for him. Selling low on that production- that ACTUAL value- because we're worried about losing out on market (read: fake) value... it's not a great strategy. Not as long as the game is still decided by points produced on the field. The pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction. I suspect that as the teams that traded away McCoy and Peterson and Charles have to sit and watch them blow up on someone else's roster for year after year, we'll see the pendulum start to swing back closer to the middle again.
Good post.
I haven't completed my analysis, but I've been looking at the probability (by age) of RB collapse and my general rule of thumb at the moment is that while 23 year old RBs can be expected to last 3 years, 24+ year old RBs, (24, 25, 26, 27, 28) can be expected to last 2 years. What that means, is that pre-2013, the overvaluing of Doug Martin vs. the undervaluing of Matt Forte makes little sense from an expected 2 year VBD perspective. Sure, the younger RBs have a higher probability of lasting 6+ years, but until I can better estimate that probability, I'm going to buy rookie RBs when they're cheapest, sell the star young RBs I have on my roster (at full market value) and buy the 'old' RBs (at their reduced market value). I'd rather have AP+Lynch+Foster at their prices than Lacy+Stacy+Ball at theirs (I do value Bell a bit more given his age, though I think Bernard is overvalued given his expected usage).
Hankmoody
Footballguy
Or you could just use your ignore button and allow the rest of us to read what we want to, including his opinions.
EBF
Footballguy
That would be a good point if that trade were representative of conventional thinking with McCoy, but the backlash against it shows that most people don't actually agree with selling him right now, so it's much ado about nothing. One thing that maybe doesn't get enough play in dynasty discussion is having a cohesive gameplan and aligning your pieces so that they peak at approximately the same time. When you're 2-3 years away from competing, a star player who will drop from peak value during that time isn't necessarily a luxury that you can afford to keep around. So while I don't think that specific McCoy trade was +EV for the side giving him up, there are times when maybe your team's composition and your specific plan for that team dictate making moves that are -EV in a vacuum. In a rebuilding scenario whatever value you get from those players in the next 1-2 years is essentially nil and maybe even counter-productive since you're not contending for the playoffs either way. Those next 1-2 years represent a huge chunk of McCoy's total remaining career value, so if you remove them from the equation then he's not necessarily the untouchable gold nugget that he'd be in a startup vacuum.
I don't think things have changed too much in competitive dynasty leagues. There have always been owners who hoard youth and owners who are willing to sacrifice long-term potential for instant help. If anything, I feel like past production has always been more overrated than future production. As I type this, Peterson and Forte are both unanimous top 10 dynasty RBs even though they're teetering over a cliff both in terms of actual performance and market value. What are the odds that people who take those guys at their ADP this offseason regret it within 1-2 years? Probably pretty high, I'd guess. So certainly it cuts both ways when you talk about teams putting too much emphasis on the future.
I don't think things have changed too much in competitive dynasty leagues. There have always been owners who hoard youth and owners who are willing to sacrifice long-term potential for instant help. If anything, I feel like past production has always been more overrated than future production. As I type this, Peterson and Forte are both unanimous top 10 dynasty RBs even though they're teetering over a cliff both in terms of actual performance and market value. What are the odds that people who take those guys at their ADP this offseason regret it within 1-2 years? Probably pretty high, I'd guess. So certainly it cuts both ways when you talk about teams putting too much emphasis on the future.
Last edited by a moderator:
cstu
Footballguy
First, great post.
I do expect 3 more year of high end production for him. However, think about this from a rebuilding teams perspective:
- the first year of that will be wasted and negative asset that helps them win games, resulting in a worse draft pick.
- in the meantime any number of things could happen to McCoy. While he'll probably be fine the odds are much higher that he'll have a serious injury than Floyd.
- by next year Floyd may be the #1 in AZ and entering his prime while McCoy is 27 and looked as as a declining asset with ~1800 career touches. Look at Charles vs. Jeffery and that roughly how I see McCoy vs. Floyd next year.
- on top of Floyd he gets 3 2nd's (albeit devalued) and a devy 1st that could turn out to be good players.
The bottom line is that someone should have offered more, but no one did and this was the best he could get to improve his team long-term.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hankmoody
Footballguy
It's not the absolute age, it's about cumulative touches. McCoy is getting up there, and he's an "old 25" as it were. Not that I agree with that trade, and not that I am saying you can't rebuild around McCoy, but 1149 rushes, 272 receptions, and 5 years in the league is a lot more pounding than those 24 year old rookies come in with. After 5 years most guys are 27/28/29, right about the time to start talking about selling high while you still can, as many have about Forte in this thread.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
He took a deal in June he could have gotten in september if he wanted. I would kill him far less for it if games were right around the corner which can kill a Rbs value, even a guy like mccoy, if he had a major injury.
Bottom line, if you made a few lopsided deals like this over time, you are putting yourself at such a terrible competitive disadvantage that you will have serious trouble ever winning anything in that league.
But.......its June. People change their minds all the time. Pretty sure everyone on FBG has changed their minds at some point about whether or not to try and trade for a stud rb. Got three months of this possibility staring you in the face, but instead took 50 cents on the dollar NOW for some reason.
Bottom line, if you made a few lopsided deals like this over time, you are putting yourself at such a terrible competitive disadvantage that you will have serious trouble ever winning anything in that league.
But.......its June. People change their minds all the time. Pretty sure everyone on FBG has changed their minds at some point about whether or not to try and trade for a stud rb. Got three months of this possibility staring you in the face, but instead took 50 cents on the dollar NOW for some reason.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
I promise you I don't value mccoy more than most. I don't like to trade a lot for RBs because of their huge value swings. I bet 90% of people out there value mccoy more than I do.
But that deal to get him would be a total gift.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
Yes, I am.
Only an omniscient power can ruin the best thread on FBG.
Sincerely,
GG
GoodLloydHaveMercy
Footballguy
29 man no ppr dynasty started the yr following cj2k 2000 yd season... Last player from startup draft was Aaron Hernandez as of last yr
Great topic
It depends on how we define long-term. If the McCoy owner has absolutely no chance of being competitive in either 2014 or 2015, then yeah, he's gotta get rid of him. But I've seen too many teams turn around too quickly to think that any but the most hopeless of squads should be giving up that far in advance. And typically, if you own McCoy, you're not one of the most hopeless of squads.
I also think this hits on a key difference between expectation and expected value. You expect that Floyd will be the next Alshon Jeffery. If that expectation is right, then you're right, this trade is a lot easier to defend from both sides of the aisle. But we can't value Floyd as if one possibility is the only possibility. We also have to take into account the fact that he might be Torrey Smith, instead. Remember, Smith was generally much more highly-regarded than Jeffery going into last season, with many believing he was poised to take that next step that Alshon took instead. If Floyd is the next Torrey Smith, then this trade will look hideous no matter what timeline the team selling McCoy is looking to compete over.
Ultimately, though, this presumes that (A) the team had to sell McCoy, and (B) the team had to sell McCoy right now. If the value wasn't there, the options aren't whether you want to sell for a dime or sell for two nickles. The options are whether you want to sell for a dime or hold until you've got a better offer. Given the cyclical nature of player valuations, that better offer is a near-certainty at some point.
When forecasting decline, Age, not cumulative workload, is the variable to be concerned about. Numerous looks at the matter have found very weak relationships between workload and decline, when they've found any relationship at all. In many cases, depending on the methodology, they find that more touches prior to a certain age actually predicts more touches AFTER that age, too.
EBF
Footballguy
Easily explained by the fact that the players who have the highest workload in their age group will typically be the most/talented durable in the first place.
Aging is an inevitable process and probably the main thing that will result in players hitting a wall, but if you think mileage is a good thing then
.
Aging is an inevitable process and probably the main thing that will result in players hitting a wall, but if you think mileage is a good thing then
.My oldest league is too far back from the initial startup and is non-ppr. I drafted Peterson, McFadden, Matt Ryan & Crabtree as rookies and still own them all. Strategically rebuilt around Peterson, blew up my team and traded Rudi Johnson for the 1.01 that year.
My oldest PPR league has had a lot more turnover though, blew up my team in anticipation of AJG Green and earned the 1.01. Traded Mendy + Santonio at their height (genius) for the 1.02 and spent it on Ingram instead of Julio since I was getting AJ at 1 (dummy!)
SproutDaddy
Footballguy
Funny, I remember you admitting to me last year that you've never won a league title. Seems to me your just EXTREMELY opinionated. Your opinions are just that......not facts.
We've been around this block before. I never said that mileage was a good thing. I said that mileage was an INDICATOR of a lot of good things, and a back with a lot of mileage probably has a lot of those other good things, too, and all of those good things outweigh the impact of the mileage when predicting future performance. At the end of the day, we aren't comparing LeSean McCoy to a magical McCoyClone who is identical in every way except with 800 fewer carries. We're comparing him to worse backs who are only "fresh" because they weren't talented to get the carries before.Easily explained by the fact that the players who have the highest workload in their age group will typically be the most/talented durable in the first place.
Aging is an inevitable process and probably the main thing that will result in players hitting a wall, but if you think mileage is a good thing then
When comparing two backs coming off of similar seasons, the guy with more mileage will likely play longer than the guy with less mileage. Talk about why that is all you want, but the simple fact is that if you're avoiding guys who had high workloads early in their career, you're doing it wrong. In real-world situations where you're trying to predict real-world outcomes, backs with more mileage do not break down sooner than backs with less mileage. Age is a good predictor of decline. Mileage is not.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
Small sample size. I won an FFPC $750 dynasty title this past year.
That, and, who said any of this was fact? If you take it as fact, that's on you.
SproutDaddy
Footballguy
Well you said you were omniscient. Do you know what the word means?Opinions on trades are fine. You take it to another level. Go back and read your posts.
SproutDaddy
Footballguy
And talk about a small sample size. You won $750. How much have you lost over the years?
One More Rep
Footballguy
EBF
Footballguy
Only because, as you said, there's no magical universe where we can see how well LT/Faulk/Portis would've played at 30+ without the beating they took before that. If that were possible, I think you'd see that some of those guys would've been able to play at a high level longer. Especially ones like Portis, Rice, and George who seemed to hit a wall earlier than age alone would predict (though it remains to be seen if Rice can bounce back).Adam Harstad said:
I wouldn't go trotting out the "high mileage backs tend to play longer" fact as proof that mileage isn't a bad thing. IMO that would be looking at a true statement and deriving false conclusions from it. There is a pretty simple explanation that doesn't involve any secret benefits of getting tackled hundreds of times.
The running backs who lead their age groups in carries are going to be those who are:
1. Talented enough to command a lot of carries.
2. Durable enough to survive a lot of carries.
The reason we've "been around this block before" is because you keep bringing up the "high mileage backs play longer" facts and then jumping to very suspect conclusions. Chris Johnson isn't more durable and talented than Darren McFadden because he has more mileage. He has more mileage because he's more durable and talented than Darren McFadden. That doesn't say anything about what Johnson would look like today if he hadn't taken the beating he has.
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
Whether or not having lots of carries is the REASON that guys can play longer is irrelevant if it's also an indicator that they'll play longer. We're not looking to find out why guys are going to play longer, we're looking to find out which guys are going to play longer.
I don't think he is saying that getting more carries makes you stronger so much as he's saying that getting a lot of carries and continuing to play well is an indication that you're a more durable player and may be able to play longer. I think it's a fair point and logically it makes sense that being able to handle more work per year over time would translate to being able to handle more years of work per lifetime.
EBF
Footballguy
Yea, I definitely agree with that. As with many things in life, someone who has already done it once is more likely to do it again.
Doesn't necessarily mean that high mileage is a good reason to take an older back over a younger back with a more uncertain ability to hold up. If a rookie back came along who looked like he had as much talent as McCoy, I'd take him over Shady even if he hadn't proven himself to be as durable.
If you're weighing the merits of any RB (or WR or QB) as a dynasty asset, there's a point where the past production flips from being a positive to a warning signal. We know that the past exploits of guys like Peyton and Marshall reflect their rare talent level and consistency, but this doesn't mean that at some point the sheer volume of time they've spent in the NFL isn't a legitimate negative in the sense that it reflects a lot of burnt fuel that you're never getting back.
So you could look at Shady's five year career as proof that he has the talent and durability to play later than the average back and/or you could look at it as five burnt seasons of his athletic prime that count zero towards his future dynasty value. Both perspectives are accurate and the challenge is determining which of the two sides, if any, is being emphasized too heavily in his market value. I would say McCoy's market value is fair since he probably has at least three really good years left and that's enough to justify a really high investment. On the other hand, I would say the past achievements of players like Peterson and Forte are being weighed too heavily in dynasty, where they're really really likely to see the bottom fall out very soon.
In general, I would agree that high mileage is a sign of many desirable traits (i.e. talent and durability), but I'd also agree that it's a negative. As I've said before, security in the form of past production always comes with a trade-off. For each additional year that a player proves himself, that's one less season left on the tread. So yea, paying through the nose for LeSean McCoy right now gets you peace of mind and reliability, but you're also missing those 2009-2013 seasons since they're essentially dead and gone.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
You believe right.One More Rep said:
Sprout, just so ya know cause it seems like you care a lot, it was the first DYNASTY title I won, which followed a 2nd place finish from the year before. Also won other leagues last year, not dynasty, and also in years past, just not dynasty.
Thanks for your concern.
Sincerely,
God
ghostguy123
Footballguy
The issue with the mccoy trade isn't that it wont help him more a few years from now, its that he gave a top 5 overall player for a top 30 overall player who isn't even proven, and is rated that highly on potential.
I mean, you can trade mccoy straight up for pick 12 this year and it will probably be better for your team a few years from now, but it would still be a horrible trade.
I mean, you can trade mccoy straight up for pick 12 this year and it will probably be better for your team a few years from now, but it would still be a horrible trade.
It's not just the age. It's the 3 or 4 wins McCoy brings all on his own, moeaning a drop from pick 1 or 2 to pick 6 or 7. Plus- the guy is in a COMPLETE rebuild- even if he hit on every 2015 pick, he'd still be looking at 2016 at the earliest (with a similar drop of 3 or 4 draft slots in 2016- which of course makes the two year turnaround much tougher). His team right now has a ton of Devy's and multiple first rounders- no real studs and only a few players that have any real chance of being top producers in 2015, let alone 2014.FreeBaGeL said:
One year turnarounds are a little tougher in Devy leagues without a ton of trades- you aren't doing it via the draft.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dragon1952
Footballguy
12 team,PPR
- Team A gave up Calvin Johnson, Jake Locker, Chris Polk, Year 2014 Draft Pick 4.05;Year 2014 Draft Pick 5.05
- Team B gave up Ladarius Green, Donald Brown, Vincent Brown, Year 2014 Draft Pick 1.10;Year 2014 Draft Pick 4.10
Last edited by a moderator:
CBower4545
Footballguy
non-ppr
Team A gives
Boldin
2.12
3.8
2015 1st, 2nd, and 3rd
Team B gives
Antonio Brown
5.1
2015
Team A is a contender previously using Boldin as #3.
-not involved
Team A gives
Boldin
2.12
3.8
2015 1st, 2nd, and 3rd
Team B gives
Antonio Brown
5.1
2015
Team A is a contender previously using Boldin as #3.
-not involved
Last edited by a moderator:
I must be missing something.
Skeletore Eh
Footballguy
coolnerd
Footballguy
bostonfred
Footballguy
OK, I'll give you these pieces of crap for Calvin, but you have to throw in 4.5 and 5.5.
Kitrick Taylor
Footballguy
I was the one that traded away McCoy for Floyd/Devy/James White/three second round picks.Adam Harstad said:
I know I sold him for less than "market" value. However, I shopped him around the league for a couple weeks, and IMO this was the best offer I got. The reason behind that being the best offer I got is key here. The league is stratified. There's plenty of teams that would have no interest in Shady because they aren't contenders. One of those teams owns five 2015 1st round picks plus Watkins and Evans. Most of the rest of the league would have to blow a hole in their lineup so large that it would largely be a lateral move. Plus the league absolutely hoards WRs. I tried trading Shady last year for Julio after he was lost for the season. It was rejected without a counter. AJ Green/DT/Julio/Jeffery/Dez were flat out not available. I offered Shady for Cobb+ in a number of ways, and was rejected over and over. Offered him for Keenan Allen + 2 late firsts and was rejected. Offered him for Antonio Brown and Melvin Gordon. Rejected.
My team was stuck in the middle of this league and wasn't going anywhere. So I made the decision to trade off most of my veterans for youth in an effort to rebuild. I like where its going much better than it was before, but I have no chance in 2014, and would need for a lot to break my way to be a contender in 2015. Shady was clearly my best asset. If he were to get hurt, get video taped beating his girlfriend, or whatever, his value could crash in a day. So the reality is, while its certainly possible a better mystery offer could be coming in September or October, it wasn't really all that likely. I could have waited until next offseason, but then I'm pretty sure he'll be less valuable than he is today, and I'd likely have a worse draft pick and devy pick to show for it. Its also possible Michael Floyd makes the next step in that time, and then he's unattainable as well.
So it's pretty easy to sit here on FBGs and say I sold him for half his value. (not you in particular Adam). Reality is I shopped him around, and did the best I could given the circumstances and the league that I'm in. I'm taking a risk I know. But holding Shady wasn't without risk either.
bengalbuck
Footballguy
Love the 1st trade hate the 2nd. 2015 is going to have a nice crop; I'm not sold on Mason.
coolnerd
Footballguy
Billy Ball Thorton
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Okay. This is great. It's also, as I've pointed out, completely and 100% irrelevant.
People say "LeSean McCoy has a lot of mileage, so he'll likely decline younger". That is 100% the wrong conclusion to be drawing from the fact that he has a lot of mileage. We can talk about lurking variables and multivariate analysis and human physiology and cloning and bioengineering and the the concept of Platonic Realism as it relates to RB career length, but all of this misses the point spectacularly.
The point is that lots of people say "________ has a lot of mileage and is therefore more likely to decline early", when the data shows that having a lot of mileage does not correlate to declining earlier. Full stop. If you're downgrading a player because he has more mileage than his peers, you are doing it wrong.
Dragon1952
Footballguy
Well, he does have Rivers at QB. I guess he takes Grice at 1.10...ha ha. But seriously, I'm not sure what the motivation was. He just took over the team and is obviously trying to get younger by the look of his trades so far......and a lot of people really LOVE Ladarius Green, but obviously he could have cleaned up for Calvin.
ConnSKINS26
Footballguy
A guy new to the league just made this deal? I'd reverse it and re-replace him, pronto. He obviously doesn't know what he's doing.
I'm assuming you were on the Calvin side of this, or you'd be pissed off.
Similar threads
