****OFFICIAL DYNASTY TRADES**** (41 Viewers)

[squistion]

Oof.  Do you get points based on the number of RBs you have on your roster?  Because that's the only RB "need" that Daniel Lasco is filling.

You've taken a good approach to it but I don't think I would have fessed up to this trade .  Why were you even targeting a draft pick at that point.  Just trade him for a player that will at least see the field if you're intent on giving Funchess away for nothing.

I don't agree, looked at his highlights, liked what I saw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIgwPcDrj_4.

He was one of the top stories of the combine http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/nfl-combine-california-golden-bears-daniel-lasco-lights-it-up-030116 and put up some solid numbers and "enjoyed one of the best all-around workouts of the 300-plus participants involved."

Plus he also put forth a great performance a month earlier in the East-West Shrine Game https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EndSgPxyGxk

I didn't take him just because he was a warm body who happens to be a RB. I think he will eventually displace C.J. Spiller as the 3rd down back and can be a solid producer in PPR leagues.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Funchess isn't worthless, but what value does he really have?  He wasn't exactly an elite prospect,  Benjamin is coming back,  Ginn emerged as a legit threat, olsen is a stud,  and they're a fairly run heavy team to begin with.

I get that some of you guys think he's worth more and I don't blame you if you own him and think you could get more for him, but to me he's worth a late second at best - and during the draft it's going to be hard to get that.   Personally, I have zero interest in the guy, so i wouldn't even give that late second for him.  And while lasco isn't exactly the kind of guy I'd target if I needed a running back, funchess isn't exactly the bait I'd be trading if i was looking for a starter.

I don't think lasco solves anyone's rb problems, but if I'm strong at receiver,  I'm fine getting a bunch of young backup rbs and hoping one of them gets a chance during the season.  Seems like some of you guys are still overvaluing funchess.

I don't see him as super valuable but he was a second round NFL pick and he showed well once he got established into the offense. If he was thrown back into this rookie draft he should warrant no less than an early second (which is where he was mostly drafted last season in a stronger class).

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Zealots Field (non-PPR)

Traded:

Brandin Cooks

Received:

Jared Goff

2016 4.12 pick

2017 2nd round rookie pick (should be at the top of the round)

Needed to do this as, due to retirement of Peyton Manning, my startable QBs were Brady/Garoppalo.

My WRs now are Dez, Cobb, AJ Green, Hopkins, Julio and Treadwell, so I felt I could sacrifice Cooks.

Oof.  Another person mixing real life with fantasy.  You don't "need" to move a top 25 dynasty asset for a backup QB.  Really really bad return on Cooks.

 

[Aunt Jemima]

FFPC, team needs both sides

Team A gives Cam Newton

Team B gives Corey Coleman and 4.03

 

[bostonfred]

Funchess was drafted higher last year after Benjamin got hurt.  He was drafted after cooper, white, parker,  agholar, Perriman, dgb and dorsett, and nearer to Chris Conley and jaelen strong who are both pretty much worthless right now. 

What has he done to improve his value?  You couldn't have asked for a better setup than to have Benjamin out and cam having a career year - but funchess got just 31/473/5 as a rookie.  And almost exactly a quarter of that - 7/120/1 - came in a meaningless week 17 game against Tampa.  Compare that with what Benjamin did as a rookie, what Olsen does every year, and what ginn did last year,  and where's the void for him to fill?

And while lots of people criticize the top of this draft,  it's actually fairly deep with second and this round talent.   Guys like Keith Marshall and DeAndre Washington are around in the early third, and they could be significant contributors in committee backfields. Or caroo, Braxton miller,  Pharoah cooper, Austin hooper - all available around pick 30.  I don't think funchess is more valuable than any of those guys.   

Mid third on the clock seems about right to me,  actually.  Not a fan of the lasco pick specifically but it's a fair price imo.

 

[Spike]

Oof.  Another person mixing real life with fantasy.  You don't "need" to move a top 25 dynasty asset for a backup QB.  Really really bad return on Cooks.

Tell me...  If people will not trade you a QB, what do you do?

Yes, I could have traded Cooks for a Ben Roethlisberger...or a Carson Palmer...or a Tony Romo...but, in each case, I would have had to put MORE than Cooks into the deal.

So, what do you do?

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Tell me...  If people will not trade you a QB, what do you do?

Yes, I could have traded Cooks for a Ben Roethlisberger...or a Carson Palmer...or a Tony Romo...but, in each case, I would have had to put MORE than Cooks into the deal.

So, what do you do?

Wait until your QBs bye week and pick up one of the starting QBs on waivers there.

I'm not in your league obviously so I don't know every little circumstance, but in 15 years across many leagues I've never once seen a situation in a 12 team 1 QB league where there was not a starting NFL QB available on the waiver wire in the middle of the season.  Not one single time.

Even if you had to take a 0 at QB one week (doubtful), I would rather do that then give away a top 25 dynasty asset for a guy that's going to increase your season point total by 12 points starting the one week where NE is on a bye.

I mean, literally on this very page of this very thread, you liked the post by Deuceman telling Squisition that he didn't have to make a move today to fill his RB need at an over the top cost.  Meanwhile you did the exact same thing, only giving up a much more valuable player, for your backup QB "need", if there is even such a thing.

 

[bostonfred]

Wait until your QBs bye week and pick up one of the starting QBs on waivers there.

I'm not in your league obviously so I don't know every little circumstance, but in 15 years across many leagues I've never once seen a situation in a 12 team 1 QB league where there was not a startable fantasy QB available on the waiver wire any given week.  Not one single time.

This post is a good reminder of how important league context is.  There are currently 56 quarterbacks rostered in my 14 team dynasty league.   A bunch will get cut when rosters drop from 30 to 24, but every starting qb and quite a few backup qbs will be rostered on opening day and if a backup QB gets a chance to start mid season they inevitably will be taken in waivers. 

 

[squistion]

This thinking is usually applied when talking about someone possibly over paying, never really see it used for under paying/selling

I particularly like the part where in the same sentence you say you need an RB, but then also say that most of them are gone now, lol

You know its a bad deal when there is a whole paragraph justifying it.

If you looks at my posts when I list any trade, as I did in this thread, I always give a detailed explanation as to my thinking and the context of the trade. Most trades just list the transaction by itself and by looking at only that, people viewing the trade are operating in a vacuum.

And as I mentioned a post or two above. Lasco was one of RB targets and in two of my leagues he was taken in the late 2nd by other owners. He may have been a default choice after Ervin and Smallwood, but I still think he is an excellent prospect and now own him in four leagues.

Sorry you don't appreciate someone taking the time to explain what they did and why. Others do and I will continue this practice. If you want to see this as just as rationalization, fine, you are entitled to your opinion.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

This post is a good reminder of how important league context is.  There are currently 56 quarterbacks rostered in my 14 team dynasty league.   A bunch will get cut when rosters drop from 30 to 24, but every starting qb and quite a few backup qbs will be rostered on opening day and if a backup QB gets a chance to start mid season they inevitably will be taken in waivers. 

Even in that case, New England's bye week isn't until week 9 this year.  Plenty of time to grab one of those backup QBs that gets a chance to start, of which there will be many.

Even in the unlikely scenario that he couldn't land one of those waiver QBs, a better trade scenario would have almost certainly opened up between now and MID-NOVEMBER.  Teams would have passed their starting QBs bye week, needed a roster spot for a hot new FA while they're sitting on 4 QBs and needing to move one, etc.  People get in a rush to make their roster all pretty and symmetric in the offseason to their own peril.  There was no reason to make this deal, especially now.

And again, even if he couldn't somehow get one more reasonably priced over the next six months, I'd rather have a one-week zero at QB than give away someone like Cooks.

In your league, would you have made Spike's trade?

 

[mcintyre1]

While I do think that Spike overpaid for Goff, league context is very important here. Zealots leagues are 12 team IDP with 53 man rosters. You will never find a useable QB on the waiver wire in these leagues, and even most backups are rostered unless they're career types that get slotted in due to injury mid year. In my own Zealots league, there are currently 56 QBs rostered. That said, I would have made a smaller trade for a backup QB if it were me, but I suppose he does need to worry about replacing Brady in the not too distant future.

For reference, I actually also acquired Goff as a third QB in my Zealots league, but I was able to get him at 2.01 as part of a deal that netted me the 1.12/2.01 for giving the Elliot owner Darren McFadden and Vic Beasley (DE). I'm hoping that trade (which netted me NOS Michael Thomas at 1.12 and Goff at 2.01) makes up a bit for one that I'm having heavy buyer's remorse on from way earlier this year (gave my 2017 1st for Stefon Diggs and Tyrann Mathieu).

 

[squistion]

This post is a good reminder of how important league context is.  There are currently 56 quarterbacks rostered in my 14 team dynasty league.   A bunch will get cut when rosters drop from 30 to 24, but every starting qb and quite a few backup qbs will be rostered on opening day and if a backup QB gets a chance to start mid season they inevitably will be taken in waivers. 

Context is everything. What you should do or be able to do in theory, quite often you can't do in practice in your individual league. Perhaps it shouldn't be that way, but it is what it is.

 

[BigTex]

10 man Dynasty

Gave: Allen Hurns

Got: Brandin Cooks + 2.4 pick (can be used on a Devy player)

 

[Dr. Octopus]

10 man Dynasty

Gave: Allen Hurns

Got: Brandin Cooks + 2.4 pick (can be used on a Devy player)

how is the pick on the Cooks' side?

 

[BigTex]

how is the pick on the Cooks' side?

What do you mean?

 

[Dr. Octopus]

What do you mean?

Most people value Cooks more that Hurns.

 

[Mingooch]

Would certainly take the cooks side

 

[BigTex]

Most people value Cooks more that Hurns.

The guy is a Miami Homer to the core.

He wanted Hurns I made this offer as my starting point and he surprisingly accepted. He's one of the top guys in the league he's always in the hunt for the Championship.

Tex

 

[Spike]

Wait until your QBs bye week and pick up one of the starting QBs on waivers there.

I'm not in your league obviously so I don't know every little circumstance, but in 15 years across many leagues I've never once seen a situation in a 12 team 1 QB league where there was not a starting NFL QB available on the waiver wire in the middle of the season.  Not one single time.

Even if you had to take a 0 at QB one week (doubtful), I would rather do that then give away a top 25 dynasty asset for a guy that's going to increase your season point total by 12 points starting the one week where NE is on a bye.

I mean, literally on this very page of this very thread, you liked the post by Deuceman telling Squisition that he didn't have to make a move today to fill his RB need at an over the top cost.  Meanwhile you did the exact same thing, only giving up a much more valuable player, for your backup QB "need", if there is even such a thing.

Pre-trade, here are my QBs:

• Brady
  
• Garoppolo
  
• Peyton Manning
  
• Manziel
  
• Hundley
  
• Mallett
  

We have 54 QBs rostered in our 12-team league.  In-season, there are never any starters available on the wire.  We have 53 man rosters so there are no even semi-viable options.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I think even if I was 100% guaranteed that I would not be able to find a starting QB on the wire at any point during the season, I still wouldn't have made the deal.

Matt Cassel started a game in week 9 last year.  You're telling me that, with 53 man rosters, some guy wouldn't love to get a 4th or 5th round pick in exchange for their QB4 Matt Cassel who's never going to see their starting lineup?

And again, I'd rather take a zero for a week than give up on Brandin Cooks.  Even if you don't need Cooks, you will have other needs over the next few years far more pressing than backup QB that he could help fix.

You just rushed it.  You had 6 months.  Things would have opened up.

 

[Pwingles]

If you looks at my posts when I list any trade, as I did in this thread, I always give a detailed explanation as to my thinking and the context of the trade. Most trades just list the transaction by itself and by looking at only that, people viewing the trade are operating in a vacuum.

And as I mentioned a post or two above. Lasco was one of RB targets and in two of my leagues he was taken in the late 2nd by other owners. He may have been a default choice after Ervin and Smallwood, but I still think he is an excellent prospect and now own him in four leagues.

Sorry you don't appreciate someone taking the time to explain what they did and why. Others do and I will continue this practice. If you want to see this as just as rationalization, fine, you are entitled to your opinion.

i dont pay that much attention

i like Lasco as well

Not that I dont appreciate context, but sounded very much like you knew you made a pretty bad trade and were trying to justify it. IMO, no need to justify it. You posted here for feedback I assume, and thats what you got.

 

[humpback]

The Panthers gave up a decent haul to trade up and draft Funchess in the early 2nd round last year, he had a respectable rookie season, he's only been playing WR for 2 years, and he'll turn 22 this month- and people are trying to justify trading him for a 7th round rookie RB who might not even make the roster?  Things can change quickly and it's within the realm of possibility that this trade ends up working out for him, but it's terrible value as of today.

 

[FreshiZ]

if I really hated Funchess and needed rb production I think I'd offer him for Gore. At least Gore will give you a year of probable rb2 points as opposed to anyone in the 3rd. 

 

[squistion]

The Panthers gave up a decent haul to trade up and draft Funchess in the early 2nd round last year, he had a respectable rookie season, he's only been playing WR for 2 years, and he'll turn 22 this month- and people are trying to justify trading him for a 7th round rookie RB who might not even make the roster?  Things can change quickly and it's within the realm of possibility that this trade ends up working out for him, but it's terrible value as of today.

10 owners in my 12 team league would disagree with you as they all passed on Funchess for a pick before one owner finally accepted. I could stamp my feet and say "He is worth more than that!" but if no one will pay it doesn't do me any good. And, as my #6 WR he never would have seen my starting line barring my top 4 going down to injury. And I really have not been that impressed with Funchess, maybe I am dead wrong, but we will see.

And I don't play the draft pedigree game. Once again context comes into play. If you know nothing else about a player, yes a 7th round pick is statistically a poor choice. But I looked carefully at Lasco, as did the Saints http://bigeasybeliever.com/2016/05/08/making-sense-of-the-saints-pick-of-rb-daniel-lasco/. and concluded that his injury plagued 2016 season was probably a key factor (among other things) in his falling in the draft and he was just not your typical 7th round pick.

I will just have to agree to disagree with many of the folks here and that is fine. I am comfortable with the decision I made.

 

[Pwingles]

I guess i just disagree with the way you are determining someones value. The amount that someone will give up, or not, shouldn't dictate how YOU value YOUR assets.

There are several examples of how this can back fire and be exploited against you. Even more so if your league mates pick up on it.

Lamar Miller 2 years ago. Jamaal Charles this off season. AP coming off his suspension, or ACL. Tom Brady a couple seasons ago. Andrew Luck this year. Mike Evans this year. Sammy after his rookie year. Most people acquiring these guys at those times, were likely not paying full market price. These guys were moved in a lot of leagues for anything that resembled a reasonable offer at the time because their owners panicked. Age, injury concerns, production went down, etc. Savvy owners got them for what usually ended up being cheap.

If you moved JC for a late 1 early this off season because thats all anyone would offer, it doesnt mean his value is a late 1. If you moved Evans for a pick or two because he had some regression in his fantasy numbers and you panicked, but thats all you could get for him during your panic, your team is prolly perpetually bad.

That line of thinking isnt applicable to all situations and can get you into trouble.

 

[Hankmoody]

Tell me...  If people will not trade you a QB, what do you do?

Yes, I could have traded Cooks for a Ben Roethlisberger...or a Carson Palmer...or a Tony Romo...but, in each case, I would have had to put MORE than Cooks into the deal.

So, what do you do?

You wait.  You're covered for the suspension and injury with Garropolo however successful he may be.  The season doesn't start until September, you have plenty of time.  May is not panic time.  You'll have just as good a chance to overpay in October as you do today if that's your goal.  Maybe someone gets a WR injury and now Cooks gets you Roethlisberger.  Go pick up handcuffs like Geno Smith, Chase Daniel, Brian Hoyer, Zack Mettenburger, Mike Glennon.  Maybe Cutler sprains his ankle and the owner would just as soon dump him on you for a 3rd next year.  Maybe Rivers gets hurt (that's a pretty juicy situation for a guy with a big arm to walk into) or Bradford is terrible and the rook isn't ready and you have a ready-made temporary option. 

I'm in this exact situation this year in a 16 man with my only QB's on my roster being Dalton and McCarron.  I'm covered for injury and with a late bye I have time to see how it shakes out.  Best offer I got was Latavius Murray for Tyrod Taylor.  I can do that deal any time of the year.  If that's my best option in August I'll make that decision then

This trade and the Funchess ones are classic dynasty mistakes of panicing at the wrong time.  You don't do lineups/starters in May, you do talent.  You worry about starters and lineup in August.

 

[Hankmoody]

The Panthers gave up a decent haul to trade up and draft Funchess in the early 2nd round last year, he had a respectable rookie season, he's only been playing WR for 2 years, and he'll turn 22 this month- and people are trying to justify trading him for a 7th round rookie RB who might not even make the roster?  Things can change quickly and it's within the realm of possibility that this trade ends up working out for him, but it's terrible value as of today.

10 owners in my 12 team league would disagree with you as they all passed on Funchess for a pick before one owner finally accepted. I could stamp my feet and say "He is worth more than that!" but if no one will pay it doesn't do me any good. And, as my #6 WR he never would have seen my starting line barring my top 4 going down to injury. And I really have not been that impressed with Funchess, maybe I am dead wrong, but we will see.

Assuming they all had Lasco at the top of their draft boards at that time perhaps.  But they didn't pass your offer for Lasco, they passed it for someone they clearly felt was a better option than Lasco (otherwise they would have drafted him).  I like Lasco myself, but he went 46, 50, and 63 in my drafts.

 

[squistion]

Assuming they all had Lasco at the top of their draft boards at that time perhaps.  But they didn't pass your offer for Lasco, they passed it for someone they clearly felt was a better option than Lasco (otherwise they would have drafted him).  I like Lasco myself, but he went 46, 50, and 63 in my drafts.

Actually, I think they passed on what they clearly felt was a better option than Funchess, since the consensus here is that he is worth way more than any 3rd round pick. 

 

[mcintyre1]

You wait.  You're covered for the suspension and injury with Garropolo however successful he may be.  The season doesn't start until September, you have plenty of time.  May is not panic time.  You'll have just as good a chance to overpay in October as you do today if that's your goal.  Maybe someone gets a WR injury and now Cooks gets you Roethlisberger.  Go pick up handcuffs like Geno Smith, Chase Daniel, Brian Hoyer, Zack Mettenburger, Mike Glennon.  Maybe Cutler sprains his ankle and the owner would just as soon dump him on you for a 3rd next year.  Maybe Rivers gets hurt (that's a pretty juicy situation for a guy with a big arm to walk into) or Bradford is terrible and the rook isn't ready and you have a ready-made temporary option. 

I'm in this exact situation this year in a 16 man with my only QB's on my roster being Dalton and McCarron.  I'm covered for injury and with a late bye I have time to see how it shakes out.  Best offer I got was Latavius Murray for Tyrod Taylor.  I can do that deal any time of the year.  If that's my best option in August I'll make that decision then

This trade and the Funchess ones are classic dynasty mistakes of panicing at the wrong time.  You don't do lineups/starters in May, you do talent.  You worry about starters and lineup in August.

Just FYI, in my own league with the same roster setup, all of these guys are rostered already. Again, I'm agreeing that I think the price was too high, but I think people are ####ting on the deal a bit more than is warranted given context. If he thinks Goff is his future starting QB1, I can understand the deal even more. I'm only moderately high on him as a prospect, but some guys like Matt Waldman really like him. I believe Waldman had him rated as the #6 rookie in the class fantasy-wise and thought he was a better prospect than Jameis Winston was last year with "Top-5 QB" upside. 

I also just realized that he's in a non-PPR Zealots league. I think that significantly reduces Cooks' upside as he'll be even more dependent on TDs to finish well on the year. Given that New Orleans has made moves to get "posession" type receivers this offseason, I'm wary that Cooks will replicate his TD totals going forward with Michael Thomas and Coby Fleener coming on board.

 

[Hankmoody]

Just FYI, in my own league with the same roster setup, all of these guys are rostered already. Again, I'm agreeing that I think the price was too high, but I think people are ####ting on the deal a bit more than is warranted given context. If he thinks Goff is his future starting QB1, I can understand the deal even more. I'm only moderately high on him as a prospect, but some guys like Matt Waldman really like him. I believe Waldman had him rated as the #6 rookie in the class fantasy-wise and thought he was a better prospect than Jameis Winston was last year with "Top-5 QB" upside. 

Mine too.  You still wait.  I could live with the trade if it's week 3 and Garropolo looks terrible and you're fighting for your season.  THAT is context.

I do agree it's less egregious if he's particularly high on Goff but there is no indication of that.  Only the desperation mentioned to get a QB due to Manning's retirement.  He even used the words "sacrifice Cooks".  May isn't the time to do that.  Goff doesn't have Top-5 QB upside until Fisher is gone.  That gives you 20 months minimum to work on a trade for Goff if you really do believe in him.

 

[Zyphros]

ok back to trades

10 team 2QB 3WR 3RB 2TE 1Fl ppr - not involved

Pretty sure Team A just wants to retool his team with some new younger faces.  

Team A traded: Dion Lewis 2017 2nd

Team B traded: 1.07, 4.04

 

[Colts Win]

This post is a good reminder of how important league context is.  There are currently 56 quarterbacks rostered in my 14 team dynasty league.   A bunch will get cut when rosters drop from 30 to 24, but every starting qb and quite a few backup qbs will be rostered on opening day and if a backup QB gets a chance to start mid season they inevitably will be taken in waivers. 

So every team in the league has 3+ qbs  on their 24 player roster and that's the best deal you could get. Best to wait till close to the season. Make sure some decent doesn't get dropped or find some one with a need to trade with.

 

[Run It Up]

ok back to trades

10 team 2QB 3WR 3RB 2TE 1Fl ppr - not involved

Pretty sure Team A just wants to retool his team with some new younger faces.  

Team A traded: Dion Lewis 2017 2nd

Team B traded: 1.07, 4.04

Lewis, getting close tho.

 

[Aunt Jemima]

ok back to trades

10 team 2QB 3WR 3RB 2TE 1Fl ppr - not involved

Pretty sure Team A just wants to retool his team with some new younger faces.  

Team A traded: Dion Lewis 2017 2nd

Team B traded: 1.07, 4.04

I'll take Lewis and the 2017 2nd. I'm not sure who is still on the board at 7 that has more upside than Lewis assuming Elliot, Tread, Docts, Coleman, Shepard, M Thomas. I guess most likely 1.7 is M Thomas or D Henry I'll still take Lewis and the pick esp in ppr

 

[FreeBaGeL]

It seems like people are treating Lewis like he's a 33 year old Kevin Faulk.  The guy is 25, possibly only a year or two older than whatever rookie is going at 1.07 and 1.07 is a very "meh" spot this year.  I'll take Lewis and the 2017 2nd makes it even better.

 

[Spike]

Mine too.  You still wait.  I could live with the trade if it's week 3 and Garropolo looks terrible and you're fighting for your season.  THAT is context.

I do agree it's less egregious if he's particularly high on Goff but there is no indication of that.  Only the desperation mentioned to get a QB due to Manning's retirement.  He even used the words "sacrifice Cooks".  May isn't the time to do that.  Goff doesn't have Top-5 QB upside until Fisher is gone.  That gives you 20 months minimum to work on a trade for Goff if you really do believe in him.

Last word on this...I've been trying to get a deal I was comfortable with since trading opened up at the end of the 2015 playoffs.  No luck.

I'm comfortable with this deal.

ETA - it's interesting that some aren't "allowing" me to have my own viewpoint and that, as it's different than theirs, I'm wrong.  Weird dynamic.

 

[Pwingles]

Last word on this...I've been trying to get a deal I was comfortable with since trading opened up at the end of the 2015 playoffs.  No luck.

I'm comfortable with this deal.

ETA - it's interesting that some aren't "allowing" me to have my own viewpoint and that, as it's different than theirs, I'm wrong.  Weird dynamic.

nobody is taking your PoV away. just seems like most people disagree with it.

Not directed solely at you spike, but why even post here, if not for feedback from a group? Its not a brag thread. Lets be honest, some of you posting in here didnt realize how bad your move was until it was pointed out by others. I see why commenters who disagree will debate with each other, but when someone posts a trade and then feels like they need to defend it against a lot of negative opinions, youre fighting a losing battle. The deal was prolly just bad. Suck it up and move on. Its not a weird dynamic if youre actually just wrong

 

[Hankmoody]

Actually, I think they passed on what they clearly felt was a better option than Funchess, since the consensus here is that he is worth way more than any 3rd round pick. 

Unlike the Cooks trade, don't actually think he got terrible value for Funchess.  I don't like him either.  But like the Cooks trade I think he got poor value for a terrible reason and may have compounded it with a reach at the "need" pick. 

 

[FreeBaGeL]

ETA - it's interesting that some aren't "allowing" me to have my own viewpoint and that, as it's different than theirs, I'm wrong.  Weird dynamic.

"Hey guys, I'd like to get some opinions on this trade.  What's that?  Your opinions aren't that I made an awesome trade and am the best FF owner ever?  Well jeez I'm sorry for having an opinion.  I guess I'm not allowed to have one at all.  I thought this was America."

 

[humpback]

The Panthers gave up a decent haul to trade up and draft Funchess in the early 2nd round last year, he had a respectable rookie season, he's only been playing WR for 2 years, and he'll turn 22 this month- and people are trying to justify trading him for a 7th round rookie RB who might not even make the roster?  Things can change quickly and it's within the realm of possibility that this trade ends up working out for him, but it's terrible value as of today.

10 owners in my 12 team league would disagree with you as they all passed on Funchess for a pick before one owner finally accepted. I could stamp my feet and say "He is worth more than that!" but if no one will pay it doesn't do me any good. And, as my #6 WR he never would have seen my starting line barring my top 4 going down to injury. And I really have not been that impressed with Funchess, maybe I am dead wrong, but we will see.

And I don't play the draft pedigree game. Once again context comes into play. If you know nothing else about a player, yes a 7th round pick is statistically a poor choice. But I looked carefully at Lasco, as did the Saints http://bigeasybeliever.com/2016/05/08/making-sense-of-the-saints-pick-of-rb-daniel-lasco/. and concluded that his injury plagued 2016 season was probably a key factor (among other things) in his falling in the draft and he was just not your typical 7th round pick.

I will just have to agree to disagree with many of the folks here and that is fine. I am comfortable with the decision I made.

Great trade!  Is that the only thing you want to hear?

We can debate the draft pedigree thing, and the never seeing your line up thing, but it's a waste of time.  You can try to justify it however you'd like, but it was awful value.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Actually, I think they passed on what they clearly felt was a better option than Funchess, since the consensus here is that he is worth way more than any 3rd round pick.

I think it's possible that some owners just went on and picked and didn't even see the offer.

 

[squistion]

I think it's possible that some owners just went on and picked and didn't even see the offer.

Yeah, it is possible. Although they are also supposed to get notified of any trade offer by email.

 

[squistion]

Great trade!  Is that the only thing you want to hear?

We can debate the draft pedigree thing, and the never seeing your line up thing, but it's a waste of time.  You can try to justify it however you'd like, but it was awful value.

So much for asking to just agree to disagree. Some people always have to get in the last word.

 

[Rockchild]

Some leagues are just different in how they value players and positions. In one league I play in, multiple 1st round picks are needed to acquire top players. i.e., I traded 1st round picks in 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 for Dez. It sounds outlandish but there are always trades like this made in this league. It isn't a one off event. It's a local league that is going strong since 1995. I would agree that there was no rush to make the deal but he knows his league and is happy with the deal.

 

[humpback]

"Hey guys, I'd like to get some opinions on this trade.  What's that?  Your opinions aren't that I made an awesome trade and am the best FF owner ever?  Well jeez I'm sorry for having an opinion.  I guess I'm not allowed to have one at all.  I thought this was America."

 

[Buckna]

It seems like people are treating Lewis like he's a 33 year old Kevin Faulk.  The guy is 25, possibly only a year or two older than whatever rookie is going at 1.07 and 1.07 is a very "meh" spot this year.  I'll take Lewis and the 2017 2nd makes it even better.

2QB & 3RB? Give me the 1.07 then, makes that pick more like the 1.05 or even better if someone is high on Lynch or a RB like Booker/Dixon, etc.

 

[jeaton6]

Tell me...  If people will not trade you a QB, what do you do?

Yes, I could have traded Cooks for a Ben Roethlisberger...or a Carson Palmer...or a Tony Romo...but, in each case, I would have had to put MORE than Cooks into the deal.

So, what do you do?

You pick up back-ups of guys who typically get hurt, wait til a starting QB inevitably goes down and use your bid bucks to make a move to fill the hole, take a goose egg for one week and wait til next year to draft a QB, wait for someone who is competing that has a guy go down at WR or RB (it's May) or wherever and then work out a reasonable deal. In this case I could still see you having to give up a little bit of value but not what we're seeing here.

Thats what I'd do if it were me. 

 

[spider321]

Gave: 1.10

Received: 2017 1st (probably mid to late)

Thoughts/opinions?

Yes, the deal is done.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Thoughts/opinions?

Yes, the deal is done.

I like it, especially if Dixon was gone.  1.10 is kind of no man's land this year.  I had 1.10 and tried to make the same deal but couldn't find any buyers.

 

[Run It Up]

Thoughts/opinions?

Yes, the deal is done.

Good deal. I had the 1.10 and was not wowed by the prospective stock available at the 10. Tried to trade back into 2017 but had no takers. Ended up including it in a move up for the 1.02