I think you’ll get him there if I was playing the percentages.
I have 1.03 in one league and am hoping to trade back to 4,5, or 6. Hard for me to decide between those four but if you have your guy I hope you get him there.
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 DYNASTY TRADES**** (19 Viewers)
- Thread starter Gottabesweet
- Start date
I have 1.03 in one league and am hoping to trade back to 4,5, or 6. Hard for me to decide between those four but if you have your guy I hope you get him there.
Every one is heavily tilted in your favor IMO. The Deebo one in particular IMO, but it is rookie fever time of the year.
Last edited by a moderator:
deadlyrange0321
Footballguy
12 team PPR 1QB 1RB 1WR 4FLEX
Team A trades:
Swift
Team B trades:
Diggs
2023 1st
Team A trades:
Swift
Team B trades:
Diggs
2023 1st
That one guy
Footballguy
Man I’m selling Swift so hard here…could be my lack of faith in him, could be my man-crush on Diggs, but I’m out at that offer with the quickness
Jonesin For Some Football
Footballguy
Only have to start 1 RB, Diggs new extension, and Swift's injury history....I would jump on this for sure.deadlyrange0321 said:
steelcityman
Footballguy
12 tm PPR
Diontae Johnson
for
Josh Jacobs
We are deep at WR, need RB. The other team is deep everywhere(a real strong team), it seems slightly lopsided, but need to in order to get him to accept. I know the shelf life is probably 2-3 years to 7-10 years, but still, cant take 2 ppg at RB2. We draft too low to get a rookie RB.
Diontae Johnson
for
Josh Jacobs
We are deep at WR, need RB. The other team is deep everywhere(a real strong team), it seems slightly lopsided, but need to in order to get him to accept. I know the shelf life is probably 2-3 years to 7-10 years, but still, cant take 2 ppg at RB2. We draft too low to get a rookie RB.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Or if paying this premium, Mark Andrews, who has less volatility at the QB position.BigAl21 said:
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Gimme Jacobs, especially in your situation. Seems like a fair deal, though Dionte likely has more longevity - he also as Mitch Trubisky as his QB, so...call that a wash.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
You should get him there. And worst case scenario, you still get a pretty good player. Worth the price - 2.09 isn't super likely to be a superstar.Dacomish said:
also re: this
I cannot properly express how deeply I hate this rule. I would be lobbying for change every year.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Wow. Gimme team B all day. I like Swift, but Diggs is a legit WR1 and that 2023 1st is just so sexy.deadlyrange0321 said:
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Ditto on all counts. Mancrush on Diggs, plus a 1st in a deep deep deeeeep draft. The fact that Swift keeps getting hurt just seals the deal a little extra for me.That one guy said:
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
I feel like even a late 2023 1st can be flipped for a quality RB or higher 1st round pick. Not sure what the calcs say, but I feel like there's more value on the Diggs/1st side.
Understand the need, maybe it will work out for you but I'd not have moved Diontae for this myself.
I think with Jacobs you got a fairly young RB who is going to be solid so you won't be sucking wind at the position. But my concerns with him are that the regime who spent a first round pick on him is gone and he's got a coach who most of his career has used a RBBC approach. Jacobs will lead that approach but he's not been a high upside player previously and I don't see that changing. The other concern is he'll be in the last year of his contract. Maybe that actually works out for him if Raiders don't exercise the 5th year option and to me what happens with him after 2022 might be the key to this trade for you, despite doing it for a RB right now. It's just to many doubts without enough upside IMO that makes me say I'd rather hold Diontae and spend next few months looking at other options.
Diontae himself is in a similar situation of entering last year of his contract but he's at a position with a lot more longevity and one could argue he's thrived with sub par QB and a shoddy overall supporting cast so odds of things getting worse for him for long term is not as high IMO as getting better and he was a top 10 fantasy WR last year and only reason he was not the previous year was the two extreme early exits he took.
How does one flip a late first into a higher first? I mean you can pay the first plus but to me that's not flipping.
The fact it's a one start RB league makes me ease up on how high I'd need that 2023#1 to be but I'm still not dealing Swift for Diggs if that pick looks like one of those stone cold 11-12 types.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
You answered your own question. Making a deal then turning around and dealing one of the assets you just got is flipping.
See: every reality house flipping show ever. They buy something, add to it. Then sell at a profit.
We can agree to disagree on the word. I’m not that invested in this.
All depends on needs, IMO. If I’m targeting Michael Mayer, a late 1st might just do it.
steelcityman
Footballguy
thats what I figured, the other team has 3-4-5 good RBs, decent WRs. We draft 12th, so cant really trade picks straight up. Would like to keep 1.12 to draft a decent RB or WR, probably WR. Diontae could land somewhere real real nice next year, any of the teams looking for WR who dont find their guy, KC, GB, NE....who knows. I dont think the Steelers resign him. But thats the chance we are willing to take. Our team is set other than RB2, and young.
I’ll still take Pitts here. This coming year may be a little rough until they get their franchise guy under center, but I would still expect 1000 and 5-7 tds. And he’s so, so young.
Dez
Footballguy
BigAl21 said:
Nope the guy with Schultz would have wanted as much if not more. The "value" of the world does not compute in a single league. The only other TE I could have traded for would have been Kelce and that probably helps for this year but I was looking more long term.
Dez
Footballguy
Again nope the guy with Andrews is competing and would have wanted more than double I am sure.
Not sure why everyone thinks this was "a lot". 16 team league I project to be a playoff team so that is a pick in the 11-16 range for the 1st next year that is solid but the 2nd next year projects to be 27-32 which is a crapshoot at best. Also pick 27 this year is what ?
I am guessing you hit maybe 25% or less of the time on picks at 27 and below in this format.
Also value and projection is a year to year thing. Going into last year Waller and Kittle were valued over Andrews. Andrews was great but super great when Lamar was off the field. Things change fast year to year I remember when I had CEH and Miles Sanders going into 2020 and I wouldn't trade them for anything they were 1st round startup picks well now they still sit on my roster as 7th round startup picks.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Yeah, I kinda figured.
Like I said in my post - I don’t think you got taken, I just don’t think you got a bargain. It was a fair price, and the risk of Kittle having a down year with Lance is baked into the price.
16 teams + TE Premium makes any elite TE expensive. I get it.
I don’t think it’s a bad deal. And if you can afford to make it, it’s worth the price.
BigJim®
Footballguy
I’ve had to replace owners multiple times in my 20-year dynasty who traded away future 1sts and then decided they hated their team. Of course they don’t say it. Guess what, everyone who might adopt the team hates it too, and has no 1sts to make fixing it worthwhile.
We’ve never put a rule in place… thought about making people pay future dues to execute these trades, but that does nothing to attract a replacement owner. Who wants to waste 2 years even for free? Let’s just say I empathize. I cringe every time an owner trades away a future 1st.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Our league has a simple solution for this. However many years you trade out, you have to pay your buy-in.
e.g. when I dealt a 2021 1st in 2019, I had to pay for 2019, 2020 & 2021.
Last gear when I got my 2021 1st back for CEH, the team that got CEH had to pony up their league fees for 2021.
I get the fear, but c’mon - dynasty is all about the future. Picks are a building block. Owners can make bad deals & screw up their team without dealing more than 1 year out, then quit & you’ll be in the exact same circumstance.
It’s not bad rules that are the problem in the scenario you describe, it’s bad team owners.
BigJim®
Footballguy
I get it. As I said in my post I don’t think even free teams with no future are appealing to those looking for a dynasty team.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Fair enough. Seems like the old “nothing to fear but fear itself” thing to me, but to each their own.
BigJim®
Footballguy
It’s not a fear. I’ve had to tap dance like a used car salesman to fill the same lousy team 3 times between 2012-2015. Slim pickings to find someone, each newbie trading his own future to participate in drafts his predecessor traded away. We have been lucky since then, but do now limit 2 draft ahead trading.
dipandglide
Footballguy
12 teams, superflex, ppr
Gave: Najee, Wentz, 2.07, 3.07
Got: Goff, '23 1st (proj early), '23 1st (proj mid-late)
I wasn't impressed with Najee. He was purely volume in PPR. Plus, he was an older prospect. Feels reasonable unless you like bird in hand.
Gave: Najee, Wentz, 2.07, 3.07
Got: Goff, '23 1st (proj early), '23 1st (proj mid-late)
I wasn't impressed with Najee. He was purely volume in PPR. Plus, he was an older prospect. Feels reasonable unless you like bird in hand.
Dacomish
Footballguy
Im the commish in this league, I developed the rule when we started 5 years ago. It works for us pretty well and nobody has complained so far.
However I get your points and I have been in leagues where bad owners have caused chaos with butchering future picks and felt this was the best way in our start up in 2017. We have had the same owners for 2 seasons going on our 3rd now so maybe we can look at it in the future. I just wanted stability from owners and ensuring the league would be sustainable for the long term before we added years to it, and making them pay to do so sounds like the way to go.
Last edited by a moderator:
15 team SF PPR IDP Start 11 O guys. Can start up to 3PK per week. 1-2 QB 1-4 RB 1-6 WR 1-4 TE 1-3 PK
team A only had Mahomes at QB. Team B has Josh Allen also
Team A trades Mahomes, 2022 1.9, 2024 1st
foR
Team B trades Aaron Rodgers, Zach Wilson, Mike Evans, Jason Myers
team A only had Mahomes at QB. Team B has Josh Allen also
Team A trades Mahomes, 2022 1.9, 2024 1st
foR
Team B trades Aaron Rodgers, Zach Wilson, Mike Evans, Jason Myers
InDitkaWeTrust
Footballguy
I can't imagine how difficult and long of a process a full rebuild in a 16 team league must be.
InDitkaWeTrust
Footballguy
Seen a lot of shade thrown towards Najee this offseason and frankly don't agree. Dude did a lot in a rookie season with a busted QB and terrible OL. In PPR, I have him projected (probably a little higher than most) at 330/1350/10 rushing with another 60/400/4 receiving.
Those '23 firsts are enticing, but I'm not sure I'd want to get rid of a top 5 RB going into his 2nd season unless I was in full rebuild mode.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Which is (checks notes) exactly what my league does. That’s a far cry from not allowing any future trading, which is what the post I was responding to said was their rule, and what you’ve been arguing with me about.
Weird.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
That’s a tough one. I love the 2x 1sts for Najee & Wentz, but it seems like it’s a little early to cut bait on Najee. Fair deal, situationally dependent.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Fair enough. I’d suggest once your league stabilizes with all good owners, proposing to allow at least 1 future year draft, if not 2.
Using my own rebuild as an example, at the beginning of the ‘21 season I decided to blow up my aging team by dealing Mahomes & several older/aging assets (many of whom subsequently got hurt) for future picks & a core of young, upside players.
I was able to get much better value for the 2023 picks in 2021, when it was still far enough out that not a lot of folks were discussing the 2023 draft. Because of that, I am potentially able to get back to being competitive much faster than if we couldn’t trade future picks.
i could deal those picks at a profit right now, since it’s now “the next draft” and they’ve gone up in value. More and more attention is being given those 2023 players in a draft being compared to at least 2017, and maybe as good as 2015. The hype is building. I’m getting offers (and declining them)
If I chose to deal the picks for players right now, I could potentially compete this year, but I’m also very high on that draft, and those 6 picks are very likely to gain value between now and draft day, 2023. So for now, holding is my best option.
Also, while doing a long-rebuild, draft picks are significantly safer assets than players. Players get hurt, suspended, do drugs, act inappropriately, crash cars, get DUIs, or any other manner of incident. Draft picks do none of those things. The only ways a future draft pick loses value are 1. It’s a bad draft, or 2. You make a bad pick with it.
That all said, I do get the point that in a league with a lot of volatility & owner churn, such a rule makes sense.
Rebuilds are hard. While I’m embracing the challenge, not everyone has the stomach for it. But at some point, hopefully you’ll have enough stability of owners to extend the window of pick-trades. It can absolutely help to get more trades going, and it can especially be a huge benefit to a rebuilding team, aiming further ahead, or getting more to win with now by dealing future picks with stacked teams.
Otherwise you risk having a league of haves & have-nots, with stacked teams hoarding assets and scrubby teams with nothing to deal for them.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
BigJim®
Footballguy
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
I mean of course the rest of your roster matters but I’d imagine having Mahomes and Allen is a pretty huge advantage.
I do think there’s some possibility that the KC offense slows down a little without Hill. I do think Mahomes is a great QB but Hill just made that whole offense work.
I do think there’s some possibility that the KC offense slows down a little without Hill. I do think Mahomes is a great QB but Hill just made that whole offense work.
BigJim®
Footballguy
HSG, you read and reply too fast... IMHO. In my very first post I said only that I empathize with OP rule. I mentioned what my own league has experienced, but clearly said that we have never put a rule in place, and decided fee regulation won't solve the core problem... attracting caliber replacement owners.
Empathizing with OP, and describing real consequences I've experienced (not just fears), but decision not to solve that way is not "arguing with you" or fodder for a gotcha.
barackdhouse
Footballguy
Fair, if you either need a RB or can spare one. I have no idea what the new Bears staff thinks of Monty. Or K Herbert. Or options they might have in the draft. Either way Pittman has longevity to look forward to as a fringe WR1. Mariota is a valuable stopgap in SF but a good throw in here.
Unfair. IMO the biggest weakness too many owners possess in SF formats is being obsessive about QBs. This is a panicky move "because they only had Mahomes". It isn't an absolute necessity to get more QBs. At least not at this price. I agree with the comment that the other side isn't enough for Mahomes even if you take the 1sts out. Being able to start 3 kickers is an interesting twist I haven't heard of before. I can definitely see hoarding coming into play.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Ok. Felt a lot like you were being argumentative about the No-future picks thing. Then you dropped that your league in fact does trade future picks so I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. Playing devils advocate, I guess? all good. Have a good one.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dez
Footballguy
The other thing on my Kittle league trade that most of you would not know about is this is about as complex a dynasty league to play in as it gets. Each player has a contract so that has to factor into decisions as well. Trading for Kittle because he was a franchised player in a blind bid I got him now for an open contract. Shultz currently sits at 1 year left on his contact if I did somehow trade for him instead I would either only have him 1 year or because I traded for him I would have a 48 hour window to extend his contract but a cost of $15 per year and that is money I could use in RFA/FA.
If I give Kittle 5 years to get Shultz for 5 years it would cost me both the trade assets plus $60. Again very complex league if you don't play in this style league you won't know how to value the money.
If I give Kittle 5 years to get Shultz for 5 years it would cost me both the trade assets plus $60. Again very complex league if you don't play in this style league you won't know how to value the money.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
dipandglide
Footballguy
Definitely fair. Fwiw, I took Najee predraft in our startup. He isn't one of "my" guys.
We'll see how it goes in '22. His volume was impressive and could lead to a monster season again if he's their offense. Thanks foe the feedback!
