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!
I like the 1st.
Seems fair. In SF that could be a bargain for Watson if he returns to form.
What I like about this and other deals that are fair is getting the 1st is an easier asset to use down the road. Whether in season or after, you can use the pick to replace, shore up or upgrade if needed.
Plus they don’t lose value
Wilson. Especially with Rodgers hucking the ball.
I think this will prove to be a good trade for you and suspect Jeudy will have his anticipated star season but you sure gave up a lot for a guy who has been pretty ho-hum and the only buzz around him is 100% speculative.
Williams. Bigly.
Brown side.
I feel like it’s an overpay for Jeudy, so I’ll take the Mike Williams side.
They definitely can lose value (pick ends up being later than expected, draft class ends up being weaker than expected, landing spots worse than expected, etc.).
Ok, sure - being hyper literal, yes they can lose value. A little.
Don't think a pick should be involved either way
It isn't hyper literal at all. When draft picks are traded obviously where that pick is expected to fall plays a large part in the value, and obviously the better the pick is expected to be the higher the value (and vice versa). Most of the time there is a significant difference in value between say very high vs. middle of the pack vs. very low, so if where the pick actually lands ends up being significantly different than it was expected at the time of the deal, the value can change by much more than "a little". An expected top 2 pick this year that ended up being #4 or #5 lost a ton of value, for instance, and something like that isn't uncommon at all.
The pick didn’t lose value in that hypothetical. You used it on Bijan, and Bijan lost value.
If the injury happened before you were on the clock, the pick lost value. I think you'd agree with that.
I can understand the rebuild process can be daunting ... I like Warren but the 2.02 is a good ROI. Nice move.
I prefer the value of Penny over the pick by far, but as you've implied, he was unnecessary and a likely cut. Something minus nothing is something.
I had him inside my 20 so I wasn't going to cut him before *that* deadline, but he was #20 and in my experience, there is at least one player on the first waiver run, usually several, that I am going to want to go after heavily. And in such a scenario, which in my experience is 100% of the time, then who do I cut? Well, #20 I think. Of course, there are always injuries that will slide somebody into an IR spot or two, but yeah anyway a 3rd in SF is something I love to get for a guy that is now a backup RB and so forth. I do like Penny a lot, but I have this one roster spot as the most valuable piece of the deal. So for me it's a slam. And I have a historically *very* good hit rate on 3rds.
Sure. I’ll agree with that.
I don’t mind it but I’m very high on Warren.
Which is exactly what I meant
Yeah I would say any pick (the further down the draft, the less so) can gain or lose value. But typically not nearly as much as a named player. In the case of 1.01, for all intents and purposes, the pick is a player, and its value would plummet with some seriously bad Bijan news. But 1.01, particularly this year, is an extreme case. If you go down the draft order just a few spots to a mid first, any generic year, that value is pretty locked in. If you have the 1.05, and top-5 guy's value tanks, well you're looking at #6 instead of #5 on your list, which often is insignificant. If three or four of the top 5 guys tank? Sure, then it would be a big deal. But that would be freakish.
Which is a corner case hypothetical that doesn’t actually dispute my point.
Exactly.
Less volatile (in both directions)? Sure, no issues there. A 1st 2 years from now being "safer" than a RB for a rebuilding team? I don't think many teams are punting the next 2 seasons but sure, why not. But those are both VERY different from saying "draft picks don't lose value".
And what if the Vikings bring in Zeke and/or play McBride and Ty Chandler a lot more than expected? What if the Vikings pass 20% more?
Ouch, why? Must be a big time Waddle believer.
Well, then his value would likely drop some. I'm the one who has said multiple times that "it cuts both ways". You're the one who has said multiple times that "picks don't lose value", and also listed a whole bunch of bad things that can happen to players to drop their value, implying that picks are intrinsically "better" than players. I'm not commenting on the trade (don't even know the details), I simply built on your hypothetical to show how the pick can lose value and the player can gain value, which seems obvious. Neither is one directional.
JJ side.
Fair enough. I don’t think we’re that far apart on the issue, and yes, I was being a bit too literal with my statement.
Or both. I would take the Love waddle side with Chubb thrown in.
at this point who isn’t a Waddle believer and if not, why?
True, it's the degree of "belief" that surprises me. I would love to have Waddle on my roster and would pay a lot for him. Does Waddle ascend to near-Jefferson tier? Then you got yourself a win. But I don't think that's likely enough to give up Jefferson. Having Chubb is definitely great for the immediate future, though.
I get what you're saying here. A '24 or '25 1st is less volatile than Mattison RIGHT NOW. It's a like the municipal bonds of Fantasy football. You're fairly certain that, in a vacuum, the pick itself will go up in value moderately. I say in a vacuum, because nobody REALLY knows if that pick will be high, mid or low until a good bit into the season. We can guess, but often we are wrong. Often by a lot. Mattison, on the other hand, is incredibly volatile. He COULD be RB6 halfway through the season and be worth 2 1sts. He could also be RB27 with volume and not be worth a 1st. He is the penny stocks of Fantasy football. That's true for most non-elite players. Fields COULD make the jump to elite this year (I hope he does) or he could put up yet another stinker and be out of the league in 2025. The point HSG was trying to make is that, for the most part, picks themselves in a vacuum are less volatile than players.
Well summarized in long form. lolI get what you're saying here. A '24 or '25 1st is less volatile than Mattison RIGHT NOW. It's a like the municipal bonds of Fantasy football. You're fairly certain that, in a vacuum, the pick itself will go up in value moderately. I say in a vacuum, because nobody REALLY knows if that pick will be high, mid or low until a good bit into the season. We can guess, but often we are wrong. Often by a lot. Mattison, on the other hand, is incredibly volatile. He COULD be RB6 halfway through the season and be worth 2 1sts. He could also be RB27 with volume and not be worth a 1st. He is the penny stocks of Fantasy football. That's true for most non-elite players. Fields COULD make the jump to elite this year (I hope he does) or he could put up yet another stinker and be out of the league in 2025. The point HSG was trying to make is that, for the most part, picks themselves in a vacuum are less volatile than players.
Thank you for listening to my Ted talk.
I have Etienne and Bateman. I'd keep them.
I get what he is saying here too about volatility, it's just that it's entirely different than what he originally said, which is what I replied to.I get what you're saying here. A '24 or '25 1st is less volatile than Mattison RIGHT NOW. It's a like the municipal bonds of Fantasy football. You're fairly certain that, in a vacuum, the pick itself will go up in value moderately. I say in a vacuum, because nobody REALLY knows if that pick will be high, mid or low until a good bit into the season. We can guess, but often we are wrong. Often by a lot. Mattison, on the other hand, is incredibly volatile. He COULD be RB6 halfway through the season and be worth 2 1sts. He could also be RB27 with volume and not be worth a 1st. He is the penny stocks of Fantasy football. That's true for most non-elite players. Fields COULD make the jump to elite this year (I hope he does) or he could put up yet another stinker and be out of the league in 2025. The point HSG was trying to make is that, for the most part, picks themselves in a vacuum are less volatile than players.
Thank you for listening to my Ted talk.
