massraider
Footballguy
Yeah, Brady was really humbled.
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!
RB Dalvin Cook, DAL (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Faust
- Start date
JohnnyU
Footballguy
My original statement about father time was intended to be funny.
Ministry of Pain
Footballguy
Numerous rumors and vapor trails all lead to Miami
Went to Miami Central
Went on to FSU
Deep Florida roots, and Cook has been open about his desire to play in his hometown which means he might bend a little on his contract demands
Florida has a lot less State Income Tax than many others, none to my knowledge but you gotta stomach the pythons and gators
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
From the 1st paragraph I thought he was coming back on a restructure.
After that it sounds like the Vikes are “doing right” by sending him to a good landing spot.
Buy-low window on Mattison appears to be rapidly closing.
Heck, I might be selling high on Mattison in a few weeks.
rockaction
Footballguy
Just so people know, this is raw speculation out of thin air rather than an actual proposal or existing thing.
JohnnyU
Footballguy
That was a misleading title to that link.
I would be surprised if a dynasty owner that has Cook would give him up for a 2024 mid to late 2nd rounder. If you can acquire him for that I would do it as fast as you can.
In a 14-team non-PPR dynasty that is very RB friendly - start 1 RB, 1 WR, 3 flex (TE not required),
Team A: Sent Dalvin Cook (limped into playoffs last year, ok RBs, stronger WRs)
Team B sent: Samaje Perine, 2024 1st, 2024 2nd (this is defending champ, deep but aging at RB with Barkley, Mixon, Jones and now Cook)
Team B will be a shoe in for the playoffs and one of the favorites to win it all, so the picks will most likely fall in the 10-14 range each round.
Team A: Sent Dalvin Cook (limped into playoffs last year, ok RBs, stronger WRs)
Team B sent: Samaje Perine, 2024 1st, 2024 2nd (this is defending champ, deep but aging at RB with Barkley, Mixon, Jones and now Cook)
Team B will be a shoe in for the playoffs and one of the favorites to win it all, so the picks will most likely fall in the 10-14 range each round.
Seems like a really good haul for Cook.
Should add that I was not involved in the deal. I think both teams got what they wanted out of it - Team B adds a win now piece to keep their championship window open, Team A adds pieces to either reload or package for a bigger pieces to try push themselves into the championship picture.
But, as the Javonte Williams owner, I could be interested in Perine to cover me for the start of the season, so I'm going to be reaching out to the new Perine owner to feel it out.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Good lord team B got robbed.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
I’m not sure why Team B needed to add Perine. Or the 2nd for that matter.
rockaction
Footballguy
I think you mean Team B. Team A got a haul for Cook.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
How open is Dalvin Cook to being a backup? Because he'd have zero chance of starting in Dallas. Pollard does everything better than Cook does.
KC makes a ton of sense to me. I'd almost wonder if the Vikings could get CEH thrown in, as a "why not see if we can salvage a former 1st rounder" type move. Maybe instead of a 4th and a 7th, maybe for CEH and a 5th.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
KC is the only feasible landing spot, but why would they give up picks & pay Cook 14M a year when all they have to do is wait for MIN to cut him after June 1st, and they can sign him as a FA?
FWIW his cap charge to the Vikings is $14M this year but any team acquiring his contract would owe him $10.4m with workout and roster incentives that could push it to $11M.
But same outcome and to your point no one is paying for that. Vikings are probably just hanging on in hopes someone gets desperate or perhaps they need to wait till he's at a point in his shoulder recovery he can be cut and not owed $2m.
Its the best combo of available starting job and contender, but its certainly not the only feasible landing spot. It might be the only one that would actually be good for his fantasy value though.
Thinking about it a little, would Baltimore make sense? I like Gus/Dobbins, but they have barely played the last 2 years. Cook wouldn't see anywhere near the workload he saw in Minnesota there, but he's probably the most reliable of the group, and Baltimore certainly fits the contender part.
TB makes some sense as a chance to get a bigger workload and maybe rehab some value, though they'd be more of an option if he's cut, not traded. Its possible it goes that way, though I would think Cook could fetch a day 3 pick, I'm not sure why Minnesota HAS to cut him. The June 1st thing is basically a meaningless date, Ezekiel Elliott was a June 1st cut, you don't have to wait to do it. I think its more about the shoulder passing a physical than anything to do with June 1st.
I wouldn't be shocked if Chicago had some interest if Cook is cut, much to the dismay of Roschon Johnson truthers. As much as I have knocked Cook in this thread, he's starting in Chicago.
Lastly, Philly still makes some sense, even after the Swift trade. Like Baltimore, how much do you trust Swift/Penny to stay healthy?
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
That’s right - I forgot if they cut him they only save ~11 (after June 1)
Catbird
Footballguy
That's what I have asked for him - which is why I still have him. That and he's a decent B behind Rhamondre and ahead of Montgomery and Herbert in my 16 teamer. I think he starts in MIN, MIA, TB, KC, BUF, CIN (if Mixon is moved) or a few other options. I just have trouble thinking anyone wants him for the current 14 MIL pricetag and think that instead are awaiting his free agency. I think MIN is waiting for someone desperate enough to give them SOMTHING to add him.
ILUVBEER99
Footballguy
Agree. Crazy to see people giving up a 1st for him. In my league no way anyone would pay near that. Mid 2nd at most
Donnybrook
Footballguy
I was looking around at teams that could sign when the Vikings set him free. Obviously, he would like to go back to Florida but Miami doesn't have alot of cap room. I think Denver might be a team that could afford him and could use him.
smbkrypt24
Footballguy
Agree with the last few posters. A week or so ago the Dalvin Cook owner, who had him on the trade block, offered me him for a 2024 1st and Penny. I responded I wouldn't give up a first for Cook at this point. There was no follow up so, either that owner is stuck on that price or it was a shot in the dark.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
How sure are you guys that he even leaves the Vikes?
JohnnyU
Footballguy
I'm not, but that is the chatter.
Birdie048
Footballguy
I'd call it a lock but he has the power to change the outcome if he agrees to a paycut. In absence of that, 100%.
Cook is in the trade purgatory right now for FF. If you own him you aren't taking less than a 1st rounder and if you don't own him you aren't giving more than a 2nd rounder. That isn't going to change until something moves on is status (trade, cut, sign somewhere) to get clarity. No reason to be in a hurry if you own him. His perceived value is likely at its low point.
eighsse2
Footballguy
This is the kind of thing that gets said a lot, but it really doesn't make sense. Unless it's just the classic "my guy's potential
versus your guy's flaws 
" bias. If owners are being truly objective about the guy, there is zero reason that the collective group of all Cook owners should have a higher valuation if him than the collective group of non-owners. But of course, the "my guy/your guy" bias totally exists. But that could apply to any player. I don't believe in the "hold" status. If the owner should "hold" him because he has potential, why wouldn't a trade partner also want to "hold" him? Potential (whether good or bad) is baked into the value, as long as people are being informed and rational. /PoliteRant
Birdie048
Footballguy
Bias might not be the right way to look at it ... more like Risk / Reward.
They are risking selling him low and he continues to be Top Tier RB... while others are looking to minimize the Risk by offering Low
Age, situation and future are all variables in Cook's trade value.
They are risking selling him low and he continues to be Top Tier RB... while others are looking to minimize the Risk by offering Low
Age, situation and future are all variables in Cook's trade value.
eighsse2
Footballguy
So why would it be that people who already own Cook currently would be more inclined to accept a Risk/Reward investment than their leaguemates? Sure some specific people might not want to get into a risky-with-potential situation. But any random team owner who is into that sort of thing should have just as high a value on Cook as any generic Cook owner.
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
This is the kind of thing that gets said a lot, but it really doesn't make sense. Unless it's just the classic "my guy's potential
I think it's definitely possible for a guy to have a value that is more than a random future 2nd, but less than a future random 1st. So if both sides would take a 1st ,but not give a 1st, and both sides would give a 2nd, but not take a 2nd, then that kind of leaves him stuck on whichever team happens to already have him.
I would pay a 2nd to get Cook, but would not take a 2nd to trade him away. Likewise I would take a 1st if I had Cook, but would not give a 1st to get him. So if I were to trade with myself there would be no deal there, even though I value him the same whether I have him or not.
Sure there are things like a projected late 1st vs. a projected early 2nd, but it's still early enough there's too much unknown there and the possibility that late 1st ends up being earlier would squash that difference.
Bias is not the right term. It is not a bias as much as it is risk vs reward. If I am selling I want to get something that is worthwhile to give up the potential of Cook still being a RB1. Getting a 2nd round pick for him doesn't replace the value he could provide by just keeping him. It's not worth the trade off. Conversely, if I am buying him the risk of him falling off the cliff isn't worth giving up a 1st round pick for him. It's not a bias per se as much as it is getting/giving up value for the risk you are taking on. This gap is the "trade purgatory" I mentioned.This is the kind of thing that gets said a lot, but it really doesn't make sense. Unless it's just the classic "my guy's potential
Now it is possible that the Cook owner really believes he will fall of the cliff and will accept a 2nd rounder just to get out from under him but I am guessing most owners still have a belief that the cliff isn't there yet and that the 2nd rounder (especially mid to late) isn't worth giving up that asset.
Value of a player is never going to be identical for everyone so "truly objective" owners will still have a gap in trade value. The player will dictate if that gap is small or large and Cook falls into the larger side IMO. Because of that you are in trade purgatory and likely won't get a deal done at this point.
eighsse2
Footballguy
Sure, if a single future defined-round, random-slot pick is the only thing that anyone can be traded for ... then a whole lot of players are likely stuck in between values and untradable. But things can be thrown in to even trades out.This is the kind of thing that gets said a lot, but it really doesn't make sense. Unless it's just the classic "my guy's potential
I think it's definitely possible for a guy to have a value that is more than a random future 2nd, but less than a future random 1st. So if both sides would take a 1st ,but not give a 1st, and both sides would give a 2nd, but not take a 2nd, then that kind of leaves him stuck on whichever team happens to already have him.
I would pay a 2nd to get Cook, but would not take a 2nd to trade him away. Likewise I would take a 1st if I had Cook, but would not give a 1st to get him. So if I were to trade with myself there would be no deal there, even though I value him the same whether I have him or not.
Sure there are things like a projected late 1st vs. a projected early 2nd, but it's still early enough there's too much unknown there and the possibility that late 1st ends up being earlier would squash that difference.
ratbast
Footballguy
each team owner’s evaluation of any player is different.
Because owners of a player typically hold that player in higher regard than owners that don't own the player. It is kind of the reason they have that player rostered. They were/are higher on that player to the point they acquired them. I think that is where the gap comes from.
eighsse2
Footballguy
A group of "truly objective" owners will certainly place varying values on a player based on their own opinions. But why is it so unlikely that an owner who doesn't own Cook would value him at or greater than the Cook owner would? (Other than of course the fact that the Cook owner did in fact choose to acquire Cook at some point, which probably indicates a higher-than-average value placed on Cook, but not necessarily.)
I am not sure if they value them necessarily differently but it has more to do with what they are willing to accept to move him or give up to get him. Everyone wants a deal so the owner wants a higher return while the pursuer wants to give up a lesser package.
It's a matter of the risk of potential performance outcomes. It really doesn't have as much to do with the absolute "value" of the player.
eighsse2
Footballguy
While I agree that some single numerical value does not carry all of the information about a player -- two players could have an equal "fantasy value" and yet have vastly different profiles --, I maintain that there isn't anything that should make an owner more inclined to keep a guy that he does own, than he would be inclined to acquire the same guy if he didn't own him. It just doesn't make sense to me. But that is okay. "Agree to disagree", even though I hate that saying
.One last thing though. If a guy wakes up and realizes he has acquired a player -- like Cook, in this instance -- in a trade that he made while in a drunken stupor -- he had no idea he did it until the morning. Regardless of whatever it was that he traded away last night to get Cook, does that suddenly make him look at Cook differently? "Oh, now I have him, so now he's a hold."
eighsse2
Footballguy
Also, the "wanting to gain a bit" seems like it would apply to all players and picks equally. Nothing to do with risk/reward or what players in particular are involved.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
FWIW, all the news I can find is “Vikings open to negotiating salary with Cook”
I’ve seen zero evidence to date that Cook shares in that openness.
I’ve seen zero evidence to date that Cook shares in that openness.
Catbird
Footballguy
I don't think Cook is interested in a pay cut, but he has to be aware that being cut is unlikely to bring him the same salary - unless he already has reason to believe it will.
I think the main thing holding up FF trades is not knowing where he will be playing. For all we know the Chargers or San Fran may end up with him, giving him little or no fantasy value, or he could go to a good spot where he is the lead back (or could remain in MIN and be that). That makes his value hugely dependent going forward. If I think he's worth a 1st in KC or TB or staying in MIN, I don't want to spend that until I know he isn't going to the 49ers. No harm for either side in waiting.
I think the main thing holding up FF trades is not knowing where he will be playing. For all we know the Chargers or San Fran may end up with him, giving him little or no fantasy value, or he could go to a good spot where he is the lead back (or could remain in MIN and be that). That makes his value hugely dependent going forward. If I think he's worth a 1st in KC or TB or staying in MIN, I don't want to spend that until I know he isn't going to the 49ers. No harm for either side in waiting.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Actually, the longer it takes, the better off Minnesota is & the easier their decision becomes. I believe it’s something like after June 1 they save $10 million, and after June 17 they save another two or something like that.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
People generally own players BECAUSE they value them more than others. There.
Biabreakable
Footballguy
It is possible for the same fantasy team owner to value the same player differently for different teams they are managing. Depending on the difference in their goals for each team.
One team may be in a win now type of composition and the manager makes deals based on that goal, whereas another team they have may have the goal of building around younger players.
So this is how the same manager may value the same player differently for different teams they are running.
One team may be in a win now type of composition and the manager makes deals based on that goal, whereas another team they have may have the goal of building around younger players.
So this is how the same manager may value the same player differently for different teams they are running.
It doesn't make someone see him differently but that doesn't mean that what he wants to part with him is the same as what he is willing to give up for him. I think @FreeBaGeL described it perfectly above. I want a 1st to trade him and would only give up a 2nd to get him. I feel the same way. Certain players each year fall into this category that I called "trade purgatory". This is the definition of it. And it doesn't make sense from a logical standpoint but that doesn't change the reality of it.
