What's new
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!

Week 3 REDRAFT Buy Low/ Sell High - Thread (1 Viewer)

Oh yeah no I know that was your post that I was quoting but my message was really for all those that still had a chance to grab Slayton. He is real good.
Weird typo/autocorrect.

Not calling you Juan. That would be weird. I mean. It’s a fine name - I just don’t know if it’s yours. lol 

He is good. He’s just going to be very inconsistent & expectations should be tempered. He’s ideally suited to a WR3/Flex. 

 
Weird typo/autocorrect.

Not calling you Juan. That would be weird. I mean. It’s a fine name - I just don’t know if it’s yours. lol 

He is good. He’s just going to be very inconsistent & expectations should be tempered. He’s ideally suited to a WR3/Flex. 
Oh yeah, you already said that, that's what I was responding to.  I was just giving people a different opinion in case they were thinking about picking him up.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Weird typo/autocorrect.

Not calling you Juan. That would be weird. I mean. It’s a fine name - I just don’t know if it’s yours. lol 

He is good. He’s just going to be very inconsistent & expectations should be tempered. He’s ideally suited to a WR3/Flex. 
I would love to have him as my flex.  I see him more as a WR2 moving forward so if you can put that in your flex you are ahead of the game. 

 
I would love to have him as my flex.  I see him more as a WR2 moving forward so if you can put that in your flex you are ahead of the game. 
Let’s revisit this in about week 7 and see if he’s putting up consistent WR2 numbers. 

For me he’d have to be better than JJSS, Ridley, Crowder & a healthy Parker to sniff my lineup. And when Miles Sanders comes back he’d have to be better than Mostert too (after Zeke/Sanders at RB) to be my flex.

i realize not all teams have that luxury, but given the wild swings Slayton had last year he’s ideally a flex player. You could get 1/4/0 or 8/140/2 or literally anything in between. 

 
I'd probably try to package, but you might be right. I really do question of he can stay healthy. Potential will only get you so far. Maybe I seek and maybe I'm wrong.
If you were looking to buy low on Fuller, the time to do that might be after this week vs the ravens. Can’t imagine him having a great game against that defense but ya never know.

I think Fuller is neither a buy low nor sell high after week 1. He put up very respectable PPR numbers, commensurate with his draft disposition. 

His value swings have to do with health. His ADP legit reflected that. So to sell high you need to wait for a breakout game, preferably after 3-4 decent injury-free ones so he has a healthy track record. 

To buy low on him, you need him to come up gimpy after a bad game against the Ravens.

Theres not much in-between. Week 1, you get draft pick value at best IMO. If I’m an owner I hold. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ok - I guess that one catch skyrocketed his value.
His value before this week's game is irrelevant to the discussion.  That's the thing many folks don't get.

If Player X's value was 200 yesterday, 150 today, and will be 100 tomorrow, then today is a sell high day (assuming you don't have a time machine that can take you back to yesterday).

 
His value before this week's game is irrelevant to the discussion.  That's the thing many folks don't get.

If Player X's value was 200 yesterday, 150 today, and will be 100 tomorrow, then today is a sell high day (assuming you don't have a time machine that can take you back to yesterday).
That is assuming that his value will continue to go down.  If a player had a bad week and bounces back for a week then his value would rise so now would not be his "sell high" day.

 
That is assuming that his value will continue to go down.  If a player had a bad week and bounces back for a week then his value would rise so now would not be his "sell high" day.
Selling high implicitly means value will go down.  That's kinda the whole point.

 
Buy low: Dak Prescott, the line will get healthier, and the defense looks mediocre, and is already pretty banged up. Rams defense is really good.

Sell high: Aaron Rodgers, the Vikings defense was the bigger story in my eyes. Rodgers had a couple games like this last year too. 

Buy low: Antonio Gibson, still fully expect him to be Washington's #1 RB. I don't expect them to be running out the clock with leads often.

Sell high: Malcom Brown, probably just had his best game of the year. Akers will likely get more involved, and would have been a sell low, but I doubt Akers owners are selling yet.

Buy low: Brandin Cooks, the Texans are going to be in a lot of shootouts, and somebody besides Fuller stands to benefit. Cooks was banged up, and still ran ahead of Cobb/Stills.

Sell high: Robby Anderson, I would consider DJ Moore a sell low as well. I think this is a team that is going to be pretty random at WR, and won't support multiple guys every week.

Buy low: Rob Gronkowski, he played almost the entire game, and was just missed on a potential TD. I expect his playing time will increase as the year goes on.

Sell high: Dallas Goedert, its tough to sell TE's, but if someone thinks a changing of the guard is happening, its not. There is enough room for both, but I could see someone overpaying.
agree with most of this, but you're kidding yourself if you think Goedert is a sell high. we had 16 chances to say that about him last season, and he still produced. Now they have a contract problem with Ertz, so why would they feature Ertz if the only thing that is going to do is to drive up his market value? as the seasons wears on, I think DG gets more and more and more action, and Ertz gets less and less.It's bargaining power for the iggles front office. also, aside from that, iggles wr corps is a trash heap of bodies. they NEED Goedert.

I'd be selling Gronk - Brady is  a JAG now, and he looked every bit the part on sunday. not sure how an offense that never used the TE position suddenly starts - it's not in Arians to do so.

sell high if you can - James Conner - it's over, Johnnie. this is Snell's offense now - not only is Conner iffy to play week 2, but he has ALWAYS been iffy to play, and he's ALWAYS hurt. like Jack Torrance has ALWAYS been that caretaker at the Overlook Hotel. You don't need Mr Grady to tell you this. Snell is the fantasy league winning f/a pickup of the year. push your chips all in on this.

Buy McKinnon - he looked fresh and spry out there. they have no WRs.they won't for WEEKS! McKinnon is going to be more of a focal point going forward.

Buy Miles Sanders

Buy Deebo Samuel

Nick Chubb - sunday showed us that that he's the stud RB in Cleveland, with a hall pass to sit the bench because of his teams ineptitude on offense. He won't sit vs. cincy on TNF.he'll feast.

AJ Brown 

R. Tannethrill

Sell:

Tom Brady - he couldn't hit the oceean with a beach ball on sunday, had the potential for at least 4 picks. he looked terrible.

Gronk - see Brady above.they're tied together.

K. Hunt 

 
agree with most of this, but you're kidding yourself if you think Goedert is a sell high. we had 16 chances to say that about him last season, and he still produced. Now they have a contract problem with Ertz, so why would they feature Ertz if the only thing that is going to do is to drive up his market value? as the seasons wears on, I think DG gets more and more and more action, and Ertz gets less and less.It's bargaining power for the iggles front office. also, aside from that, iggles wr corps is a trash heap of bodies. they NEED Goedert.

I'd be selling Gronk - Brady is  a JAG now, and he looked every bit the part on sunday. not sure how an offense that never used the TE position suddenly starts - it's not in Arians to do so.

sell high if you can - James Conner - it's over, Johnnie. this is Snell's offense now - not only is Conner iffy to play week 2, but he has ALWAYS been iffy to play, and he's ALWAYS hurt. like Jack Torrance has ALWAYS been that caretaker at the Overlook Hotel. You don't need Mr Grady to tell you this. Snell is the fantasy league winning f/a pickup of the year. push your chips all in on this.

Buy McKinnon - he looked fresh and spry out there. they have no WRs.they won't for WEEKS! McKinnon is going to be more of a focal point going forward.

Buy Miles Sanders

Buy Deebo Samuel

Nick Chubb - sunday showed us that that he's the stud RB in Cleveland, with a hall pass to sit the bench because of his teams ineptitude on offense. He won't sit vs. cincy on TNF.he'll feast.

AJ Brown 

R. Tannethrill

Sell:

Tom Brady - he couldn't hit the oceean with a beach ball on sunday, had the potential for at least 4 picks. he looked terrible.

Gronk - see Brady above.they're tied together.

K. Hunt
Why buy Chubb/sell Hunt?

Look at their stats since Hunt returned last year

If anything on current values it's the opposite

 
agree with most of this, but you're kidding yourself if you think Goedert is a sell high. we had 16 chances to say that about him last season, and he still produced. Now they have a contract problem with Ertz, so why would they feature Ertz if the only thing that is going to do is to drive up his market value? as the seasons wears on, I think DG gets more and more and more action, and Ertz gets less and less.It's bargaining power for the iggles front office. also, aside from that, iggles wr corps is a trash heap of bodies. they NEED Goedert.

I'd be selling Gronk - Brady is  a JAG now, and he looked every bit the part on sunday. not sure how an offense that never used the TE position suddenly starts - it's not in Arians to do so.

sell high if you can - James Conner - it's over, Johnnie. this is Snell's offense now - not only is Conner iffy to play week 2, but he has ALWAYS been iffy to play, and he's ALWAYS hurt. like Jack Torrance has ALWAYS been that caretaker at the Overlook Hotel. You don't need Mr Grady to tell you this. Snell is the fantasy league winning f/a pickup of the year. push your chips all in on this.

Buy McKinnon - he looked fresh and spry out there. they have no WRs.they won't for WEEKS! McKinnon is going to be more of a focal point going forward.

Buy Miles Sanders

Buy Deebo Samuel

Nick Chubb - sunday showed us that that he's the stud RB in Cleveland, with a hall pass to sit the bench because of his teams ineptitude on offense. He won't sit vs. cincy on TNF.he'll feast.

AJ Brown 

R. Tannethrill

Sell:

Tom Brady - he couldn't hit the oceean with a beach ball on sunday, had the potential for at least 4 picks. he looked terrible.

Gronk - see Brady above.they're tied together.

K. Hunt 
I disagree with the Hunt and Chubb analysis. I can link some great articles based on analytics why this would be a bad idea, especially when you consider draft currency. One is an extreme bargain, and the other isn't.

 
agree with most of this, but you're kidding yourself if you think Goedert is a sell high. we had 16 chances to say that about him last season, and he still produced. Now they have a contract problem with Ertz, so why would they feature Ertz if the only thing that is going to do is to drive up his market value? as the seasons wears on, I think DG gets more and more and more action, and Ertz gets less and less.It's bargaining power for the iggles front office. also, aside from that, iggles wr corps is a trash heap of bodies. they NEED Goedert.

Nick Chubb - sunday showed us that that he's the stud RB in Cleveland, with a hall pass to sit the bench because of his teams ineptitude on offense. He won't sit vs. cincy on TNF.he'll feast.
I love Goedert, I just think its unrealistic that he sees this kind of workload all year. The running game will be better, the WR's will be better, and Ertz is still a major weapon. I've got Goedert in dynasty, and the sky is the limit, but in redraft, I think he's a low-end TE1 until Ertz is gone. I was thinking sell high, not sell because he won't be any good.

I agree that Chubb is a buy low, so many people are pumping up Hunt, that Chubb may have come down a lot in people's eyes. Chubb is the better RB, Hunt just had a better week 1, i  a game where the Browns lost by 30 against a great defense. That is likely the worst game Chubb has all season. I like Hunt too, but that gamescript Sunday was basically perfect for him. I could see 25 carries for Chubb against the Bengals. 

 
Selling high implicitly means value will go down.  That's kinda the whole point.
Correct.  The trick is knowing if the player is at their high point or not.  I believe this started with someone saying that a player that had a down day week 1 was a sell high.  The discussion then went into that after a bad day it's not a sell high expecting that the player would have a better day (even if it is just a blip of a better day) bringing his value up for a moment to improve his value for selling. 

Bottom line is each evaluators belief of whether or not a player having a bad day is only going to get worse or if there will be a time of improvement to then sell after a "good" day.   

 
His value before this week's game is irrelevant to the discussion.  That's the thing many folks don't get.

If Player X's value was 200 yesterday, 150 today, and will be 100 tomorrow, then today is a sell high day (assuming you don't have a time machine that can take you back to yesterday).
Respectfully, isn’t what “sell high” means. Selling high is maximizing value from an asset that’s seen a spike due to a recent performance or series of performances. 

What you’re describing is “dumping a diminishing asset”.

To use stocks as an analogy, if a biotech company announced a cure for cancer is in final trials, their $10/share price would jump to $85. A week later the FDA rejects their testing model, and on that news the stock tumbles. When it drops back to $15 if you decide to jump ship & make $5 a share while you can, you’re not “selling high” at $15, you’re “cutting bait”. The sell-high window closed just before the FDA news broke. 

So if player X’s value yesterday was 200 (somethings) and is 150 today & will be 100 tomorrow, you’ve missed the sell-high window (200) and are cutting bait before their value tumbles further. 

Simply put, selling high is a reaction to an event that just happened (an unexpected 3 TD game from Player X), not an anticipation of what’s about to happen (Player X puts up a zero or sprains his ankle the next week, which we can’t know yet). 

The point is perception of value. To sell high there has to be a buyer willing to pay high. And a buyer is only going to buy high if Player X is perceived to have enough magic juice in him to convince that buyer that it wasn’t a 1-off or a fluke & they’re paying perceived value for an asset (one that you, the seller, don’t perceive to be that high in value).

no buyer looks at a player who’s value is already dropping, as in your scenario, and buys high. That’s when buyers try to buy low. 

 
Bottom line is each evaluators belief of whether or not a player having a bad day is only going to get worse or if there will be a time of improvement to then sell after a "good" day.   
This exactly.

or in the case of players with long track records of mediocrity, a series of good days that convince a buyer’s market that it’s not just a flukey 1-off.

Let’s take everyone favorite Patriot, Sony Michel. Everyone knows Sony’s injury history, coach’s RBBC philosophy & track record of fair to middling performance. 

Hypothetically let’s say Burkhead, White & Harris are all out injured. Nothing season-long, but 2-3 week varieties. 

Michele logs 3 straight 100+ yard/4-5 reception games, scoring 5x in that span. But you know Burkhead, Harris & White are all likely to come back in a week. 

Perfect sell-high opportunity. Peak value with assumed reduction, but a large enough sample size that buyers might be interested, despite the track record. 

Of course in RL if this happened, the Michele owner would then get stubborn & hold until his value plummets. :doh:  

 
Hot Sauce Guy said:
Respectfully, isn’t what “sell high” means. Selling high is maximizing value from an asset that’s seen a spike due to a recent performance or series of performances. 

What you’re describing is “dumping a diminishing asset”.

To use stocks as an analogy, if a biotech company announced a cure for cancer is in final trials, their $10/share price would jump to $85. A week later the FDA rejects their testing model, and on that news the stock tumbles. When it drops back to $15 if you decide to jump ship & make $5 a share while you can, you’re not “selling high” at $15, you’re “cutting bait”. The sell-high window closed just before the FDA news broke. 

So if player X’s value yesterday was 200 (somethings) and is 150 today & will be 100 tomorrow, you’ve missed the sell-high window (200) and are cutting bait before their value tumbles further. 

Simply put, selling high is a reaction to an event that just happened (an unexpected 3 TD game from Player X), not an anticipation of what’s about to happen (Player X puts up a zero or sprains his ankle the next week, which we can’t know yet). 

The point is perception of value. To sell high there has to be a buyer willing to pay high. And a buyer is only going to buy high if Player X is perceived to have enough magic juice in him to convince that buyer that it wasn’t a 1-off or a fluke & they’re paying perceived value for an asset (one that you, the seller, don’t perceive to be that high in value).

no buyer looks at a player who’s value is already dropping, as in your scenario, and buys high. That’s when buyers try to buy low. 
Nope.  Value today vs value in the future are the only relevant considerations.

If value today > value in the future, then today is a time to sell high.

Looking backward at what value was yesterday is exactly the mistake folks tend to make.  It's irrelevant.  That opportunity is gone.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nope.  Value today vs value in the future are the only relevant considerations.

If value today > value in the future, then today is a time to sell high.

Looking backward at what value was yesterday is exactly the mistake folks tend to make.  It's irrelevant.  That opportunity is gone.
But you don't know the future value. Because it hasn't happened yet. 

Selling high is the definition of "looking backwards" - you are offering an asset and valuing it based on what it recently did to earn that value. 

Another analogy: You're a car salesman. You have a used 1990 Porsche 911-S. Your prospective client takes it to a mechanic. Mechanic says it checks out 100%. You take the client for a test drive. Client is wow'd by the performance. Your price is peak market value, but client opts to buy it based on 1. the mechanic's eval, and 2. the performance of the car on the test drive. 

The client has no idea if the car is going to break down in a week. The value is based on looking backwards, and is the only relevant consideration. The future doesn't even enter the equation. If the client was concerned about the future of that Porsche, he probably wouldn't be purchasing a 30 year old car.  The future is merely a calculated risk the client is willing to take. 

But the value is 100% based on the recent past performance.

The "present" doesn't exist, but that's a whole other, more philosophical discussion more appropriate for another forum. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nope.  Value today vs value in the future are the only relevant considerations.

If value today > value in the future, then today is a time to sell high.

Looking backward at what value was yesterday is exactly the mistake folks tend to make.  It's irrelevant.  That opportunity is gone.
Realistically the only thing we should be concerned with for fantasy football is future performance.  Nothing else matters because it has already happened.  However, current value is based on each individuals evaluation of past performance as a trend and what they think the future may hold in relation to past performance. 

It is all guess work so "selling high" is in the eye of the beholder but in general most people would have the perception that trying to sell someone after a bad performance is not "selling high" even if the future ends up following the negative trend.  You will only know if you sold high after the future is complete and you compare what you sold for and what the sold player actually performs to. 

It always takes two to make a deal happen.  Someone will think they are buying low while the other thinks he is selling high.  In reality, both may be right based on their perspective. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
But you don't know the future value. Because it hasn't happened yet. 

Selling high is the definition of "looking backwards" - you are offering an asset and valuing it based on what it recently did to earn that value. 

Another analog: You're a car salesman. You have a used 1990 Porsche 911-S. Your prospective client takes it to a mechanic. Mechanic says it checks out 100%. You take the client for a test drive. Client is wow'd by the performance. Your price is peak market value, but client opts to buy it based on 1. the mechanic's eval, and 2. the performance of the car on the test drive. 

The client has no idea if the car is going to break down in a week. The value is based on looking backwards, and is the only relevant consideration. The future doesn't even enter the equation. If the client was concerned about the future of that Porsche, he probably wouldn't be purchasing a 30 year old car.  The future is merely a calculated risk the client is willing to take. 

But the value is 100% based on the recent past performance.

The "present" doesn't exist, but that's a whole other, more philosophical discussion more appropriate for another forum. 
And as I tried to explain, looking backward is precisely the mistake some folks make in this situation.

It should be self-evident, but this whole game is an exercise in predicting the future.  That's what we do on draft day, it's what we do when we put in our waiver claims, and it's what we do when we decide when it's time to sell high on a guy and trade him away.

Do you predict your star WR will be worth less in the future than he is worth right now?  If so, then sell high.  The end. 

Makes no difference what he was worth last season or last week.

 
 but in general most people would have the perception that trying to sell someone after a bad performance is not "selling high" even if the future ends up following the negative trend.  
that’s it exactly. 

In the hypothetical used,  if a player worth “200” drops to “150”, then that player is trending downwards in value. The seller is cutting bait, the buyer is “buying low” by gambling that the player will return to “200” value. 

Selling high is if the player is worth “150” value, then has a performance that spikes his value up to “200”. The buyer is gambling that the player is, in fact, now a “200” player, while the seller is confident he’s selling an asset at a “50” profit (whatever these values mean) 

 
Realistically the only thing we should be concerned with for fantasy football is future performance.  Nothing else matters because it has already happened.  However, current value is based on each individuals evaluation of past performance as a trend and what they think the future may hold in relation to past performance. 

It is all guess work so "selling high" is in the eye of the beholder but in general most people would have the perception that trying to sell someone after a bad performance is not "selling high" even if the future ends up following the negative trend.  You will only know if you sold high after the future is complete and you compare what you sold for and what the sold player actually performs to. 

It always takes two to make a deal happen.  Someone will think they are buying low while the other thinks he is selling high.  In reality, both may be right based on their perspective. 
Exactly on the bolded.

The guy/gal in your league that over/under values players by over-weighting their past performance is exactly the person you want to be trading with.

 
Realistically the only thing we should be concerned with for fantasy football is future performance.  Nothing else matters because it has already happened.  However, current value is based on each individuals evaluation of past performance as a trend and what they think the future may hold in relation to past performance. 

It is all guess work so "selling high" is in the eye of the beholder but in general most people would have the perception that trying to sell someone after a bad performance is not "selling high" even if the future ends up following the negative trend.  You will only know if you sold high after the future is complete and you compare what you sold for and what the sold player actually performs to. 

It always takes two to make a deal happen.  Someone will think they are buying low while the other thinks he is selling high.  In reality, both may be right based on their perspective. 
And those people are doing it wrong.  Take advantage of them.

 
And as I tried to explain, looking backward is precisely the mistake some folks make in this situation.

It should be self-evident, but this whole game is an exercise in predicting the future.  That's what we do on draft day, it's what we do when we put in our waiver claims, and it's what we do when we decide when it's time to sell high on a guy and trade him away.

Do you predict your star WR will be worth less in the future than he is worth right now?  If so, then sell high.  The end. 

Makes no difference what he was worth last season or last week.
This is all true and good, but it’s not “selling high”, and certainly not in the context of this topic. Your very example is one of a player losing value & you then taking less than what you paid in fear that he’ll be worth still less in the future. 

That’s getting out from under a diminishing asset. 

Let’s say you drafted Ingram in the 5th. You sell him today for the equivalent of a 12th before he’s completely worthless. You’re saying that’s a sell high. 

Selling high would be waiting to see if he has a solid week in week 2, and hoping someone believes his value to be that 5th, dismissing week 1 as a fluke. You’ll have successfully sold high off of that performance.

the most recent past is completely relevant as that’s how players are largely valued in these scenarios. The entire concept of “selling high” is based on that. 

 
And those people are doing it wrong.  Take advantage of them.
Of course.   This debate is just semantics at this point.  Everyone is saying the same things but using different terms.  If you think a guy is trending down and will continue to do so try and trade him now.  If you think a guy is trending up try and buy now.  Value is in the eye of the beholder and varies greatly.  If it didn't then nobody would ever get any trades done.

 
This is all true and good, but it’s not “selling high”, and certainly not in the context of this topic. Your very example is one of a player losing value & you then taking less than what you paid in fear that he’ll be worth still less in the future. 

That’s getting out from under a diminishing asset. 

Let’s say you drafted Ingram in the 5th. You sell him today for the equivalent of a 12th before he’s completely worthless. You’re saying that’s a sell high. 

Selling high would be waiting to see if he has a solid week in week 2, and hoping someone believes his value to be that 5th, dismissing week 1 as a fluke. You’ll have successfully sold high off of that performance.

the most recent past is completely relevant as that’s how players are largely valued in these scenarios. The entire concept of “selling high” is based on that. 
If you drafted Ingram in the 5th, sell him for a 12th, and then he becomes worthless, then you successfully "sold high".

If you drafted Ingram in the 5th, sell him for a 12th, and then he becomes worth a 5th again, then you didn't "sell high".  You mis-predicted the future.

 
If you drafted Ingram in the 5th, sell him for a 12th, and then he becomes worthless, then you successfully "sold high".

If you drafted Ingram in the 5th, sell him for a 12th, and then he becomes worth a 5th again, then you didn't "sell high".  You mis-predicted the future.
Wait, what? 
:shock:

GEICO: that’s not how this works. That’s not how any of this works. 
 

/GEICO

 
Of course.   This debate is just semantics at this point.  Everyone is saying the same things but using different terms.  If you think a guy is trending down and will continue to do so try and trade him now.  If you think a guy is trending up try and buy now.  Value is in the eye of the beholder and varies greatly.  If it didn't then nobody would ever get any trades done.
I don't agree that it's just semantics.  Mark Ingram is a good example.  Hot Sauce Guy thinks "selling high" involves waiting for him to regain value.

And that'd work out fine, if he does indeed regain value.

If he keeps losing value instead, then you missed your sell-high chance.

 
Of course.   This debate is just semantics at this point.  Everyone is saying the same things but using different terms.  If you think a guy is trending down and will continue to do so try and trade him now.  If you think a guy is trending up try and buy now.  Value is in the eye of the beholder and varies greatly.  If it didn't then nobody would ever get any trades done.
But that’s not “selling high” - it’s “cutting bait and getting anything you can befor the bottom falls out” 
 

“selling high” has a very specific definition, and that ain’t it. 

 
I don't agree that it's just semantics.  Mark Ingram is a good example.  Hot Sauce Guy thinks "selling high" involves waiting for him to regain value.

And that'd work out fine, if he does indeed regain value.

If he keeps losing value instead, then you missed your sell-high chance.
Not everyone is a "sell high" candidate.  That is where the semantics comes in.  You are saying you see a negative trend where Ingram won't improve his stock so you want to "sell high" now because you don't think his value recovers.  Hot Sauce Guy also agrees you should sell Ingram now if you don't see his stock recovering but he calls it "cutting bait".  You are doing the same thing but just calling it differently.

Now if Hot Sauce Guy thinks that Ingram will rebound so that in his terms he can "sell high" then he is evaluating Ingram differently than you are since you think his value will only decrease thus in your terms "selling high" now.  I believe that if Hot Sauce Guy thinks Ingram will not rebound then he agrees that trading him now to "cut bait" is the right thing to do.

Thus it's just semantics.

 
Except for the part where he keeps calling that “selling high”, which it’s not. At all. Not remotely. lol
Semantics:  used to describe how words can have different meanings for different people, due to their experiential and emotional backgrounds.

i.e.  -  Hot Sauce Guy thinks Ingram is a "cut bait" candidate because his value will only go down; while davearm thinks Ingram is a "sell high" candidate because his value will only go down. 

Semantics......Hot Sauce Guy and davearm are saying the same thing but due to their experiential and emotional backgrounds have different terms for the same event. 

ETA:  It's all in good fun....hahahahah

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Except for the part where he keeps calling that “selling high”, which it’s not. At all. Not remotely. lol
Dude, stop typing and start listening for half a second. 

If today's selling price is higher than what you expect tomorrow's selling price will be, then "sell high" is exactly what you should do today.

If you expect tomorrow's selling price will be higher, then you should hold (or buy more).

In either case, we'll find out tomorrow if you were right.

You keep trying to make this way more complicated than it is.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dude, stop typing and start listening for half a second. 

If today's selling price is higher than what you expect tomorrow's selling price will be, then "selling high" is exactly what you should do today.

If you expect tomorrow's selling price will be higher, then you should hold (or buy more).

In either case, we'll find out tomorrow if you were right.

You keep trying to make this way more complicated than it is.
No, I just fundamentally disagree with your definition of selling high.

your definition requires a crystal ball, a phone call to Ms Cleo & a healthy dose of post hoc ergo propter hoc to know if it was or wasn’t a “sell high”.

My definition is more the classic one for fantasy sports; “player X had a big game that boosted his value, so try to sell now to maximize that value” 

whatever happens in the future is the risk factor built into any such trade.

The seller will always believe the players stock will drop back down, while the buyer is overpaying for an asset they (likely incorrectly) believe is ascending. 

 
No, I just fundamentally disagree with your definition of selling high.

your definition requires a crystal ball, a phone call to Ms Cleo & a healthy dose of post hoc ergo propter hoc to know if it was or wasn’t a “sell high”.

My definition is more the classic one for fantasy sports; “player X had a big game that boosted his value, so try to sell now to maximize that value” 

whatever happens in the future is the risk factor built into any such trade.

The seller will always believe the players stock will drop back down, while the buyer is overpaying for an asset they (likely incorrectly) believe is ascending. 
Well, I tried.

Cheeers!

 
I’ve sent out a few offers across leagues this week. Only one counter.  Nobody panicking or shopping anyone. 
Don’t you hate that?

Same in my league. I have received a few “since he’s worthless, would you take a 3rd rounder?” for RoJo. 

If he’s worthless why ya tryna trade me for him? 
:wall:

 
Is David Montgomery a buy? His value still seems low between last year and the off season groin injury. Sounds like he looked good week 1, PFF had him rated as one the better week 1 rb's.

 
Is David Montgomery a buy? His value still seems low between last year and the off season groin injury. Sounds like he looked good week 1, PFF had him rated as one the better week 1 rb's.
His value is as low as his production. 

Yes, that’s some 2019 bitterness talking.

Honesty don’t know what someone would take for him. Most drafted him in the 5-6 round. I’d read here that he was a fixture in the 3rd in early drafts. 

He’s not a bad target if you need a RB2/flex option, but if the owner wants anything like draft day value I’d be hesitant to pay it 

 
not only is Conner iffy to play week 2, but he has ALWAYS been iffy to play, and he's ALWAYS hurt. like Jack Torrance has ALWAYS been that caretaker at the Overlook Hotel. You don't need Mr Grady to tell you this. Snell is the fantasy league winning f/a pickup of the year. push your chips all in on this.
LOL

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top