What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Why year N draft picks > N+1 draft picks? (1 Viewer)

Footdude

Footballguy
Sorry if this has been discussed before.

Can anyone confidently explain why we see such relative devaluation of future draft picks vs current year draft picks, specifically in dynasty leagues?

I hope others have seen this trend and its not my imagination...

For example, it seems like a year N 2nd round pick has the approximately same trade value as a year N+1 1st round pick.

My ideas are:

1) the human-nature characteristic of "instant gratification"...where we want thing now,now, now.

2) the (hopefully small) fear that a league may fold, leaving you with worthless draft picks

Any other ideas?

Thanks

 
Also if you forecast that the current year's draft class is superior to the following year's draft class.

 
This doesn't always hold true, but for the times that it does, it's similar to why you pay interest in a loan and expect to make money on your investments.

 
I think it is the fact that year N has one more year of return in the foreseeable future . Most people aren't looking 8 years down the road or even 5. They want to win now. This years picks might help with that. Next years picks don't help this year at all.

 
Sorry if this has been discussed before.

Can anyone confidently explain why we see such relative devaluation of future draft picks vs current year draft picks, specifically in dynasty leagues?

I hope others have seen this trend and its not my imagination...

For example, it seems like a year N 2nd round pick has the approximately same trade value as a year N+1 1st round pick.

My ideas are:

1) the human-nature characteristic of "instant gratification"...where we want thing now,now, now.

2) the (hopefully small) fear that a league may fold, leaving you with worthless draft picks

Any other ideas?

Thanks
Why is money worth more today than it is 1 year later?

 
Sorry if this has been discussed before.

Can anyone confidently explain why we see such relative devaluation of future draft picks vs current year draft picks, specifically in dynasty leagues?

I hope others have seen this trend and its not my imagination...

For example, it seems like a year N 2nd round pick has the approximately same trade value as a year N+1 1st round pick.

My ideas are:

1) the human-nature characteristic of "instant gratification"...where we want thing now,now, now.

2) the (hopefully small) fear that a league may fold, leaving you with worthless draft picks

Any other ideas?

Thanks
Why is money worth more today than it is 1 year later?
Analogy doesn't really work in my opinion,

I get why it is the case in dynasty as human nature is to want instant gratification and the known over the unknown. I guess those are the same reasons it happens in the NFL.

That being said, if I was an NFL owner, I would absolutely forbid my GM from making these kinds of trades unless he could provide a really, really strong rationale as to why I should make an exception. I think it is generally crazy to trade a future 3 for a current mid 4th rounder for example. I give the Browns new group a ton of credit for how they handled their first draft...

 
Also the future picks are unknown to some extent. Say in my 10 team league I have the #12 pick (an early second rounder). A team may feel that they are very strong and offer you their first the following year thinking that their first will wind up being the 9 or 10 pick and be willing to make that trade. Another team may realize that they don't have much of a shot and believe they will be a bottom 3-4 team and not want to give up their future 1st for this years #12.

You have to find that guy who's way too confident about his team and trade this year's 3rd or 4th for his 2nd next year.

 
Two main reasons. First is that you actually get a player who scores points out of the deal. If I trade my 2014 1st for Kennan Allen, I'm getting points this year, the other team isn't. Secondly, "next year's pick" is a renewable asset. Come the 2014 draft and there is someone I like, I can work a deal to trade my 2015 pick. There is always an owner rebuilding.

 
While I can agree there may be some aspects like leagues eventually folding before you've gotten the full value of the pick, I don't think that's generally why people do it.

I think people in fantasy accept it fairly blindly because the NFL does it that way. However, I think the main reason the NFL tends to do it that way is that general managers who are worried about losing their jobs are willing to pay a premium price to get a future asset now, when it may help keep them employed.

Because of GMs who are willing to do that, the trade market ends up set there. Then everyone as to pay that price if they want to do such a trade.

Then in fantasy, enough people just follow the NFL's lead that it becomes the market price as well. I don't think it should be though. Barring actually expecting a league to fold soon, I think this year's and next year's picks should be regarded as the same value most of the time. Potential quality of the draft classes, and of course where in the round the future pick will end up should be the driving factors.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
There generally isn't really a compelling reason to give up your 3rd round pick this year for a 3rd round pick next year. So why make the deal unless the team that wants your pick sweetens the pot by making next year's pick higher?

 
It happens in the NFL as well, right? It's not like those teams are only looking at a 3-year horizon or instant gratification, like most FF owners.

There is a simple explanation. The FF owners / NFL teams holding the current pick have an object that is strongly desired by someone else. They hold most of the power in the negotiation, so, no surpise, they extract more value.

The higher the desire of the buyer, the more the seller can extract. That's why you see higher picks fetch more bounty. Usually no one is gonna trade two 6th rounders for one, but you see deals (e.g., Ingram) where two 1st rounders get traded for one.

It's all about the negotiating power of those who hold the desired object.

 
Two main reasons. First is that you actually get a player who scores points out of the deal. If I trade my 2014 1st for Kennan Allen, I'm getting points this year, the other team isn't. Secondly, "next year's pick" is a renewable asset. Come the 2014 draft and there is someone I like, I can work a deal to trade my 2015 pick. There is always an owner rebuilding.
Sounds like your team is living on credit, then. You've apparently always out a future pick(s). Other teams, therefore are always up multiple picks on you.

 
If you believe they are equal value, then answer this: Would you be willing to trade me your 2014 2nd round pick in exchange for my 2016 2nd round pick, straight up?

 
This just happened in one of my leagues

[SIZE=medium]Los Angeles[/SIZE][SIZE=medium] gave up:
Year 2013 Draft Pick 2.04
Year 2013 Draft Pick 2.07
Year 2013 Draft Pick 3.04
Year 2014 Round 3 Draft Pick from Harlem
[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Tennessee[/SIZE][SIZE=medium] gave up:
Year 2013 Draft Pick 2.02
Year 2013 Draft Pick 4.07
Year 2013 Draft Pick 6.10
Year 2014 Round 5 Draft Pick from Tennessee
Year 2014 Round 6 Draft Pick from Tennessee
Year 2014 Round 7 Draft Pick from Tennessee
Year 2015 Round 1 Draft Pick from Tennessee
Year 2015 Round 2 Draft Pick from Tennessee
Year 2015 Round 4 Draft Pick from Tennessee
Year 2015 Round 5 Draft Pick from Tennessee
Year 2015 Round 6 Draft Pick from Tennessee
Year 2015 Round 7 Draft Pick from Tennessee
[/SIZE]

 
This just happened in one of my leagues

Los Angeles gave up:

Year 2013 Draft Pick 2.04

Year 2013 Draft Pick 2.07

Year 2013 Draft Pick 3.04

Year 2014 Round 3 Draft Pick from Harlem

Tennessee gave up:

Year 2013 Draft Pick 2.02

Year 2013 Draft Pick 4.07

Year 2013 Draft Pick 6.10

Year 2014 Round 5 Draft Pick from Tennessee

Year 2014 Round 6 Draft Pick from Tennessee

Year 2014 Round 7 Draft Pick from Tennessee

Year 2015 Round 1 Draft Pick from Tennessee

Year 2015 Round 2 Draft Pick from Tennessee

Year 2015 Round 4 Draft Pick from Tennessee

Year 2015 Round 5 Draft Pick from Tennessee

Year 2015 Round 6 Draft Pick from Tennessee

Year 2015 Round 7 Draft Pick from Tennessee
Tennessee just screwed himself out of future trades.

 
There generally isn't really a compelling reason to give up your 3rd round pick this year for a 3rd round pick next year. So why make the deal unless the team that wants your pick sweetens the pot by making next year's pick higher?
You have to consider roster sizes, and who you would drop in 2013 to roster the pick. Hypothetically if we have small rosters and I have TGonzo, I might be in a spot where I actually want the 2014 pick instead. Extreme example, but it makes the point.

 
There generally isn't really a compelling reason to give up your 3rd round pick this year for a 3rd round pick next year. So why make the deal unless the team that wants your pick sweetens the pot by making next year's pick higher?
You have to consider roster sizes, and who you would drop in 2013 to roster the pick. Hypothetically if we have small rosters and I have TGonzo, I might be in a spot where I actually want the 2014 pick instead. Extreme example, but it makes the point.

 
It happens in the NFL as well, right? It's not like those teams are only looking at a 3-year horizon or instant gratification, like most FF owners.

There is a simple explanation. The FF owners / NFL teams holding the current pick have an object that is strongly desired by someone else. They hold most of the power in the negotiation, so, no surpise, they extract more value.

The higher the desire of the buyer, the more the seller can extract. That's why you see higher picks fetch more bounty. Usually no one is gonna trade two 6th rounders for one, but you see deals (e.g., Ingram) where two 1st rounders get traded for one.

It's all about the negotiating power of those who hold the desired object.
:goodposting: This! As the commercial with the little kids ends: It's not rocket science.

 
There generally isn't really a compelling reason to give up your 3rd round pick this year for a 3rd round pick next year. So why make the deal unless the team that wants your pick sweetens the pot by making next year's pick higher?
You have to consider roster sizes, and who you would drop in 2013 to roster the pick. Hypothetically if we have small rosters and I have TGonzo, I might be in a spot where I actually want the 2014 pick instead. Extreme example, but it makes the point.
For a contract/salary league not even an extreme example. Several times I've worked to push picks from years I did not have much cap room for 1st round rookies to future years where I had expiring contracts freeing up cap.

 
If you believe they are equal value, then answer this: Would you be willing to trade me your 2014 2nd round pick in exchange for my 2016 2nd round pick, straight up?
If it were my league, absolutely. I easily have the worst average draft spot over the history of the league. It doesn't come down to "future is worth less". It comes down to some other factor. Cap room, the timing of filling a need for a championship run, strength of the rookie class or what I said... how likely the pick is earlier or later.

 
Two main reasons. First is that you actually get a player who scores points out of the deal. If I trade my 2014 1st for Kennan Allen, I'm getting points this year, the other team isn't. Secondly, "next year's pick" is a renewable asset. Come the 2014 draft and there is someone I like, I can work a deal to trade my 2015 pick. There is always an owner rebuilding.
Sounds like your team is living on credit, then. You've apparently always out a future pick(s). Other teams, therefore are always up multiple picks on you.
It works out well for me. I Like early picks and thats it. For everyone else in a league who stockpiles mid round picks, they miss all the quality FA pickups early in year "hanging on to their prospects". Then I move try to move the quality pickups during the bye weeks to get some mid round picks that I trade again. Its a constant cycle, but it works for me.

 
If you believe they are equal value, then answer this: Would you be willing to trade me your 2014 2nd round pick in exchange for my 2016 2nd round pick, straight up?
Screw that, make the example even more extreme. If people really question why year N draft picks > year N+1 draft picks, then by extension people should similarly question why year N draft picks > N + 10 (or infinity) draft picks.

So why not trade your 2013 1st rd pick for a 1st in year 2023? Just out of fear that your league will fold?

 
If you believe they are equal value, then answer this: Would you be willing to trade me your 2014 2nd round pick in exchange for my 2016 2nd round pick, straight up?
Screw that, make the example even more extreme. If people really question why year N draft picks > year N+1 draft picks, then by extension people should similarly question why year N draft picks > N + 10 (or infinity) draft picks.

So why not trade your 2013 1st rd pick for a 1st in year 2023? Just out of fear that your league will fold?
There is some value difference, I just view it as very small. Many view it as a large difference to get a pick a year later.

I have built up some teams well because others devaluue the future picks much more than I do.

Any chance I get I will trade a late 1st (like picks 10,11, or 12) for a future 1st. I will always try to do it with a team I think has a good chance to miss the playoffs.

And trading just because it is "equal" value is silly. If you said would I prefer pick 15 in year 2013, or year 2016, of course I would pick year 2013. Now if you say pick 24 year 2013 or pick 13 year 2016.................I will take the pick in year 2016.

 
If you believe they are equal value, then answer this: Would you be willing to trade me your 2014 2nd round pick in exchange for my 2016 2nd round pick, straight up?
Screw that, make the example even more extreme. If people really question why year N draft picks > year N+1 draft picks, then by extension people should similarly question why year N draft picks > N + 10 (or infinity) draft picks.

So why not trade your 2013 1st rd pick for a 1st in year 2023? Just out of fear that your league will fold?
There is some value difference, I just view it as very small. Many view it as a large difference to get a pick a year later.

I have built up some teams well because others devaluue the future picks much more than I do.

Any chance I get I will trade a late 1st (like picks 10,11, or 12) for a future 1st. I will always try to do it with a team I think has a good chance to miss the playoffs.

And trading just because it is "equal" value is silly. If you said would I prefer pick 15 in year 2013, or year 2016, of course I would pick year 2013. Now if you say pick 24 year 2013 or pick 13 year 2016.................I will take the pick in year 2016.
Well sure, trading away a late 1st for a future 1st is potentially good value -- because of the possibility that you get a top-3 pick. But that wasn't the point of this thread.

 
I think the main reason is that you can put a FACE to the NOW pick, but not the the N+1 pick.

For example, trading 2.06 for next year's first......2.06 this year might be Christine Michael, Travis Kelce, Markus Wheaton........next year's first is just a number at this time. An unknown.

Trading for next year's draft picks is my favorite trick, especially if you already accumulated several firsts for this year. For example, had an extra pick this year 1.09.......traded that pick to the worst team in the league for his next year first + 3.01. This team has no shot at making the playoffs so it should be a top 4 pick, if not 1.01 next year. At 3.01, I was able to get EJ Manuel. I find myself continuously rolling over 1st round picks, while accumulating picks at the same time.

 
I think the main reason is that you can put a FACE to the NOW pick, but not the the N+1 pick.

For example, trading 2.06 for next year's first......2.06 this year might be Christine Michael, Travis Kelce, Markus Wheaton........next year's first is just a number at this time. An unknown.

Trading for next year's draft picks is my favorite trick, especially if you already accumulated several firsts for this year. For example, had an extra pick this year 1.09.......traded that pick to the worst team in the league for his next year first + 3.01. This team has no shot at making the playoffs so it should be a top 4 pick, if not 1.01 next year. At 3.01, I was able to get EJ Manuel. I find myself continuously rolling over 1st round picks, while accumulating picks at the same time.
Yeah, that must be the only reason

 
"Instant gratification", I tend to think means getting less now instead of more later.

So pick 15 this year for pick 15 in 2016 isn't "instant gratification".

 
The whole thing with 'putting a face on it' and 'instant gratification' is just silly. NFL teams overpay routinely for current draft picks. FBG regulars, probably many who read this thread and think strategically about their rosters, also pay or demand high compensation for current picks on a regular basis. You are really telling me all these NFL and FF peeps are suckers who want to put a face on a pick and / or make a random feel-good pick?

It's all about negotiating power. I decide I really like a player today - you hold the pick to get it - I have to pay you relatively more for that pick than its true value in a vaccuum. Simple market economics. Case in point: Mark Ingram trade.

If you still don't agree, imagine a rookie class so bad that no FF owner particularly likes any player. The valuations then would be reversed. The holders of future picks would be able to extract more current picks because people would desire the future players more than the current ones. Again, simple market economics.

 
There is definitely a generic value difference between them. Taking out ALL other factors (draft class, expected draft slot etc), pretty much anyone will prefer this year to next year.

But I agree that the premium some teams (NFL and FF) pay for that difference is sometimes way too hefty for my taste. I'd generally rather give up the current pick to get a "better" future pick(s). It takes a lot of discipline though. The "instant" gratification factor as well as having convinced yourself the guy you are looking at is going to be the next big thing are hard to get away from.

 
Its about the higher value of starting a career this year compared to next. Lets agree that picking the #2 WR this year or next are pretty much equal without more information. Those two picks will have pretty much equal career numbers, and so over the long haul will have identical outlooks in total FF points.

But, if I pick the #2 WR now, he scores some number of points in '13. Assuming a solid and positive career for the guy (why else pick him?) lets say 600 yards and 4 TDs as a rookie. I get that this year. If you took the 2014 pick, you get 0. He's not a huge contributor as a rook, but might help. That could change my season ranking a spot or two. If needed in a critical spot, he might be the difference in a game and might decide whether or not I make the playoffs - but probably not a huge difference. Next year, I typically get maybe 900 yards and 6 TDs while you pick your rookie and get 600 and 4 TDs. I have a playable starter and you don't. Big plus. Then, in the third year, let's say he starts to shine and I get 1,100 yards and 9 TDs. You get 900 yards and 6. Again, a solid advantage for me. Then, in year 4, your huy reaches the same plateau and we get about the same return and parallel totals for another 5-6 years. Then, somewhere around year 9, my guy starts to slide into irrelevance a year sooner than yours.

I want the additional points in each of years 1, 2 and 3 more than I want a similar advantage in years 10, 11 and 12. I think the same decision is made by every NFL team and every well considered fantasy team. You can call those two guys equal value over the long haul if you want to. I say these next 3 or 5 or 9 years while my value has been far above yours is real and significant value compared to extra value beginning in 2024.

If you take trading into account, the difference is even greater. My guy is worth more in years 1, 2 and 3 because of greater production and expected production in each year. In years 4-7, at least, they will have virtually identical trade value. If we trade our guys at the same time, I get the extra benefit in years 1, 2 1nd 3 which you never make up. You only gain that back if we both keep both guys until their careers to wind down and that is a rare situation. In every other case, having the guy as a rookie this year is far better than having him as a rookie next year.

 
The whole thing with 'putting a face on it' and 'instant gratification' is just silly. NFL teams overpay routinely for current draft picks. FBG regulars, probably many who read this thread and think strategically about their rosters, also pay or demand high compensation for current picks on a regular basis. You are really telling me all these NFL and FF peeps are suckers who want to put a face on a pick and / or make a random feel-good pick?

It's all about negotiating power. I decide I really like a player today - you hold the pick to get it - I have to pay you relatively more for that pick than its true value in a vaccuum. Simple market economics. Case in point: Mark Ingram trade.

If you still don't agree, imagine a rookie class so bad that no FF owner particularly likes any player. The valuations then would be reversed. The holders of future picks would be able to extract more current picks because people would desire the future players more than the current ones. Again, simple market economics.
Hahaha!!!! You say that putting a face to the now pick is 'SILLY'.....then you go on to say, 'I decided I really like a PLAYER today'.........that is putting a face to the pick. You just contradicted yourself. A good example might be Vincent Brown a few years back.....he was a late first round/early 2nd round pick. At that time you may have been willing to give up a next year's first round pick for a PLAYER you love......there is a face to the now pick, but next year's pick you have no idea who it could be. Maybe your team did horrible and it was a top 4 pick, which could have been Doug Martin the following year....however that pick was faceless.

Would you trade a future first for Vincent Brown?

Would you trade Doug Martin for Vincent Brown?

The face as ALOT to do with it. An you proved me right by your response......you are giving up something from the future for a PLAYER now....a face.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well said Catbird.

Another way to look at is for example Marcus Lattimore. While many have Lattimore ranked pretty highly hoping he will fully recover from his injuries but you know you will get zero from him in 2013. He may time share in 2014(if healthy) and only be spot startable. You would be hoping he takes over the lead role by 2015.

Now compare that with any other rookie RB with a good opportunity to start and you should rightfully have those players ranked ahead of Lattimore even if you think Lattimore is the better talent. Why? Because those players could produce for you this season. Their upside may not be as high as Lattimore but the production you get this season, and possibly next is more useful than a spot start in 2014 and maybe a starter in 2015.

Sometimes putting a face to a pick helps.

For the same reason Lattimore is slightly discounted in value for 2013 because you know he wont start. If he were fully healthy, in a great situation like SF Oline he would likely be drafted higher than the other RB this season because he would be closer to that time share THIS season and starting in 2014.

 
Its about the higher value of starting a career this year compared to next. Lets agree that picking the #2 WR this year or next are pretty much equal without more information. Those two picks will have pretty much equal career numbers, and so over the long haul will have identical outlooks in total FF points.

But, if I pick the #2 WR now, he scores some number of points in '13. Assuming a solid and positive career for the guy (why else pick him?) lets say 600 yards and 4 TDs as a rookie. I get that this year. If you took the 2014 pick, you get 0. He's not a huge contributor as a rook, but might help. That could change my season ranking a spot or two. If needed in a critical spot, he might be the difference in a game and might decide whether or not I make the playoffs - but probably not a huge difference. Next year, I typically get maybe 900 yards and 6 TDs while you pick your rookie and get 600 and 4 TDs. I have a playable starter and you don't. Big plus. Then, in the third year, let's say he starts to shine and I get 1,100 yards and 9 TDs. You get 900 yards and 6. Again, a solid advantage for me. Then, in year 4, your huy reaches the same plateau and we get about the same return and parallel totals for another 5-6 years. Then, somewhere around year 9, my guy starts to slide into irrelevance a year sooner than yours.

I want the additional points in each of years 1, 2 and 3 more than I want a similar advantage in years 10, 11 and 12. I think the same decision is made by every NFL team and every well considered fantasy team. You can call those two guys equal value over the long haul if you want to. I say these next 3 or 5 or 9 years while my value has been far above yours is real and significant value compared to extra value beginning in 2024.

If you take trading into account, the difference is even greater. My guy is worth more in years 1, 2 and 3 because of greater production and expected production in each year. In years 4-7, at least, they will have virtually identical trade value. If we trade our guys at the same time, I get the extra benefit in years 1, 2 1nd 3 which you never make up. You only gain that back if we both keep both guys until their careers to wind down and that is a rare situation. In every other case, having the guy as a rookie this year is far better than having him as a rookie next year.
I understand fully what you are saying here and I agree with you, but I think you are missing one key point that the orginal poster was discussing. The going cost of a 2nd round NOW is a 1st round pick next year. So you won't be able to get WR#2 in the 2nd round, but you might be giving up WR#2 in year N+1 with that first rounder you are giving up. The key point is that you are gaining a pick now, that will likely be much later in the draft than you would be picking next year.

 
"The going cost of a 2nd round NOW is a 1st round pick next year. So you won't be able to get WR#2 in the 2nd round, but you might be giving up WR#2 in year N+1 with that first rounder you are giving up. The key point is that you are gaining a pick now, that will likely be much later in the draft than you would be picking next year."

FWIW, in my dynasty leagues, I usually cannot swing a trade for a next year 1st, in exchange for a current year 2nd. I can sometimes get a next year 2nd for a current year 3rd, but that is usually with a team looking to rebuild.

 
"The going cost of a 2nd round NOW is a 1st round pick next year. So you won't be able to get WR#2 in the 2nd round, but you might be giving up WR#2 in year N+1 with that first rounder you are giving up. The key point is that you are gaining a pick now, that will likely be much later in the draft than you would be picking next year."

FWIW, in my dynasty leagues, I usually cannot swing a trade for a next year 1st, in exchange for a current year 2nd. I can sometimes get a next year 2nd for a current year 3rd, but that is usually with a team looking to rebuild.
That's unusual and kind of stinks for you. All the leagues I play in tend to, as the original poster stated, give up a round high next year for a round lower pick this year. If people aren't biting, I use the trick of trading a late first round pick to a needy team (ie bad team) for their future first. Maybe you can try that.

For example:

- I gave Ryan Matthews for pick 1.11 to acquire a late first.

- I then traded 1.11 to the worst team in the league for his 2014 FIRST at pick 3.01

So in all likelihood I just turned Ryan Mathews into a top 3 rookie pick in 2014 and I also was able to get EJ Manuel at pick 3.01

 
Like with most things in FF, I don't think you can apply any one formula to every situation, I think there are times where it would be stupid to trade for a pick this year and give up a pick a round earlier next year, but I also think there are plenty of situations where it makes perfect sense to do that exact thing, you can't say that its always a bad move or that you'd never do it. A few points:

A) How about if a player you had graded a round earlier falls. If I've got a guy rated as a mid 2nd rounder and for some reason he's still there at say 3.03 and someone is willing to trade me 3.03 for my 2nd next year, why not make that trade? Especially if I expect to be a playoff team, I'm getting a guy I had rated as a 2nd rounder this year in exchange for giving up a (likely late) 2nd rounder I can't use for another 12 months. There is value in that IMO.

B) If I'm confident I'm a playoff team, it might make sense. If I'm say 90% certain that my pick next year is going to be in the 1.10 to 1.12 ballpark and I can get 2.03 this year for my 1st next year, is there really going to be that big of a difference in value between the guys you can get at the end of the 1st vs. the guys at the beginning of the 2nd? If I can get a player of a similar value on my roster a full 12 months sooner, there is value in that, of course there is some inherent risk that my pick could end up earlier, so I'd have to really love my team, quite obviously someone who isn't a virtual lock for the playoffs should not be trading away a 1st next year for a 2nd this year if next years pick has a reasonably good chance of being a top 5 pick.

C) I tend to think this formula makes perfect sense for mid-late round picks. There is a much bigger value difference from the 1st to the 2nd round than there is between other rounds. You can make an argument that its rarely a good idea to trade a future 1st for a 2nd now (an plenty of people won't make that trade for that very reason), but what about in the case of 3rds/4ths/5ths? I mean only a handful of gems are usually found in the mid/late rounds, I don't think there is a huge difference between the value of guys in the 3rd vs. the 4th. If there is a guy I really want that falls to the 4th this year and I have room to roster him, I have no problem giving up what I expect to be a late 3rd next year in exchange, I think the value of getting that player 12 months earlier offsets the difference in value between the 3rd and the 4th round talent level. Its much harder to offset the value between the 1st and the 2nd.

D) Just look at it from the perspective of the guy you are trying to get this years pick from, what incentive does he have to trade you a pick this year for a pick next year if he's not getting anything out of it. If a guy falls to the 3rd round that I really want and I offer someone a 3rd rounder the following year, they are likely to tell me to piss off, why would they want to do that? I mean except in the case of maybe someone that doesn't have the roster room for all their picks this year and is looking to offload a couple of later round picks for equivalent picks next year rather than waste them on players they are going to have to cut this year anyway, but that's rare and in most cases you're not likely to find someone willing to give up their pick this year in exchange for the same round next year, so if you really want a player now, you might have to be willing to give up a little earlier pick next year.

 
Its about the higher value of starting a career this year compared to next. Lets agree that picking the #2 WR this year or next are pretty much equal without more information. Those two picks will have pretty much equal career numbers, and so over the long haul will have identical outlooks in total FF points.

But, if I pick the #2 WR now, he scores some number of points in '13. Assuming a solid and positive career for the guy (why else pick him?) lets say 600 yards and 4 TDs as a rookie. I get that this year. If you took the 2014 pick, you get 0. He's not a huge contributor as a rook, but might help. That could change my season ranking a spot or two. If needed in a critical spot, he might be the difference in a game and might decide whether or not I make the playoffs - but probably not a huge difference. Next year, I typically get maybe 900 yards and 6 TDs while you pick your rookie and get 600 and 4 TDs. I have a playable starter and you don't. Big plus. Then, in the third year, let's say he starts to shine and I get 1,100 yards and 9 TDs. You get 900 yards and 6. Again, a solid advantage for me. Then, in year 4, your huy reaches the same plateau and we get about the same return and parallel totals for another 5-6 years. Then, somewhere around year 9, my guy starts to slide into irrelevance a year sooner than yours.

I want the additional points in each of years 1, 2 and 3 more than I want a similar advantage in years 10, 11 and 12. I think the same decision is made by every NFL team and every well considered fantasy team. You can call those two guys equal value over the long haul if you want to. I say these next 3 or 5 or 9 years while my value has been far above yours is real and significant value compared to extra value beginning in 2024.

If you take trading into account, the difference is even greater. My guy is worth more in years 1, 2 and 3 because of greater production and expected production in each year. In years 4-7, at least, they will have virtually identical trade value. If we trade our guys at the same time, I get the extra benefit in years 1, 2 1nd 3 which you never make up. You only gain that back if we both keep both guys until their careers to wind down and that is a rare situation. In every other case, having the guy as a rookie this year is far better than having him as a rookie next year.
I understand fully what you are saying here and I agree with you, but I think you are missing one key point that the orginal poster was discussing. The going cost of a 2nd round NOW is a 1st round pick next year. So you won't be able to get WR#2 in the 2nd round, but you might be giving up WR#2 in year N+1 with that first rounder you are giving up. The key point is that you are gaining a pick now, that will likely be much later in the draft than you would be picking next year.
What about giving up pick 1.10 this year for pick 1.09 next year?

 
While I can agree there may be some aspects like leagues eventually folding before you've gotten the full value of the pick, I don't think that's generally why people do it.

I think people in fantasy accept it fairly blindly because the NFL does it that way. However, I think the main reason the NFL tends to do it that way is that general managers who are worried about losing their jobs are willing to pay a premium price to get a future asset now, when it may help keep them employed.

Because of GMs who are willing to do that, the trade market ends up set there. Then everyone as to pay that price if they want to do such a trade.

Then in fantasy, enough people just follow the NFL's lead that it becomes the market price as well. I don't think it should be though. Barring actually expecting a league to fold soon, I think this year's and next year's picks should be regarded as the same value most of the time. Potential quality of the draft classes, and of course where in the round the future pick will end up should be the driving factors.
I agree that NFL GMs have different incentives, and therefore devaluing future picks might be rational for them but not for fantasy owners.

I disagree that most fantasy owners devalue future picks just because they're aping NFL execs. I think it probably has a lot more to do with psychology; more specifically, construal level theory (explains how priorities change based on temporal distance, and goes a long way towards explaining why draft picks change in value in predictable ways throughout the season) and hyperbolic discounting (bias towards immediate payoffs over delayed payoffs).

Some sort of devaluation is rational. If your league involves money, then you have to consider the time-value of that money. You also have to account for the chance of the league folding, as has been mentioned. Finally, if you played 20 seasons and won a championship in year 1, you would have 19 more years to enjoy the status that resulted from being a champion. If you won in year 20, you would not be able to enjoy being a champion at all. Winning earlier is preferable to winning later because it gives you more enjoyment over the lifetime of your fantasy career. Accounting for all of this, it makes sense that, all else being equal, a pick this year is worth more than a perfectly equivalent pick next year, and even more when compared to a pick the year after. The question isn't whether there should be a discount, the question is whether the discount should be as large as it is in practice. And in practice, I would say that my experience suggests that the actual pick discount is much higher than it should be.

 
While I can agree there may be some aspects like leagues eventually folding before you've gotten the full value of the pick, I don't think that's generally why people do it.

I think people in fantasy accept it fairly blindly because the NFL does it that way. However, I think the main reason the NFL tends to do it that way is that general managers who are worried about losing their jobs are willing to pay a premium price to get a future asset now, when it may help keep them employed.

Because of GMs who are willing to do that, the trade market ends up set there. Then everyone as to pay that price if they want to do such a trade.

Then in fantasy, enough people just follow the NFL's lead that it becomes the market price as well. I don't think it should be though. Barring actually expecting a league to fold soon, I think this year's and next year's picks should be regarded as the same value most of the time. Potential quality of the draft classes, and of course where in the round the future pick will end up should be the driving factors.
I agree that NFL GMs have different incentives, and therefore devaluing future picks might be rational for them but not for fantasy owners.

I disagree that most fantasy owners devalue future picks just because they're aping NFL execs. I think it probably has a lot more to do with psychology; more specifically, construal level theory (explains how priorities change based on temporal distance, and goes a long way towards explaining why draft picks change in value in predictable ways throughout the season) and hyperbolic discounting (bias towards immediate payoffs over delayed payoffs).

Some sort of devaluation is rational. If your league involves money, then you have to consider the time-value of that money. You also have to account for the chance of the league folding, as has been mentioned. Finally, if you played 20 seasons and won a championship in year 1, you would have 19 more years to enjoy the status that resulted from being a champion. If you won in year 20, you would not be able to enjoy being a champion at all. Winning earlier is preferable to winning later because it gives you more enjoyment over the lifetime of your fantasy career. Accounting for all of this, it makes sense that, all else being equal, a pick this year is worth more than a perfectly equivalent pick next year, and even more when compared to a pick the year after. The question isn't whether there should be a discount, the question is whether the discount should be as large as it is in practice. And in practice, I would say that my experience suggests that the actual pick discount is much higher than it should be.
I've posted this before, but some very back-of-the-envelope calculations I've done in my league suggest that the "discount rate" most owners apply is anywhere from 20-40% per year. That's a big discount rate.

 
The whole thing with 'putting a face on it' and 'instant gratification' is just silly. NFL teams overpay routinely for current draft picks. FBG regulars, probably many who read this thread and think strategically about their rosters, also pay or demand high compensation for current picks on a regular basis. You are really telling me all these NFL and FF peeps are suckers who want to put a face on a pick and / or make a random feel-good pick?

It's all about negotiating power. I decide I really like a player today - you hold the pick to get it - I have to pay you relatively more for that pick than its true value in a vaccuum. Simple market economics. Case in point: Mark Ingram trade.

If you still don't agree, imagine a rookie class so bad that no FF owner particularly likes any player. The valuations then would be reversed. The holders of future picks would be able to extract more current picks because people would desire the future players more than the current ones. Again, simple market economics.
Exactly, and I try to make it a point to be the team trading that current pick to gain value.

Except that last part, this draft was viewed by many as "weak" but I still saw a ton of deals picking up extra value by trading down and getting future picks. Not as much as other years, but still quite a bit. WHich I guess adds to year earlier point I suppose

 
Its about the higher value of starting a career this year compared to next. Lets agree that picking the #2 WR this year or next are pretty much equal without more information. Those two picks will have pretty much equal career numbers, and so over the long haul will have identical outlooks in total FF points.

But, if I pick the #2 WR now, he scores some number of points in '13. Assuming a solid and positive career for the guy (why else pick him?) lets say 600 yards and 4 TDs as a rookie. I get that this year. If you took the 2014 pick, you get 0. He's not a huge contributor as a rook, but might help. That could change my season ranking a spot or two. If needed in a critical spot, he might be the difference in a game and might decide whether or not I make the playoffs - but probably not a huge difference. Next year, I typically get maybe 900 yards and 6 TDs while you pick your rookie and get 600 and 4 TDs. I have a playable starter and you don't. Big plus. Then, in the third year, let's say he starts to shine and I get 1,100 yards and 9 TDs. You get 900 yards and 6. Again, a solid advantage for me. Then, in year 4, your huy reaches the same plateau and we get about the same return and parallel totals for another 5-6 years. Then, somewhere around year 9, my guy starts to slide into irrelevance a year sooner than yours.

I want the additional points in each of years 1, 2 and 3 more than I want a similar advantage in years 10, 11 and 12. I think the same decision is made by every NFL team and every well considered fantasy team. You can call those two guys equal value over the long haul if you want to. I say these next 3 or 5 or 9 years while my value has been far above yours is real and significant value compared to extra value beginning in 2024.

If you take trading into account, the difference is even greater. My guy is worth more in years 1, 2 and 3 because of greater production and expected production in each year. In years 4-7, at least, they will have virtually identical trade value. If we trade our guys at the same time, I get the extra benefit in years 1, 2 1nd 3 which you never make up. You only gain that back if we both keep both guys until their careers to wind down and that is a rare situation. In every other case, having the guy as a rookie this year is far better than having him as a rookie next year.
I understand fully what you are saying here and I agree with you, but I think you are missing one key point that the orginal poster was discussing. The going cost of a 2nd round NOW is a 1st round pick next year. So you won't be able to get WR#2 in the 2nd round, but you might be giving up WR#2 in year N+1 with that first rounder you are giving up. The key point is that you are gaining a pick now, that will likely be much later in the draft than you would be picking next year.
What about giving up pick 1.10 this year for pick 1.09 next year?
In that case I think it depends on what your thoughts are on the strength of this year's draft class versus next year's draft class and what your needs are. For example, this year IMO was strong at WR. If your needs are then at WR and you are able to get Keenan Allen at 1.10, that might be as good if not better than any of the WR you'll get at pick 1.09 next year. How do you know it's going to be 1.09? Is it a goo team that you are trading to? I don't think I'd ever trade a 1st round pick this year to a team with a chance of having an equal or even worse pick next year.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Its about the higher value of starting a career this year compared to next. Lets agree that picking the #2 WR this year or next are pretty much equal without more information. Those two picks will have pretty much equal career numbers, and so over the long haul will have identical outlooks in total FF points.

But, if I pick the #2 WR now, he scores some number of points in '13. Assuming a solid and positive career for the guy (why else pick him?) lets say 600 yards and 4 TDs as a rookie. I get that this year. If you took the 2014 pick, you get 0. He's not a huge contributor as a rook, but might help. That could change my season ranking a spot or two. If needed in a critical spot, he might be the difference in a game and might decide whether or not I make the playoffs - but probably not a huge difference. Next year, I typically get maybe 900 yards and 6 TDs while you pick your rookie and get 600 and 4 TDs. I have a playable starter and you don't. Big plus. Then, in the third year, let's say he starts to shine and I get 1,100 yards and 9 TDs. You get 900 yards and 6. Again, a solid advantage for me. Then, in year 4, your huy reaches the same plateau and we get about the same return and parallel totals for another 5-6 years. Then, somewhere around year 9, my guy starts to slide into irrelevance a year sooner than yours.

I want the additional points in each of years 1, 2 and 3 more than I want a similar advantage in years 10, 11 and 12. I think the same decision is made by every NFL team and every well considered fantasy team. You can call those two guys equal value over the long haul if you want to. I say these next 3 or 5 or 9 years while my value has been far above yours is real and significant value compared to extra value beginning in 2024.

If you take trading into account, the difference is even greater. My guy is worth more in years 1, 2 and 3 because of greater production and expected production in each year. In years 4-7, at least, they will have virtually identical trade value. If we trade our guys at the same time, I get the extra benefit in years 1, 2 1nd 3 which you never make up. You only gain that back if we both keep both guys until their careers to wind down and that is a rare situation. In every other case, having the guy as a rookie this year is far better than having him as a rookie next year.
I understand fully what you are saying here and I agree with you, but I think you are missing one key point that the orginal poster was discussing. The going cost of a 2nd round NOW is a 1st round pick next year. So you won't be able to get WR#2 in the 2nd round, but you might be giving up WR#2 in year N+1 with that first rounder you are giving up. The key point is that you are gaining a pick now, that will likely be much later in the draft than you would be picking next year.
What about giving up pick 1.10 this year for pick 1.09 next year?
Well, since you can never KNOW what the future pick will be, it's hard to say.

If two draft classes are essentially equal in talent in the top this year and next, I dont make that move. I keep pick 10 this year (even though I almost always would trade pick 10 for a 2014 1st). I would hoever deal pick 10 to a good team for a 2014 1st, because it is POSSIBLE they falter and get me a high pick (especially in the FFPC format where a team who barely misses the playoffs has a very good chance to get the #1 pick)

 
Good post NJ. I just wanted to add to your point B-C that the NFL does much the same thing. They might trade a late 1st this season for a 1st next season (Patriots) but they are still going to try to get something else, another later pick along with the deal. You do not see these deals with the higher 1st round picks though. Only the bottom 3rd of the 1st round usually. The NFL draft is 32 picks while most FF leagues are 12. This gets balanced out somewhat because in FF you are only drafting the skill positions, maybe defensive players if your league is IDP. But generally a late 1st this season could be moved for a 1st next season and that is pretty fair value.

The 2nd round rookie picks and later the round upgrade would be something like 2nd and 5th for 2nd and 3rd next season. 3rd for a 2nd next season. 4th for a 3rd next season. Early 2nd and 4th(or 3rd next season) for 1st next season. These are the types of deals that make sense I think.

Another NFL trade this season was pick 29 to the Vikings for their 2nd, 3rd,4th. I would have liked this better for the Vikings if that 3rd round pick was in 2014 but the Patriots may not have been willing to do that. I certainly hope they asked. I do not think a trade like this would be accepted in FF because of the premium of 1st round picks. But I could see a deal like 2nd, 2nd next season, 3rd, 4th for a 1st, especially a later 1st round pick being accepted and perhaps being too much so you might drop out the 3rd pick or move that into next season, or ask a 4th back this season as ways to balance the deals. If you are trading for a 1st round pick this year you should have a pretty clear target in mind that you will be taking with that pick. In this years draft you may not be able to get this much back for a 1.10-1.12 pick while in other drafts you can.

I do not think it is a good idea to allow trading picks further out than the coming draft season. If one thinks about a draft pick as a roster spot, each additional season of draft picks that are tradeable that is like adding another 3-7 roster spots to your team. Depending on the size of your roster, this adds to your team in short leagues (24 roster spots or less) by having more of a commodity that you can trade in consolidation moves. If you can trade 2 years of picks this is like having another 6-14 roster spots before trades. You could without too much trouble end up with as many picks as you have rostered players. At least there are useful players on WW so a team should never be without options, but the consolidation moves also leaves teams open to going all in and leaving a depleted roster in seasons following the one where they traded off all of their picks. At least in a shorter league teams will not be able to hoard all of the talent. In larger roster leagues this is exactly what does happen and the climb to rebuild is much more difficult with little available on WW.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
NJ said:
Like with most things in FF, I don't think you can apply any one formula to every situation, I think there are times where it would be stupid to trade for a pick this year and give up a pick a round earlier next year, but I also think there are plenty of situations where it makes perfect sense to do that exact thing, you can't say that its always a bad move or that you'd never do it. A few points:

A) How about if a player you had graded a round earlier falls. If I've got a guy rated as a mid 2nd rounder and for some reason he's still there at say 3.03 and someone is willing to trade me 3.03 for my 2nd next year, why not make that trade? Especially if I expect to be a playoff team, I'm getting a guy I had rated as a 2nd rounder this year in exchange for giving up a (likely late) 2nd rounder I can't use for another 12 months. There is value in that IMO.

B) If I'm confident I'm a playoff team, it might make sense. If I'm say 90% certain that my pick next year is going to be in the 1.10 to 1.12 ballpark and I can get 2.03 this year for my 1st next year, is there really going to be that big of a difference in value between the guys you can get at the end of the 1st vs. the guys at the beginning of the 2nd? If I can get a player of a similar value on my roster a full 12 months sooner, there is value in that, of course there is some inherent risk that my pick could end up earlier, so I'd have to really love my team, quite obviously someone who isn't a virtual lock for the playoffs should not be trading away a 1st next year for a 2nd this year if next years pick has a reasonably good chance of being a top 5 pick.

C) I tend to think this formula makes perfect sense for mid-late round picks. There is a much bigger value difference from the 1st to the 2nd round than there is between other rounds. You can make an argument that its rarely a good idea to trade a future 1st for a 2nd now (an plenty of people won't make that trade for that very reason), but what about in the case of 3rds/4ths/5ths? I mean only a handful of gems are usually found in the mid/late rounds, I don't think there is a huge difference between the value of guys in the 3rd vs. the 4th. If there is a guy I really want that falls to the 4th this year and I have room to roster him, I have no problem giving up what I expect to be a late 3rd next year in exchange, I think the value of getting that player 12 months earlier offsets the difference in value between the 3rd and the 4th round talent level. Its much harder to offset the value between the 1st and the 2nd.

D) Just look at it from the perspective of the guy you are trying to get this years pick from, what incentive does he have to trade you a pick this year for a pick next year if he's not getting anything out of it. If a guy falls to the 3rd round that I really want and I offer someone a 3rd rounder the following year, they are likely to tell me to piss off, why would they want to do that? I mean except in the case of maybe someone that doesn't have the roster room for all their picks this year and is looking to offload a couple of later round picks for equivalent picks next year rather than waste them on players they are going to have to cut this year anyway, but that's rare and in most cases you're not likely to find someone willing to give up their pick this year in exchange for the same round next year, so if you really want a player now, you might have to be willing to give up a little earlier pick next year.
Good post.

They only time I remember trading a future higher pick for a current pick was this year, traded a 2014 3rd for a 2013 4th. Tyler Wilson had dropped further than I thought he should, I need a young QB, and I actually like Wilson. My team is very likely a playoff team so i don't think i lost much value.

We rarely see future 1sts get dealt for current 2nds, but later picks are dealt often like this.

 
I think this dynamic is due to a combination of things. I think the first one has been glazed over already. The team getting this year's pick gets the points of the drafted player immediately---which means the owner getting the instant points is projecting his team to be instantly better by the acquisition of the player. If the team getting the player this year is better--as projected--the odds are that this team will not have as good of a draft pick in next years draft--which is one reason why the trading partner could and should demand a better round draft pick in a future season. Also, there is an old saying that goes something like "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush". The vast majority of fantasy owners do want to "win now" and might be willing to compromise a little bit of their "macro" future for their "micro" future. The last thing is the basic market value. Something is worth what somebody is willing to pay for it. If a lot lot of owners "win now" attitude motivates them to trade their premium future picks to improve their team this season-- this is an example of simple market value.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top