"Willing to go 2 for 1 for an elite TE or WR" (1 Viewer)

[Topes]

Got an email this morning, leaguewide update of an owner's trade-available players.

It included the note "Willing to go 2 for 1 for an elite TE or WR".

I don't begrudge him this. Good move. I get it. You get it. We all get it.

This is a fact that should become obvious to anybody playing fantasy football pretty early on. Trading 2 for 1 is a often good thing, as it allows you to essentially distill talent, to pack more potential into your starting lineup. (And, yes, it's sometimes a good thing to trade one true stud for two okay starters, for a variety of reasons.)

What I never understand to this day is how very often such deals are discussed in a vacuum.

Fantasy football leagues have roster limits. There is no such thing as a 2 for 1 deal, given that an owner is not keeping empty slots on his roster.

All of us here know that the owner sending two players is not getting just one player back. He is also getting the best player he can off the wire. But that information is often ignored.

Likewise (yet more importantly) the team receiving two players needs to dump depth in order to accommodate the trade. But he almost always seems to leave this information out of the equation, almost as if he's falling for the hook of the 2-for-1 deal.

Just hadda get that off my chest.

 

[Phlash]

You're right - roster space is invaluable in many leagues, even deeper ones. That said, I try to make my deals 2 for 2 - one user gives up a player of high value and low value, while the other person gives up two players of mid value, give or take.

 

[comfortably numb]

Got an email this morning, leaguewide update of an owner's trade-available players.

It included the note "Willing to go 2 for 1 for an elite TE or WR".

I don't begrudge him this. Good move. I get it. You get it. We all get it.

This is a fact that should become obvious to anybody playing fantasy football pretty early on. Trading 2 for 1 is a often good thing, as it allows you to essentially distill talent, to pack more potential into your starting lineup. (And, yes, it's sometimes a good thing to trade one true stud for two okay starters, for a variety of reasons.)

What I never understand to this day is how very often such deals are discussed in a vacuum.

Fantasy football leagues have roster limits. There is no such thing as a 2 for 1 deal, given that an owner is not keeping empty slots on his roster.

All of us here know that the owner sending two players is not getting just one player back. He is also getting the best player he can off the wire. But that information is often ignored.

Likewise (yet more importantly) the team receiving two players needs to dump depth in order to accommodate the trade. But he almost always seems to leave this information out of the equation, almost as if he's falling for the hook of the 2-for-1 deal.

Just hadda get that off my chest.

I have 45 man rosters in my leagues, so 3-1 is not uncommon, what just ends up happening is the one owner send 2 of his "cuts"

 

[ROBOPUNTER]

Sometimes people want to pick up a FA and wouldn't otherwise without a 2 for 1 deal being done. I don't think anyone is being fooled with the phrase.

 

[ROBOPUNTER]

I try to make my deals 2 for 2 - one user gives up a player of high value and low value, while the other person gives up two players of mid value, give or take.

That's an implied 2 for 1.

 

[qimqam]

Sounds like someone is unhappy that another team made a good trade.

 

[Topes]

I have 45 man rosters in my leagues, so 3-1 is not uncommon, what just ends up happening is the one owner send 2 of his "cuts"

Exactly. So, it's a 3-for-3 and everybody knows two bodies are chum.

Sometimes people want to pick up a FA and wouldn't otherwise without a 2 for 1 deal being done. I don't think anyone is being fooled with the phrase.

Yet, that other party (guy receiving 2) often neglects to mention who he has to cut to accommodate the trade.This is especially common in local sports radio fantasy talk (which I should just turn the dial on anyway), but it happens on fantasy boards, as well.

Sounds like someone is unhappy that another team made a good trade.

Not at all. No trade's been made yet.

 

[Da Guru]

The real question is how many elite TEs are left?

 

[davearm]

Likewise (yet more importantly) the team receiving two players needs to dump depth in order to accommodate the trade.

The team receiving two players is not "dumping depth". In fact quite the opposite. He's improving depth. The second player in the trade is (presumably) an upgrade to the roster over the player being "dumped".Say I trade Torain and Garcon for Ray Rice and Louis Murphy.The other team didn't "dump" Murphy. They upgraded from Murphy to Garcon.

 

[FantasyTrader]

I read the whole thread and I gotta be missing something. I don't get what you think most people aren't getting. Guess I'm one of the people that don't get it. But at any given time, almost every roster - I don't care the size - has one player that they have no qualms about releasing if a deal comes along that presents an upgrade.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

All of us here know that the owner sending two players is not getting just one player back. He is also getting the best player he can off the wire.Likewise (yet more importantly) the team receiving two players needs to dump depth in order to accommodate the trade.

So? Count me in the group that has no idea what the point of this thread is. I don't think anyone makes a 2-for-1 deal and is subsequently surprised that they have to make an add/drop to bring their roster back to the correct size.

 

[Warehouse Nasty]

All of us here know that the owner sending two players is not getting just one player back. He is also getting the best player he can off the wire.Likewise (yet more importantly) the team receiving two players needs to dump depth in order to accommodate the trade.

So? Count me in the group that has no idea what the point of this thread is. I don't think anyone makes a 2-for-1 deal and is subsequently surprised that they have to make an add/drop to bring their roster back to the correct size.

Yeah, me too. Obviously the person receiving 2 players knows he has to drop someone on his roster. If the player he's receiving is an upgrade over that roster spot then what's the big deal?

 

[TommyGilmore]

Likewise (yet more importantly) the team receiving two players needs to dump depth in order to accommodate the trade. But he almost always seems to leave this information out of the equation, almost as if he's falling for the hook of the 2-for-1 deal.

Maybe the other guy just assumed you were smart enough to know that you'd have to drop a player?

 

[Gatorman]

2 for 1 means a lot of things, but one of its implications is very simple: You may have a player that you value higher than I do. Me putting him in the trade offer will not work bc his value (to you) is greater than what it is to me in the deal. I'd rather YOU make the decision to drop him than ME make the decision to ask you for him.

I will usually phrase a 2 for 1 as Player A and Player B for Player C. You can throw me the guy you will cut in the deal. Up to you. This way the guy I am trading with knows the deal without it being another road block in the trade process.

 

[dagwood]

More often than not the person receiving the 1 wins in a 2 for 1.

Most of the time, the trade involves a good team approaching a bad team and trading a middle round pick and WW pickup to the bad team for their number 1 or 2 pick because that team "lacks depth". Great trade fro the guy giving up the 2. Not so much for the guy giving up the 1.

Occasionally it works out fo the team getting the 2. More often than not, not so much.

 

[Topes]

Likewise (yet more importantly) the team receiving two players needs to dump depth in order to accommodate the trade.

The team receiving two players is not "dumping depth". In fact quite the opposite. He's improving depth. The second player in the trade is (presumably) an upgrade to the roster over the player being "dumped".Say I trade Torain and Garcon for Ray Rice and Louis Murphy.

The other team didn't "dump" Murphy. They upgraded from Murphy to Garcon.

But that's not a 2-for-1.

Say I trade Torain and Garcon for Ray Rice. The Torain/Garcon recipient cuts Louis Murphy to accommodate the trade.

Yet, that owner will discuss the trade as having traded Rice for Torain and Garcon, without mentioning Murphy.

Say I offer a trade of Torain and Garcon for Ray Rice. The potential Torain/Garcon recipient in this trade offer does not have time to offer a counter-offer.

The potential Torain/Garcon decides Murphy is the best cut to make, to accommodate the trade.

Yet, he will often discuss such a proposed trade as being Torain and Garcon for Ray Rice absent any mention of Murphy.

I read the whole thread and I gotta be missing something. I don't get what you think most people aren't getting.

Not saying they aren't getting anything. Just saying that it bugs me when folks leave part of a trade (a player who must be cut to accommodate an unbalanced trade) out of the discussion about such a trade.

But at any given time, almost every roster - I don't care the size - has one player that they have no qualms about releasing if a deal comes along that presents an upgrade.

Perhaps so. I like to play the waiver wire. I often find it difficult to find a guy I care so little about that I will cut him loose without a second thought. Basically, I must have really screwed up my original post. Not quite sure what's not to get.

It bugs me when folks leave part of a trade (a player who must be cut to accommodate an unbalanced trade) out of the discussion about such a trade. It makes for an incomplete discussion of any such trade or trade proposal. If advice is sought, based on such incomplete information, any advice rendered (absent that information) is somewhat invalid.

It doesn't happen that often here, though it does happen. It happens all the time on the radio. Guy calls in, says he's been offered a 2-for-1. Radio host goes on to discuss the value of the players involved, without ever asking the name of the player the caller would need to cut to accommodate the trade. As I said, I shouldn't be listening to that stuff, but sometimes it's better than the alternatives. Sometimes, there's news mixed in with all the WDIS phone calls, as well.

 

[solorca]

When I make an offer for a 2/1 trade, I just ask the person I'm trading with to throw in whatever player they are going to drop anyway or I will include my worst player.

For instance, if I made a 2 for 1 trade now, the person I'm trading with would get Mike Thomas, who is better than any receivers on the waiver wire.