Would you take a value loss in a deadline trade? (1 Viewer)

[Max Power]

With today being the final day to make trades in several leagues, I wanted to get the Pool's opinion on knowingly taking a value loss in a trade to improve starting rosters for the playoffs.

I am sure a few owners are in the same boat here. Teams who have 4 or 5 solid players at RB and WR, but none that are concidered Elite.

I have been driving a hard bargin for the past week, but in the end it seems like I might have to take a value loss to improve my starters.

I think the reasons for doing something like this are easy. You can put out a better lineup each week. Also takes a bit of stress of an owner trying to pick a starting lineup from similar talent.

However the reasons against it are strong as well. You lose value (this is a biggie for me), Loss of depth, and you would also be improving other teams.

So an example of what I am talking about would be a trade of giving up two WR2s and a RB2 for a WR1.

So do the Pros outweigh the Cons here?

I'd love to hear thoughts.

 

[Wadsworth]

There really aren't that many difference makers in fantasy. There's a glut of pretty good QBs, WRs, RBs etc but very few that really improve your lineup. If you can get one of the difference makers for a couple average starters, do it.

 

[GregR_2]

I'm uncertain how to reply.

On one hand... if a concept of "value" has guys that don't start for you being of equal worth to guys who do start for you, then that concept of value is faulty. The value of guys on your bench is based on the likelihood they start for you whether due to injury to starter, or being the better play for other reasons like just outperforming the starter. The latter probably doesn't matter as much as the former at this point in the season, for most players... so risk aversion is probably the biggest component of value.

So to me it shouldn't be a question of value, it should be a question of do you sacrifice risk aversion for increased strength in your lineup. To which there is no single right answer. You have to weigh a lot of factors. How much of a lead do you have on other teams (ETA: or how far are you behind them)? How likely are you to lose starters to NFL benching because of clinched playoff spots, etc. You just have to factor all those in and decide if taking the gamble is worth it. In general though, I would try to make moves that strengthen my starting lineup so long as they don't leave me to where a single injury cripples me.

 

[Lord Lucan]

One of the most compelling, yet relatively unrecognised reasons to go RB-RB with your first two picks - despite the number of high-profile flops/injuries this year - is that it's notably hard to get value when trying to trade a good WR for a good RB.

There are a couple of leagues in which I have next to nothing at RB due to poor drafting or injuries, yet have four or five top-15 WRs, but cannot get any better offers for them than the likes of Kevin Faulk, Julius Jones, DeAngelo Williams and the like simply because the owners with RBs know they can hold me to ransom.

 

[Max Power]

On one hand... if a concept of "value" has guys that don't start for you being of equal worth to guys who do start for you, then that concept of value is faulty.

Please Explain.I have 2 RB spots and 3 WR spots to fill weekly. I only have 1 RB (LT) and 1 WR (Holt) that I consider an every week must start.I generally play matchup and the hot hand at WR.

 

[Wrigley]

There is nothing wrong with trading two players that "might" see your starting lineup, for a must start each week.

YES, make this kind of trade if you can.

 

[RudeDog]

Yes.

Here is an example of a trade I just made at the deadline.

I gave up Jon Kitna and Todd Heap for Jeremy Shockey.

I had Jeff Garcia as my backup (extremely consistent this year) while Heap has driven me crazy.

I was then able to pick up Schaub as my secondary QB as he came off the injury list.

 

[Genester]

There is nothing wrong with trading two players that "might" see your starting lineup, for a must start each week.YES, make this kind of trade if you can.

I would definitely do it. Suppose you have Reggie Bush and Kevin Jones starting at RB, and Wayne+Randy Moss+Colston+Welker+Boldin at WR. I would trade Jones+2-3 of your WRs for LT2. Yes, you're overpaying in terms of total value, but LT2 would be a huge upgrade over Jones. Just an example of when overpaying improves your team - I woul double check that you're not creating a monster competitor out of the team that you're sending your players to.

 

[Wrigley]

Yes.Here is an example of a trade I just made at the deadline.I gave up Jon Kitna and Todd Heap for Jeremy Shockey.I had Jeff Garcia as my backup (extremely consistent this year) while Heap has driven me crazy.I was then able to pick up Schaub as my secondary QB as he came off the injury list.

Shockey?I'm pretty sure he'll drive you crazy too

 

[Max Power]

There is nothing wrong with trading two players that "might" see your starting lineup, for a must start each week.YES, make this kind of trade if you can.

I would definitely do it. Suppose you have Reggie Bush and Kevin Jones starting at RB, and Wayne+Randy Moss+Colston+Welker+Boldin at WR. I would trade Jones+2-3 of your WRs for LT2. Yes, you're overpaying in terms of total value, but LT2 would be a huge upgrade over Jones. Just an example of when overpaying improves your team - I woul double check that you're not creating a monster competitor out of the team that you're sending your players to.

Maybe not a monster competitor, but giving a team with no hope some light. Adding competition can never be good. Can it?A guy in my league has Moss, Wayne and 3 other good WR options. His RBs consist of Henry, Fargas, Mo Morris and Betts. Giving him 2 solid (top 15) RBs makes him a contender again.

 

[RudeDog]

Yes.Here is an example of a trade I just made at the deadline.I gave up Jon Kitna and Todd Heap for Jeremy Shockey.I had Jeff Garcia as my backup (extremely consistent this year) while Heap has driven me crazy.I was then able to pick up Schaub as my secondary QB as he came off the injury list.

Shockey?I'm pretty sure he'll drive you crazy too

Possibly, but he is still an upgrade over Heap.

 

[LionsFan78]

I think as long as you feel it helps your team in the long run, all bets are off.

I made a trade right before the deadline, and am in pretty much the same boat here. I really can't determine how I feel about it. M. Harrison's been rotting on my team all year, and with Steve Smith also on my roster, I needed some more production at WR, which has been my only weak spot. Traded Harrison for Hines Ward, straight up. I'm not sure yet how I feel about it, but my gut told me to go for it. Some people may argue about who has more value right now (I know FBG has Marvin a few spots higher...), but I'd rather take that chance, rather than be left holding an unstartable WR down the stretch. We'll see.

 

[bjabrad]

I could care less about the actual points that a player has put up so far and that gives them a "perceived" value to other players (notably lesser fantasy players) but I do care about the rest of the regular season schedule and even more so the fantasy playoff schedule.

Past values are not indicative of future gains. Schedule is #1.

 

[Koya]

There is one, and only ONE question that I ask when doing a trade:

Will the trade help ME win the championship.

I don't care if I get terrible value back - if I am not trading away guys that I think will help an opponent have a better chance to beat me down the line, what do I care about value. I care about one thing... ME WINNING.

We had a deadline last week. I lost LJ and was very questionable at RB. Worse yet, it is a 12 team league with 4 playoff spots. I had/have NO time to "find" a replacement.

I had an extra WR that would not be starting, so I offered Galloway or Marshall for Priest. I KNEW it was not good value. I also KNEW that if I didnt get Priest, with my current situation, I would be far worse off than having Galloway or Marshall on the bench. I had no time to bargain and no time to find value. I had a few hours to try and preserve my season.

Yeah, the league got their panties in a bunch, but I have a chance to win now, and I would likely not have had that chance without giving away far too much value.

Play to win. Don't play because you are worried someone else might win... unless they might win against you.

 

[GregR_2]

On one hand... if a concept of "value" has guys that don't start for you being of equal worth to guys who do start for you, then that concept of value is faulty.

Please Explain.I have 2 RB spots and 3 WR spots to fill weekly. I only have 1 RB (LT) and 1 WR (Holt) that I consider an every week must start.I generally play matchup and the hot hand at WR.

Ok, just illustrating the thought process, so not focusing on value from averting injury risk, from the guy being a possible sleeper, or from the fact you kept him off your opponent's roster.Let's say I have a player who never starts for me. All he does is sit on my roster all year. If I lost him, how much is my team impacted? It turns out none at all.Now, let's say I have a WR3 who I start every week and who scores 100 points on the season. If I lost him, how much is my team impacted? Well, that strongly depends on who I'd have started at WR3 if I didn't have him. If my WR4 scores 99 points on the season, I can lose my WR3 and see almost no drop off to my team. If my WR4 instead scores 50 points on the season, then my WR3's value to my team is much more.Ok, now let's say we lose Holt, our WR1, and he's scoring 160 points on the season. If I lost him, I still have to plug in that WR4. If it's the 99 point WR4, that's a big drop. If it's the 50 point WR4, it's an even bigger drop.Player value is relative... relative to other players at their position and at other positions, both on your team and off. In Draft Dominator, this is why there are parameters for how much you see the value of a backup being. This is why once you have a QB in a start 1 QB league, the tool discounts the value of other QBs. Now you are talking about playing matchups. You need to realistically figure out how much do you gain from playing WR5 in a matchup over WRs 3 and 4. I think if you run some numbers you'll find your average expectation is that if you come out ahead it's a modest gain over if you'd just started WR3 or WR4 every week. That means WR5's value isn't much (other than the stuff we didn't include like bye weeks and injury risk to other starters).

 

[MCguidance]

I decided not to make a trade at the deadline. I need a QB, there is no doubting that. I rolled the dice with VInce, and lost. I now have to pray Boller makes a good play this week to boost my chances for getting into the playoffs. I was offered Hass and Cotchery for Sjax. That would have left me with Selvin Young/Ryan Grant/Dayne pick 2 league and Hass at QB; now i have to live with Boller but have Sjax/Grant/Selvin/Dayne to choose from every week from here on out. Yeah, maybe I should have made the trade since I am 4-6, but I have waited all season to play Sjax, and I feel he is almost all the way back and would rather rely on him and Grant (best SOS) than having to gamble on the others. Ok so I ramble. I guess my point is that if I get into the playoffs, I will better off than most of the other teams with a great amount of RB depth. Maybe I deefed myself, but I guess well see.

 

[dickey moe]

One guy in my league (no dummy, mind you) was desperate for a serviceable RB, and offered me Carson Palmer and Julius Jones for Earnest Graham and Chris Henry. He knew it was a lopsided trade in my favor, but he already has Tom Brady and he needs to make a run to make the playoffs. My QBs were Warner and Schaub, so it was a win-win situation for the both of us. It all depends on the situation.