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!
For me (and I've never been a big wheeler dealer) it depends on depth and needs at the given positions. Alot a variables come into play, but here's the basic thing I look at. If I'm sitting with quality depth at QB and need help at LB, I ask myself ... Am I willing to sacrafice my QB depth to get (what I feel, not others) a stud IDP LB?
1 Am I gaining more relative advantage for my starting lineup with this trade?You win by outscoring your opponent. No rocket science there. But it's the relative advantage that matters. If I'm giving 2 points at QB on average, but gaining 4 points at LB in my lineup, that's a deal that improves my chances of winning. The names and inaccuracies of your own market don't matter. If I'm getting more points into my lineup relative to my opponents, I'm more likely to win.
The key here is that all these players are apples when you consider each deal in terms of relative advantage. What's the net effect of improving my LB3 slot to LB1 points (+ 5ppg) while losing valuable depth (0ppg) or giving a WR2 I can replace with a WR3 with upside (- 2-3ppg)? It may not seem quite that simple -- there's a difficult to calculate effect of the inaccuracy of your league's market -- but come playoff time it really is that simple.tjford said:
I just traded Willis away, but did it because I was offered DeMeco Ryans, Trent Cole and Demetrius Williams (WR). I was weak at DL so Cole helped, and I value Ryans and Willis similarly. Adding a young WR didn't hurt either.However, the offer came from a 49er homer and included another top LB, not exactly what you're asking about.tex said:I will say one thing. Patrick Willis is one of the toughest guys to trade for right now. At any cost!
I definitely agree myself, the bottom line of FF; teams that score more points are better teams, always applies. But I definitely see the hesitancy of many players to make any form of offense for defense trades. In fact, I've been quoted that very thing in trade rejected emails; "I don't like to trade offense for defense."Even LB starving teams will be hesitant to jump on an deal that is obviously mutually beneficial in my experience. Case in point: Team is out of contract years and is forced to start an IR'd LB; I have six legitimate linebackers (Start 4) and offer to move one for one of his bench receivers. My LB starts for him; his WR starts for me. Increased points for both teams. Contracts are equal and we aren't divisional opponents. He balks at the trade and opts to start his IR'd LB. Makes no sense to me but he obviously had a reason to say no.
Great post.
People avoid that because they don't feel confident doing it. For that very reason I like to try to trade second tier offensive players for IDP starters just because that's where you can get your value. Often I'll do it as a fallback position in trade talks, particularly if what I'm trading away is a "surplus player" at a given position.
) and David Harris (we can start 4 LB's). Hawks addition to my team will add another 100+ points and I can replace Ginn with Antwan Randle El (we receive pts for kick/punt returns).
This is usually how I look at it. I've given up good draft picks for IDP's. A couple years ago, I gave up the 1.13 for Sean Taylor. It was a good deal for me since it was a WR3 that I was going to draft and it was most likely a rook that I was going to sit on. It boils down to overall value like Jene mentioned. Great thread by the way.
