Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

****OFFICIAL 2021 IN- SEASON DYNASTY TRADES****


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, JohnnyU said:

If you guys are talking about Goedert I believe he's about to surpass Ertz. 

I wish you were right but I don't see it this year. 

This situation has a lot of similarities to the Ladarius Green/Antiono Gates situation a few years back. Goedert is better than Green but Ertz is better than Gates was at that point. Both Green and Goedert are/were better blockers but Ertz is established just like Gates was. 

When Green finally got out of SD he did really well in Pittsburgh for a short time but injuries ended his career. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Milkman said:

I wish you were right but I don't see it this year. 

This situation has a lot of similarities to the Ladarius Green/Antiono Gates situation a few years back. Goedert is better than Green but Ertz is better than Gates was at that point. Both Green and Goedert are/were better blockers but Ertz is established just like Gates was. 

When Green finally got out of SD he did really well in Pittsburgh for a short time but injuries ended his career. 

Green played for the Chargers from 2012-2015. His best season there was in 2015 when he had 27/429/4 receiving. Then he had 18/307/1 in 6 games for Pittsburgh in 2016. Then he was out of the league. Not an inspiring example for Goedert.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Just Win Baby said:

Green played for the Chargers from 2012-2015. His best season there was in 2015 when he had 27/429/4 receiving. Then he had 18/307/1 in 6 games for Pittsburgh in 2016. Then he was out of the league. Not an inspiring example for Goedert.

Yeah I agree. Goedert is in a bad spot.

We disagreed on how good Green was in Pittsburgh though. He was hurt that year to start the season so he didn't get to work with Big Ben in training camp. Coming to a new team like that is tough. You can see how his first 3 games compare to his last 3 games in Pittsburgh. There's not enough of a sample to persuade you though so I won't try. Lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Milkman said:

Yeah I agree. Goedert is in a bad spot.

We disagreed on how good Green was in Pittsburgh though. He was hurt that year to start the season so he didn't get to work with Big Ben in training camp. Coming to a new team like that is tough. You can see how his first 3 games compare to his last 3 games in Pittsburgh. There's not enough of a sample to persuade you though so I won't try. Lol

Basically, Green flashed in Pittsburgh just like he flashed in San Diego. He never lived up to the potential implied by those flashes. He had 2 good games in Pittsburgh, which is too small a sample to be meaningful. :shrug: 

Hopefully that won't be the case with Goedert.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Just Win Baby said:

Basically, Green flashed in Pittsburgh just like he flashed in San Diego. He never lived up to the potential implied by those flashes. He had 2 good games in Pittsburgh, which is too small a sample to be meaningful. :shrug: 

Hopefully that won't be the case with Goedert.

I see something different. I wouldn't value those first 3 games as much as the last 3 because he was coming to a new team and he didn't get to practice with them in the preseason and training camp. As he got more acclimated he began to produce at a level I always felt he was capable of. We'll never know though because your right it was to small of a sample. 

 

Goedert is in just as bad of a spot or worse but he's really good so maybe he can carve out a decent target share or better yet push for a trade to get away from Ertz. It's a pipe dream but Goedert playing for NE would be amazing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, JohnnyU said:

If they need to get rid of one it should be Ertz, not Goedert.   This isn't a "Trey Burton" situation.  Goedert is the real deal and much younger than Ertz.

Goedurt is about to be 26 or so isn't he? He's a few years younger than Ertz but he came into the league older, so it's not like he's 23. They may eventually move on from Ertz due to cap reasons (and Goedurt will be a cheaper re-sign if he hasn't fully broken out by then) but TEs can play for a long time.

In terms of overtaking the stud starter while on the same roster...how often does that ever happen at TE?

Delanie Walker didn't overtake Vernon Davis and then immediately broke out with a new team.

Marcellus Bennett couldn't overtake Witten, same situation. 

Henry never really overtook Gates, not until he was ancient.

I'm trying to think of other situations where pro bowl TE talent was stuck behind another pro bowl talent. 

Maybe Fred Davis and Cooley before both fizzled out for different reasons. 

The first examples all did eventually break out as TE1s but not because their original team ditched the more established vet in front of them. How often does a vet TE like Ertz hit FA in their prime due to a younger guy behind him? Rarely.

Edited by ConnSKINS26
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

Goedurt is about to be 26 or so isn't he? He's a few years younger than Ertz but he came into the league older, so it's not like he's 23. They may eventually move on from Ertz due to cap reasons (and Goedurt will be a cheaper re-sign if he hasn't fully broken out by then) but TEs can play for a long time.

In terms of overtaking the stud starter while on the same roster...how often does that ever happen at TE?

Delanie Walker didn't overtake Vernon Davis and then immediately broke out with a new team.

Marcellus Bennett couldn't overtake Witten, same situation. 

Henry never really overtook Gates, not until he was ancient.

I'm trying to think of other situations where pro bowl TE talent was stuck behind another pro bowl talent. 

Maybe Fred Davis and Cooley before both fizzled out for different reasons. 

The first examples all did eventually break out as TE1s but not because their original team ditched the more established vet in front of them. How often does a vet TE like Ertz hit FA in their prime due to a younger guy behind him? Rarely.

Ertz is still going quite a bit higher in startups. Curious if you guys would trade Ertz for Goedert.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

14 team PPR devy league

Gave: Michael Pittman Jr.

Got: Deontae Johnson

I would go with Johnson...59-680-5 with complete garbage at QB is a very nice rookie year...Pittman could be a good one but I don't see him as a top-tier WR like Jeudy so why gamble on him being better then another youngster with more of a track record who appears to have a ton of upside...if he had a high-end young QB I could see it but QB-wise he is with an aging veteran as well. 

Edited by Boston
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Milkman said:

I like the Diontae Johnson side but I'm a fan of Pittman too. It's just we've seen Diontae succeed already. 

I had Pittman in my top 10 rookies and took him as high as 12 but I'd take Diontae here because of basically what you said. I'd add I've traded a large amount of established players for unknown picks but that's usually age, position or upside related and none of those factors exist here IMO that would cause me to not want Johnson.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couple big ones went down during our rookie draft.

Team A gave:  Tyreek Hill

Team B gave:  1.09, 2021 1st

Team A took Tua at 1.09 (2QB league.)

 

Team A gave:  CMC

Team B gave:  Metcalf, Ridley, 2021 1st

 

Team A is the same team in both trades, so he walked away trading away his two best players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JoeJoe88 said:

Couple big ones went down during our rookie draft.

Team A gave:  Tyreek Hill

Team B gave:  1.09, 2021 1st

Team A took Tua at 1.09 (2QB league.)

 

Team A gave:  CMC

Team B gave:  Metcalf, Ridley, 2021 1st

 

Team A is the same team in both trades, so he walked away trading away his two best players.

How does Tua last till 1.9 in a two QB league?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Boston said:

How does Tua last till 1.9 in a two QB league?

Yeah, I was very surprised.  And a couple teams that passed on him only have two current starters.  Draft went Burrow, Lamb, CEH, Dobbins, Taylor, Jeudy, Akers, Jefferson and Tua.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, JoeJoe88 said:

Yeah, I was very surprised.  And a couple teams that passed on him only have two current starters.  Draft went Burrow, Lamb, CEH, Dobbins, Taylor, Jeudy, Akers, Jefferson and Tua.  

Wow...those are good prospects but QBs are gold in the two QB format...makes no sense to me and even less if you have only two QBs...in that case it is reckless.

Edited by Boston
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, JoeJoe88 said:

Dalvin and Mattison package just got moved for a 2021 1st, 2021 2nd and 2022 1st. Seems super light to me. 

Really light. I could see someone taking that for just Cook. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Andy Dufresne said:

I'm going to disagree. Cook seems like a guy with a really short shelf life and Mattison...I don't see what people are seeing there. 

I'd hit eject for two firsts and a 2nd. 

How short a shelf life? He hasn't even turned 25 yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, kutta said:

Just pulled off a blockbuster. I never thought I'd trade Saquon...

I gave Saquon.

I got Akers, Reagor, 2021 first (mid-late), 2022 first

 

Seems like a magic bean sort of deal, but one where none of the magic beans are individually that exciting (to me). I can see a total rebuild doing this maybe but any other situation and imo someone should want at least one or more proven pieces to avoid the scenario where three years from now you're holding nothing. 

It's a lot of youth but seems crazy to me to trade a young top-2 player in all of dynasty for a bunch of not-particularly high picks/not particularly blue chip prospects. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

 

Seems like a magic bean sort of deal, but one where none of the magic beans are individually that exciting (to me). I can see a total rebuild doing this maybe but any other situation and imo someone should want at least one or more proven pieces to avoid the scenario where three years from now you're holding nothing. 

It's a lot of youth but seems crazy to me to trade a young top-2 player in all of dynasty for a bunch of not-particularly high picks/not particularly blue chip prospects. 

I agree to a certain extent. My team is pretty good, but not championship level unless I get lucky. I really like Akers and Reagor, and I have a hole WR right now (Adams and Kupp are really about it for me). I also like next year's class a lot, and this now gives me 3 first round picks next year.

We'll see how it plays out...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kutta said:

Just pulled off a blockbuster. I never thought I'd trade Saquon...

I gave Saquon.

I got Akers, Reagor, 2021 first (mid-late), 2022 first

Doesn't do a ton for me...Barkley is a definite and the issue with this deal is there are too many ifs for my liking...Akers is very intriguing but he really needs to be a stud for this deal to work-out...Reagor is another intriguing piece but not someone I feel too strongly about...the 1's are solid pieces but I would like to see one of the two players involved have less uncertainty...it is a nice haul of assets but there is just too much downside here when you are talking about one of the safest/best fantasy players out there that is only 23 years old. 

Edited by Boston
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kutta said:

Just pulled off a blockbuster. I never thought I'd trade Saquon...

I gave Saquon.

I got Akers, Reagor, 2021 first (mid-late), 2022 first

I would go with Barkely, but reading your second post their is no reason to keep Adams and I would deal Kupp too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Boston said:

Doesn't do a ton for me...Barkley is a definite and the issue with this deal is there are too many ifs for my liking...Akers is very intriguing but he really needs to be a stud for this deal to work-out...Reagor is another intriguing piece but not someone I feel too strongly about...the 1's are solid pieces but I would like to see one of the two players involved have less uncertainty...it is a nice haul of assets but there is just too much downside here when you are talking about one of the safest/best fantasy players out there that is only 23 years old. 

I see that. I guess I should have included that we only require 1 starting RB (12 team PPR), 3 WR, and one flex. I think that decreases Saquon's value a little.

But I do agree with you. It was a risk I was willing to take because, as I said earlier, the only way I win it all this year is with some luck, and I still think I could make a run with some luck. And I'm higher on Akers than most, so that made it a little easier for me too.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, kutta said:

I see that. I guess I should have included that we only require 1 starting RB (12 team PPR), 3 WR, and one flex. I think that decreases Saquon's value a little.

But I do agree with you. It was a risk I was willing to take because, as I said earlier, the only way I win it all this year is with some luck, and I still think I could make a run with some luck. And I'm higher on Akers than most, so that made it a little easier for me too.

If anything having so few starters only increases Saquon's value to me. 

I hate to say it but I agree with the others and with a much wider gap.  As a Barkley owner that package would barely even be a conversation starter for me.  There are definitely ways it can work out for you so best of luck but I very heavily prefer the Saquon side, personally.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/16/2020 at 2:44 PM, JoeJoe88 said:

Couple big ones went down during our rookie draft.

Team A gave:  Tyreek Hill

Team B gave:  1.09, 2021 1st

Team A took Tua at 1.09 (2QB league.)

 

Team A gave:  CMC

Team B gave:  Metcalf, Ridley, 2021 1st

 

Team A is the same team in both trades, so he walked away trading away his two best players.

I see both sides of the Hill one and would take either side based on my team. 

I think I would need one more minor piece to CMC. Something with a value of late 1st early 2nd rookie draft. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, robb said:

Dynasty; not SF, 1/2 PPR; 24 person roster

Team A: Lamar Jackson, Teddy Bridgwater

Team B: Carson Wentz & Josh Allen

Definitely Lamar...not really understanding what Team B is doing here if this is not a SF/2 QB league...you have traded one of the biggest weapons in fantasy that is only 23 years old and you did zero to improve your starting line-up elsewhere...just doesn't make sense to me at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, robb said:

Dynasty; not SF, 1/2 PPR; 24 person roster

Team A: Lamar Jackson, Teddy Bridgwater

Team B: Carson Wentz & Josh Allen

 

This is terrible. No reason to downgrade to a worse starter for a backup option...especially since we don't even know that Bridgewater will definitely be worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, JackReacher said:

Interesting take. How so?

Fewer starters increases the value of studs and decreases the value of depth.  Akers much less valuable in a league where you only have to start 1 RB.  Guys like Saquon that you can rely on for consistently high scoring are more valuable in those leagues.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FreeBaGeL said:

Fewer starters increases the value of studs and decreases the value of depth.  Akers much less valuable in a league where you only have to start 1 RB.  Guys like Saquon that you can rely on for consistently high scoring are more valuable in those leagues.

My thought is that I have Henry and DJ (who I like short term) also. I can play Henry in my RB spot, and I don't have to play two. So that slot is covered, and if Akers hits, great. Then I still have Reagor and 2 other firsts to play with. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Vandelay said:

Hate to pile on, but if I saw that offer getting Barkley I'd break my wrist hitting accept.

All good - I appreciate the feedback.

I’m still happy with it - we’ll see how it plays out. Will be fun to revisit in a couple years.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like others, I would've wanted more in a package for Barkley (particularly because I'm much lower on Akers than consensus), but I understand the general approach of trying to cash out for multiple assets since there's a point where one player is simply overvalued in the market relative to the advantage they actually give your team. It's pretty rare that one player is making such a huge difference to your weekly results that it justifies paying multiple high end productive assets for that player. The flipside is to sell that player when they have that high value.

CMC is maybe in a different category because he has been so impactful and a genuine league winner but Barkley to me hasn't separated himself enough in the same way in terms of production - his value is still propped up to some extent by the insane hype he came in with. Not so say he couldn't get to CMC's level but there's a fair bit of projection there IMO. 

Of course there's also something to be said for hanging onto assets that the market values highly and that have value insulation, and Barkley is the poster child for that. From that perspective, it was a very risky move because the value of Akers and Reagor could stagnate or even fall if they have ordinary rookie seasons. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is kind of the problem with studs. You're likely not getting a stud in return because why would the buyer give up a stud to get a stud? You can never have a surplus of studs on your roster. So even if its swapping out a WR for a RB, for example, it's probably not worth it.

So if you're selling, you're risking losing value - because you're likely gambling on the upside of what you get in return. 

Or if you're buying, you have to overpay to pry the guy away.

The economics of trading away/for studs in FFB is wonky. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Andy Dufresne said:

This is kind of the problem with studs. You're likely not getting a stud in return because why would the buyer give up a stud to get a stud? You can never have a surplus of studs on your roster. So even if its swapping out a WR for a RB, for example, it's probably not worth it.

So if you're selling, you're risking losing value - because you're likely gambling on the upside of what you get in return. 

Or if you're buying, you have to overpay to pry the guy away.

The economics of trading away/for studs in FFB is wonky. 

Exactly. I had Akers as my 1.03, and Reagor as my 1.07. So in a sense I got 1.03, 1.07, plus 2 more firsts - four first round picks total and people say it’s not close.

I get that when trading a stud you generally want to get a stud back. But I’ll take my chances that four firsts will improve my team more than Barkley alone would.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, kutta said:

Exactly. I had Akers as my 1.03, and Reagor as my 1.07. So in a sense I got 1.03, 1.07, plus 2 more firsts - four first round picks total and people say it’s not close.

I get that when trading a stud you generally want to get a stud back. But I’ll take my chances that four firsts will improve my team more than Barkley alone would.

I think its mostly that there is little to no chance that one of those 1st equal out to a Barkley.  Like most said, it would come down to team makeup.  I can't see making that trade for Barkley, but then I dont have him.  Been working on a trade to get him for a while, but most likely wasting me time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Rig24 said:

I think its mostly that there is little to no chance that one of those 1st equal out to a Barkley.  Like most said, it would come down to team makeup.  I can't see making that trade for Barkley, but then I dont have him.  Been working on a trade to get him for a while, but most likely wasting me time.

That's likely a given. But the point is about whole roster management.

So if you don't think "Barkley + the next three starters" will get you as many points as you believe you'll get from "Akers/Reagor + 2 1sts" then you roll the dice on the latter.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, kutta said:

Exactly. I had Akers as my 1.03, and Reagor as my 1.07. So in a sense I got 1.03, 1.07, plus 2 more firsts - four first round picks total and people say it’s not close.

I get that when trading a stud you generally want to get a stud back. But I’ll take my chances that four firsts will improve my team more than Barkley alone would.

My eyeballs kept reading that 2022 pick as a 2nd.  So, thats definitely better than I initially thought.  I'll downgrade my comments from "brake my wrist" accepting to "think for a couple minutes" before accepting.

Part of the problem is my evaluation on Akers and Raegor.  If it were Dobbins and Jefferson/Jeudy, I'd like it a lot more.  So I guess value is about right unless those future 1sts are from a team with a stacked roster.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Andy Dufresne said:

That's likely a given. But the point is about whole roster management.

So if you don't think "Barkley + the next three starters" will get you as many points as you believe you'll get from "Akers/Reagor + 2 1sts" then you roll the dice on the latter.

With only 5 positional starters though it's unlikely that adding those 4 players will change the actual starting lineup much, other than losing Barkley from it.  Historically the most likely scenario is that 2 bust, 1 ends up as decent depth, and 1 ends up being a quality starter far below Barkley.

Edited by FreeBaGeL
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Gottabesweet changed the title to ****OFFICIAL 2021 IN- SEASON DYNASTY TRADES****

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...