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.

****OFFICIAL DYNASTY TRADES**** (12 Viewers)

I think they are pretty close but Higbee was incredible to end the season and I think the Rams continue to feed him. Everett has had a chance but never has shown any consistency. Four straight 100 yard games to end the season (and then last game 8-84-1) has my attention. I don’t see Ertz going away anytime soon and he is much more a threat than Everett.
End of season surges are usually my avoid players.  Especially ones that are on offenses getting worse. 

I actually think Goedert overtakes Ertz as the TE1 but they're both on the field a ton this year to develop Reagor.  That's what makes sense in my head at least.  I'd much prefer him over Higbee.  There's contract out's for Ertz in 2021 and very obvious in 2022.  At worst I think it's 2 more years of pure hype in which you can still sell.  But they'll re-sign Goedert before then I bet.  He's shown he's a beast.  

 
End of season surges are usually my avoid players.  Especially ones that are on offenses getting worse. 

I actually think Goedert overtakes Ertz as the TE1 but they're both on the field a ton this year to develop Reagor.  That's what makes sense in my head at least.  I'd much prefer him over Higbee.  There's contract out's for Ertz in 2021 and very obvious in 2022.  At worst I think it's 2 more years of pure hype in which you can still sell.  But they'll re-sign Goedert before then I bet.  He's shown he's a beast.  
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.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Zyphros said:
End of season surges are usually my avoid players.  Especially ones that are on offenses getting worse. 

I actually think Goedert overtakes Ertz as the TE1 but they're both on the field a ton this year to develop Reagor.  That's what makes sense in my head at least.  I'd much prefer him over Higbee.  There's contract out's for Ertz in 2021 and very obvious in 2022.  At worst I think it's 2 more years of pure hype in which you can still sell.  But they'll re-sign Goedert before then I bet.  He's shown he's a beast.  
I understand about being skeptical about late the surges and do agree about Goedert being the better talent. Just worry about Ertz sticking around for too long.

 
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. 

 
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.

 
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

 
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.

 
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. 

 
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.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.

 
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. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.

 
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.

 
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.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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. 

 
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

 
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. 

 
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...

 
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. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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. 

 
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.

 
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.

 
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. 

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

Team A: Lamar Jackson, Teddy Bridgwater

Team B: Carson Wentz & Josh Allen

 
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. 

 
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.

 
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. 

 
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. 

 
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. 

 
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.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top