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**** (24 Viewers)
- Thread starter Gottabesweet
- Start date
King of the Jungle
Footballguy
I feel like Parker is getting overrated. Although if I were a believer in Rawls I would make the deal.
trojanbronco
Footballguy
12 team PPR
Team A got: DeAndre Hopkins, Allen Hurns, 2.06
Team B got: David Johnson, Josh Gordon, 1.02, 2.02
Team A got: DeAndre Hopkins, Allen Hurns, 2.06
Team B got: David Johnson, Josh Gordon, 1.02, 2.02
Poncho
Footballguy
Pack43
Footballguy
Aunt Jemima
Footballguy
I think it's pretty close but I'd take side getting Johnson.
I view Johnson and 1.2 as fairly equitable for Hopkins, as of right now I don't think I'd let Hopkins go for that but think it's close.
I'm a risk taker for upside so I'd Gordon's risk and upside over Hurns all day and giving me a 4 pick upgrade helps so that more than anything sways me but I think the deal is fairly close all the way around.
Hawkeye Hellraiser
Footballguy
FFPC - not involved.
Marvin Jones and 2.7
for
2 2017 2nds.
I favor the future 2nds.
Marvin Jones and 2.7
for
2 2017 2nds.
I favor the future 2nds.
Aunt Jemima
Footballguy
Hawkeye Hellraiser
Footballguy
I don't think it's far off in value - I just don't have a lot of faith in Jones to be much more than JAG at this point, even with the big contract.
I'd view the trade as even but for the reason you just stated I'd take the picks.
One More Rep
Footballguy
ghostguy123
Footballguy
Trading is not open in that league. I sent him an email. Trading opens right before the NFL draft.
Also, an offer like the one i offered leaves room for negotiation. He might prefer picks 2 and 9. He might prefer picks 4,9, and another pick like a 2nd rounder or something. Maybe 4,9 and a player.
I could make MY PERSONAL strongest offer, but he might have other preferences that differ from mine. This NON insulting NON lowball offer shows my interest and allows him to look into his own personal preference on how he might want me to sweeten the deal.
Bottom line it is not a lowball offer or insulting, considering he has said be would consider a deal like it.
JohnnyU
Footballguy
How many wide receivers or picks someone has has nothing to do with the value of an offer. Just because someone has a boatload of picks does not entitle you to a sweeter offer.
Last edited by a moderator:
ghostguy123
Footballguy
That sir, is correct.
I can't remember discussing a deal with someone who said "if anyone else offered me this deal I would take it. It helps my team, and I think I am getting the better end of the value. However, since you have so many picks, the only way I will do this is if you add another (insert whatever that might be here)".
Seriously, who runs their team THAT way? Passing up deals they WANT to do for that reason, and then not getting a deal done.
Last edited by a moderator:
barackdhouse
Footballguy
Just saw Calvin Johnson go for 4.11. I guess I can see it. Not much downside.
Aunt Jemima
Footballguy
Hawkeye Hellraiser
Footballguy
Second Jemima there - I tried making a similar type of deal to this in acquiring future picks last year - it blows up in your face if you aren't certain it's a top half pick at worst.
Last edited by a moderator:
Casting Couch
Footballguy
Casting Couch
Footballguy
Run It Up
Footballguy
DGB
If the team receiving the future picks is a contender I'd rather have the 1.07, otherwise its a push imo.
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
1.04 and 1.09 for 1.01 is not a lowball offer.
I've never seen anyone with a path to offense as arbitrary as Dropkick's, so I wouldn't worry too much if he is "insulted" by your offer and don't think it's representative of the general population. Just goes to show that no matter what you do, some people will find a way to take offense to anything, even fantasy football trades. So don't worry about it and if you run into one of those people, move on. "If you aren't hurting your own team enough for my liking then I am personally insulted by your fantasy football trade offer even if it represents good value for me". Bizarre.
squistion
Footballguy
Really? How many people here would accept it? I think if I ran an internet poll on that it would be lopsided in favor of the keeping the 1.01. Perhaps we are getting too much into semantics. Yes, this is not a lowball, insulting offer like a 2017 3rd round pick, but in the league I own the 1.01 I would reject it very quickly.
And if the owner is also sitting on the 1.02 and 1.03 that does into the mix whether you like it or not. Team and league context is something that people automatically factor in and you can stamp your feet and say that shouldn't make any difference but it does. If an owner has 5 top 15 RBs and a 6th who is top 20, that 6th is expendable as it represents depth that will never be used - consequently I would not pay the same price for that player as I would from a team where this 6th player is their best starting RB. Context is everything IMO.
Last edited by a moderator:
TheBottomLine
Footballguy
JohnnyU
Footballguy
I disagree 100%. The players involved in the trade should be the deciding factor, not how many top RBs or picks I have. Just because I have a lot of top RBs or a lot of top picks doesn't entitle you to a sweeter deal that you would otherwise take if being offered by a less fortunate team..
squistion
Footballguy
Well, you are entitled to your opinion. In theory, I agree that is how it should be in a perfect world - but I have found that sometimes holding out for the market price for a player everyone knows will never see your starting lineup and will be sitting on your bench for the entire season will result in not moving that player at all (although it does make for a better looking roster).
It is a matter of strategy/philosophy and we will have to agree to disagree on this.
Last edited by a moderator:
I dont think it's a matter of being entitled to a better deal. But I would have a sense that the other owner is deriving less value from a target that is languishing on his bench, so I might be able to give him less value elsewhere to make a deal worth his while than I would have to if Im dealing for one of his best starters. That's where context comes into play, imo.
Pwingles
Footballguy
I agree.
However, if a super team sends me an offer of 2-3 bench fodder players for my best player, I may not be entitled to more, but im going to ask for it even if the deal is fair on paper. Why? Because why not.
Last edited by a moderator:
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
This is bizarre to me. I mean, if you're saying you would see if you can squeeze more out of them because they don't have as much use for that player that's one thing. But that doesn't seem to be what you're implying and it certainly was not what the person I originally quoted was saying (he said he'd break off trade relations altogether with one guy but be happy to deal with another offering the same trade based on the make-up of their team).
If you're saying that you'd straight out reject the same deal that you'd straight out accept because you felt like the other owner wasn't making a big enough sacrifice to his team then that's just silly. If you're getting a deal you're happy with for Allen Robinson it shouldn't matter whether Allen Robinson is the other team's only good player or if he's the other team's 5th best WR. Deciding not to make your team better because of some metaphysical care that the other guy has to negatively impact his own team in the same way that you do is crazytown. If his bench WR is better than your starting WR then he doesn't have to give up a starting WR for the trade to be fair.
In the specific case we're talking about here (1.4/1.9 from an owner with 1.2/1.3) it seems like a really easy way to come up with a very simple counter offer. Not a reason to be insulted and take your ball and go home like a 3 year old (again, referring to the guy I originally quoted, not you).
Last edited by a moderator:
16 picks.
If team getting Coleman has Freeman I can see how this makes sense, but if not I think they are going to need the 17 pick to end up very high for this to work out.
Also if the team giving up the 3 #1's has a really deep roster where adding two likely extra roster holds(3 picks minus Coleman) was something they projected as issue in the future that makes sense but if that was motivation for the trade I'd have waited until closer to being OTC.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
If you are passing on deals that you would normally do just because of the makeup of the team offering the deal, you are doing it wrong.Well, you are entitled to your opinion. In theory, I agree that is how it should be in a perfect world - but I have found that sometimes holding out for the market price for a player everyone knows will never see your starting lineup and will be sitting on your bench for the entire season will result in not moving that player at all (although it does make for a better looking roster).
It is a matter of strategy/philosophy and we will have to agree to disagree on this.
Last edited by a moderator:
ghostguy123
Footballguy
So you responded to his quote saying it was not a lowball offer by the first bolded part, then you say the second bolded part. So which is it? You just said it was a lowball offer, then said it wasn't.
Whether or not you would reject it is irrelevant, and if you did a poll where it was 99-1 in favor of pick 1, that does not mean it is a lowball offer.
Good gravy people. I would imagine 99% of all offers in all leagues is going to be a lowball/insulting offer with some of these unwritten rules of the trade game some of you have.
squistion
Footballguy
Never said it was an insulting offer or that I would be insulted. Just that I would reject it given the context of the situation.
squistion
Footballguy
Dude, in what you bolded I said, "Yes, this is not a lowball, insulting offer like a 2017 3rd round pick, but in the league I own the 1.01 I would reject it very quickly."
More straw men on this page than are found in the state of Kansas.
Last edited by a moderator:
Casting Couch
Footballguy
Casting Couch
Footballguy
ghostguy123
Footballguy
I will buy that apple for 30 cents from that other guy because I am hungry, and I like the price. But from you, I need that apple for 20 cents because you have so many.
Ok, that other guy is no longer selling apples. I still need that apple for 20 cents from you, even though I was happy to pay 30 to the other guy. No??? Oh well, I guess I will stay hungry.
Question. How many offers have you sent in your life, and how many were accepted?
Last edited by a moderator:
kutta
Footballguy
I think what he's saying is not that he would necessarily accept or decline an offer based on the makeup of the other team, just that he may be more insulted by the offer and not want to deal with the guy based on the makeup of the team.I will buy that apple for 30 cents from that other guy because I am hungry, and I like the price. But from you, I need that apple for 20 cents because you have so many.
Ok, that other guy is no longer selling apples. I still need that apple for 20 cents from you, even though I was happy to pay 30 to the other guy. No??? Oh well, I guess I will stay hungry.
Question. How many offers have you sent in your life, and how many were accepted?
I see the point to a certain extent - if you have 1.02 and 1.03 and aren't offering those in a deal for 1.01, I can see someone thinking, "Hmmm, why aren't those in the offer - he's trying to screw me." If someone doesn't have the 1.02 and 1.03, and instead only has the 1.07 and 1.08 and offers those, at least he offered his best picks available so it's not as "insulting," even though it may not be as good of an offer.
Anyway, I think that's the point.
steelers1080
Footballguy
2 trades just went down in my league.
Standard Scoring:
Team 1 gives: Jeremy Hill, 2016 picks 12 and 16
Team 2 gives: 2017 1st round pick, most likely in the 1-4 range.
Team 1 gives: Jeremy Langford
Team 3 gives: 2017 1st round pick, likely in the 3-7 range.
Ranges based on past 2 years and their current young talent.
Standard Scoring:
Team 1 gives: Jeremy Hill, 2016 picks 12 and 16
Team 2 gives: 2017 1st round pick, most likely in the 1-4 range.
Team 1 gives: Jeremy Langford
Team 3 gives: 2017 1st round pick, likely in the 3-7 range.
Ranges based on past 2 years and their current young talent.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
sorry this thread is for bickering about insulting offers.
ETA: I like and own Langford, but the guy trading for him may really regret that one.
Last edited by a moderator:
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone take their own statement out of context before. Until now.
You said that bolded part right after you bolded me saying "1.4/1.9 for 1.1 is not a lowball offer" and disagreed with it. It was crystal clear that your post was basically saying "1.4/1.9 for 1.1 is totally a lowball offer. I mean, it's not crazy like a 3rd rounder or something, but it's a lowball offer".
squistion
Footballguy
Interesting analogy, too bad it mischaracterizes my position.I will buy that apple for 30 cents from that other guy because I am hungry, and I like the price. But from you, I need that apple for 20 cents because you have so many.
Ok, that other guy is no longer selling apples. I still need that apple for 20 cents from you, even though I was happy to pay 30 to the other guy. No??? Oh well, I guess I will stay hungry.
Question. How many offers have you sent in your life, and how many were accepted?
I am in a dozen dynasty leagues and probably make no less than 3-5 trades a year in each of them. Not the most active trader, but owners continue to trade with me (some for over a dozen years) because they do find me to be fair in my dealings with them.
I haven't kept a log of how many offers I have sent since 2003 and the number of those accepted (why would I?) however I usually make what is my best offer or close to my best offer at the onset of trade negotiations (as some do others here) and it seems a good number are accepted right away without a counter, so I must be doing something right (or maybe I am overpaying, which doesn't bother me if it is a player I really want).
I have been successful in my leagues for the most part and have turned a modest profit more years than not and am usually close to breaking even when I have finished in the red overall. It has been entertaining little hobby which has paid for itself, which is all I care about.
Im a big believer in stockpiling 2017s, but that first offer is enough value for me to take the Hill/2016s side.
I'll take the 1st for Langford though.
