Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

****OFFICIAL 2021 OFF- SEASON DYNASTY TRADES****


Recommended Posts

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 post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 33.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • menobrown

    1849

  • One More Rep

    1306

  • barackdhouse

    1156

  • FreeBaGeL

    1039

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

No, they won't accept

You mean it went down in a league you used to be in??  I’d go ful Vontae Davis on that league asap 

Barkley on this one, it isn't that close

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 post
Share on other sites
17 hours 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

As a Barkley owner, I wouldn't even consider that trade for him. :shrug: 

  • Like 3
Link to post
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 post
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 post
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 post
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 post
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 post
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 post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, FreeBaGeL said:

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.

Hmm...well that's true too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, FreeBaGeL said:

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.

This.  With starting lineup requirements of 1 RB and 3 WR, there’s no way I’m trading Barkley for a bucket of maybes.  Lock Barkley in for the next 8 years and fill in the rest some other way.  

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kutta said:
1 hour 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.

I follow all of this logic and hope it works out for you. But just wanted to point out that it is Barkley + players filling 3 roster spots, not Barkley alone.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FreeBaGeL said:

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.

That is exactly how I look at it. Keeping Barkley would absolutely make their starting lineup better, which as far as I am concerned is the only thing that matters. Everyone wants to chase value, but the reason selling/buying studs is wonky is because the name of the game isn't to get value, it's to get points. Barkley is special at getting points in a way none of these others are likely to. If it equals out to something like 1.03 and 1.07 plus the future 1sts then I'd like to have Dobbins and Jefferson and then I'd probably have to think about it. I don't think it's a bad deal but I have made at least 30 different offers in the last couple years that I think are better than this one (because they had proven studs somewhere in the deal) and have *never* got a counter. I own one share of Barkley now and it's only because I took him in a startup (at 1.03 in superflex ahead of Lamar Jackson). I've only seen him moved maybe twice in my leagues. Only once that I can actually point to off the top of my head, and this is going back to when he hadn't even been drafted yet. The 1.01 was untouchable that year.

Edited by barackdhouse
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, barackdhouse said:

That is exactly how I look at it. Keeping Barkley would absolutely make their starting lineup better, which as far as I am concerned is the only thing that matters. Everyone wants to chase value, but the reason selling/buying studs is wonky is because the name of the game isn't to get value, it's to get points. Barkley is special at getting points in a way none of these others are likely to. If it equals out to something like 1.03 and 1.07 plus the future 1sts then I'd like to have Dobbins and Jefferson and then I'd probably have to think about it. I don't think it's a bad deal but I have made at least 30 different offers in the last couple years that I think are better than this one (because they had proven studs somewhere in the deal) and have *never* got a counter. I own one share of Barkley now and it's only because I took him in a startup (at 1.03 in superflex ahead of Lamar Jackson). I've only seen him moved maybe twice in my leagues. Only once that I can actually point to off the top of my head, and this is going back to when he hadn't even been drafted yet. The 1.01 was untouchable that year.

Right - but I have Akers ahead of Dobbins and Reagor ahead of Jefferson in my rankings. You say you'd have to think about it if it was Dobbins and Jefferson instead - well, it doesn't sound like we are that far off.

I totally understand the point though, and honestly, a small part of me also was also thinking that this football season may not happen or may be cut short. In some weird way that seemed to increase the value of this year's rookies and the 2021 first when compared to Saquon. That wasn't my primary thinking, but just another factor.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SayWhat? said:

This.  With starting lineup requirements of 1 RB and 3 WR, there’s no way I’m trading Barkley for a bucket of maybes.  Lock Barkley in for the next 8 years and fill in the rest some other way.  

There's a flex too, just to be clear.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, kutta said:

Right - but I have Akers ahead of Dobbins and Reagor ahead of Jefferson in my rankings. You say you'd have to think about it if it was Dobbins and Jefferson instead - well, it doesn't sound like we are that far off.

I totally understand the point though, and honestly, a small part of me also was also thinking that this football season may not happen or may be cut short. In some weird way that seemed to increase the value of this year's rookies and the 2021 first when compared to Saquon. That wasn't my primary thinking, but just another factor.

Yeah but I'd still decline. I'd think about it and then decline.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good morning mates:

 

12-team, non-SF dyn, 0.5 PPR, 30-roster spot, start QRRWWTFFD

Team A: DJ Moore

Team B: D Parker + 2021 1st rounder

 

Separately,  I have to agree with keeping Barkley as above, especially in the lower starting requirement set-up for all the reasons stated. That being said, you need to gamble to make those big moves, and who knows what Akers and those other 2 firsts turn into. But, imo, history isn't on their side, and my concern would be Barkley keeps those picks from being very high but you never know.

Thank you mates.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, SayWhat? said:

This.  With starting lineup requirements of 1 RB and 3 WR, there’s no way I’m trading Barkley for a bucket of maybes.  Lock Barkley in for the next 8 years and fill in the rest some other way.  

Let's not go beyond a 3-year window for dynasty.  A lot can happen, especially at RB

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, tangfoot said:

Let's not go beyond a 3-year window for dynasty.  A lot can happen, especially at RB

If that’s how you want to play it, no problem.  Sure, a lot can happen.  But I’m not viewing a generational talent like Barkley as “just a three year window” player.  I’d wager he returns plenty of value past the age of 26, which is what he’ll be three years from now.   And sure, there’s almost no chance he produces elite numbers for eight straight years, but I’ll take my chances on him and three open roster spots vs the four unknowns he was traded for.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, clvrpns said:

Good morning mates:

 

12-team, non-SF dyn, 0.5 PPR, 30-roster spot, start QRRWWTFFD

Team A: DJ Moore

Team B: D Parker + 2021 1st rounder

 

Separately,  I have to agree with keeping Barkley as above, especially in the lower starting requirement set-up for all the reasons stated. That being said, you need to gamble to make those big moves, and who knows what Akers and those other 2 firsts turn into. But, imo, history isn't on their side, and my concern would be Barkley keeps those picks from being very high but you never know. 

Thank you mates.

Moore for me. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, clvrpns said:

Good morning mates:

 

12-team, non-SF dyn, 0.5 PPR, 30-roster spot, start QRRWWTFFD

Team A: DJ Moore

Team B: D Parker + 2021 1st rounder

 

Separately,  I have to agree with keeping Barkley as above, especially in the lower starting requirement set-up for all the reasons stated. That being said, you need to gamble to make those big moves, and who knows what Akers and those other 2 firsts turn into. But, imo, history isn't on their side, and my concern would be Barkley keeps those picks from being very high but you never know.

Thank you mates.

I own both Moore and Parker in dynasty, but this wouldn’t come close to doing enough for me to move DJ. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, SayWhat? said:

If that’s how you want to play it, no problem.  Sure, a lot can happen.  But I’m not viewing a generational talent like Barkley as “just a three year window” player.  I’d wager he returns plenty of value past the age of 26, which is what he’ll be three years from now.   And sure, there’s almost no chance he produces elite numbers for eight straight years, but I’ll take my chances on him and three open roster spots vs the four unknowns he was traded for.

If you want to exempt QBs, I am fine with that philosophy.  But I begin every dynasty season by looking at my roster with a three year window in mind. 

That doesn't mean that I want to jettison every player on my roster within the next three years, it's just that it's not realistic to look at any NFL player and say "That guy is going to be a stud for the next 6-8 years."

The 3-year thing is rolling.

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, tangfoot said:

 But I begin every dynasty season by looking at my roster with a three year window in mind. 

That doesn't mean that I want to jettison every player on my roster within the next three years, it's just that it's not realistic to look at any NFL player and say "That guy is going to be a stud for the next 6-8 years."

The 3-year thing is rolling.

I hear this a lot, this 3 year window. My question is why the arbitrary amount of 3 years? I never hear a 2 or 4 year window, I truly never understood why the 3 year window was  so key for a lot of people.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JoeJoe88 said:

I own both Moore and Parker in dynasty, but this wouldn’t come close to doing enough for me to move DJ. 

.5 PPR makes it a bit closer for me, especially if the first turns into a good RB prospect, though on the surface I like the Moore side too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

FFWC ppr, 1/2/3/1/2,  yr2 of orphan rebuild in a lopsided lg with 3 dominant tms

Gave Arob

Got 2021 1st & 2d, Michael Pittman

Hated to give up Arob, but felt it was right move for where this tm is right now (2 yrs away). Picks are from tm that finished dead last in 2020 and should be mid rd or better imo. Hopefully Aaron Rodgers will be playing in Indy next yr😏

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, NE_REVIVAL said:

FFWC ppr, 1/2/3/1/2,  yr2 of orphan rebuild in a lopsided lg with 3 dominant tms

Gave Arob

Got 2021 1st & 2d, Michael Pittman

Hated to give up Arob, but felt it was right move for where this tm is right now (2 yrs away). Picks are from tm that finished dead last in 2020 and should be mid rd or better imo. Hopefully Aaron Rodgers will be playing in Indy next yr😏

Good move.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, NE_REVIVAL said:

FFWC ppr, 1/2/3/1/2,  yr2 of orphan rebuild in a lopsided lg with 3 dominant tms

Gave Arob

Got 2021 1st & 2d, Michael Pittman

Hated to give up Arob, but felt it was right move for where this tm is right now (2 yrs away). Picks are from tm that finished dead last in 2020 and should be mid rd or better imo. Hopefully Aaron Rodgers will be playing in Indy next yr😏

Nice trade for you. I would probably do this even if I was competing. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, NE_REVIVAL said:

Surprised, i thought every1 would hate it, maybe its my man love for arob. 

 

I like Arob, and generally find him to be undervalued.  But for a rebuilding team, that's about the best you can ask for in return for him.  He got moved for a single first in my dynasty league last season, and that turned out to be the 1.05 this year.  You did well. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, menobrown said:

I hear this a lot, this 3 year window. My question is why the arbitrary amount of 3 years? I never hear a 2 or 4 year window, I truly never understood why the 3 year window was  so key for a lot of people.

Do you play dynasty? 

Going into each season I take a critical look at my roster and determine which players I want to own over the next 1-3 seasons.  This takes into account whether or not I feel like my team has a legitimate shot at the league championship.

4 years is an eternity in dynasty.  Just go look at the rankings from June of 2016 and you'll see that this is true.

2 years isn't enough time to adequately evaluate rookies and some other young players in developmental positions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NE_REVIVAL said:

FFWC ppr, 1/2/3/1/2,  yr2 of orphan rebuild in a lopsided lg with 3 dominant tms

Gave Arob

Got 2021 1st & 2d, Michael Pittman

Hated to give up Arob, but felt it was right move for where this tm is right now (2 yrs away). Picks are from tm that finished dead last in 2020 and should be mid rd or better imo. Hopefully Aaron Rodgers will be playing in Indy next yr😏

This deal is so perplexing for a team that finished last...ARob is a solid WR but not the guy I am gonna make a sweetheart deal for...this is a case where you can see why this guy finished last.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, menobrown said:

I hear this a lot, this 3 year window. My question is why the arbitrary amount of 3 years? I never hear a 2 or 4 year window, I truly never understood why the 3 year window was  so key for a lot of people.

 

Rookie deals are usually 4 years, unless a 1st NFL draft round prospect. Most coaching situations don’t last the entire timespan.
 

3 years seems to be hedge on contract length, coaching, no replacements on the roster, and seeing if the player is actually an NFL talent for FF purposes.

Most FF players think everyone is an NFL talent for FF before they play a down. They think the player will last for 10 years. And of course, their situation will never change. But next year, the team will possibly bring some one in to take their job.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Couple trades in my main dynasty league from this week:

10 teams, ppr, superflex, full idp, 100 contract years per team (number in parenthesis is length of contract)

 

Team A Gave:
Singletary, Devin BUF RB (5); Year 2020 Draft Pick 3.08

Team B Gave:
Brown, Marquise BAL WR (5); Year 2020 Draft Pick 2.04

--------

Team C Gave:
Mattison, Alexander MIN RB (5)

Team D (Not the Cook owner) Gave:
Davis, Corey TEN WR (4)

------

Team E Gave:
Haskins, Dwayne WAS QB (5); Year 2020 Draft Pick 3.05

Team D Gave: 
Williams, Damien KCC RB (2); Year 2020 Draft Pick 4.01

------

Team A Gave:
Golladay, Kenny DET WR (3)

Team F Gave:
Year 2020 Draft Pick 1.09; Year 2020 Draft Pick 2.01

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Boston said:

This deal is so perplexing for a team that finished last...ARob is a solid WR but not the guy I am gonna make a sweetheart deal for...this is a case where you can see why this guy finished last.

Yeah, it was actually an orphan team and he took it over this yr but I agree imho his tm isn't really ready to compete this yr but judging by the move he thinks it can; maybe hes right but the odds are stacked against him. Fwiw, he made the original offer and we countered a couple of times.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, tangfoot said:

If you want to exempt QBs, I am fine with that philosophy.  But I begin every dynasty season by looking at my roster with a three year window in mind. 

That doesn't mean that I want to jettison every player on my roster within the next three years, it's just that it's not realistic to look at any NFL player and say "That guy is going to be a stud for the next 6-8 years."

The 3-year thing is rolling.

That’s fine and thats your approach, but then you’re likely to undervalue someone like CeeDee Lamb and overvalue Keenan Allen.    Similarly, I wouldn’t wager heavily on Barkley outproducing Henry over the next three years, but I would if the bet were over the next eight years.  You’re right, NFL lifespans are short.  But there are plenty of players who provide more than three years of usefulness, and when you end up with one of those the value is immense. Especially at RB, where an all purpose horse can outright win you the league.  I’m of the opinion that Barkley is one of those players, and that’s definitely based on the belief that he’s as good a bet as anyone to be elite for the next three years, as well as for plenty of years beyond that after he turns 26.  Sure, injuries can derail that, but I’ll roll the dice on that vs the same injury potential and bust factor for Akers, Reagor, and two unknown 1sts.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Spin said:

Couple trades in my main dynasty league from this week:

10 teams, ppr, superflex, full idp, 100 contract years per team (number in parenthesis is length of contract)

 

Team A Gave:
Singletary, Devin BUF RB (5); Year 2020 Draft Pick 3.08

Team B Gave:
Brown, Marquise BAL WR (5); Year 2020 Draft Pick 2.04

--------

Team C Gave:
Mattison, Alexander MIN RB (5)

Team D (Not the Cook owner) Gave:
Davis, Corey TEN WR (4)

------

Team E Gave:
Haskins, Dwayne WAS QB (5); Year 2020 Draft Pick 3.05

Team D Gave: 
Williams, Damien KCC RB (2); Year 2020 Draft Pick 4.01

------

Team A Gave:
Golladay, Kenny DET WR (3)

Team F Gave:
Year 2020 Draft Pick 1.09; Year 2020 Draft Pick 2.01

 

Hollywood side pretty easily

Mattison side by miles

Pretty even I would probably take Williams side

Golladay

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tangfoot said:

Do you play dynasty? 

Going into each season I take a critical look at my roster and determine which players I want to own over the next 1-3 seasons.  This takes into account whether or not I feel like my team has a legitimate shot at the league championship.

4 years is an eternity in dynasty.  Just go look at the rankings from June of 2016 and you'll see that this is true.

2 years isn't enough time to adequately evaluate rookies and some other young players in developmental positions.

Yes I play dynasty and not sure what I asked that you felt the need to ask me that question.

I just don't understand the arbitrary nature of 3 years. As Riffraff said in his response below I would think 4 years is more fitting but as I detailed in my response below I think it's more if an individual player specific scenario. I don't buy into this 2 years is not enough  but 4 years is to many and 3 is just right mindset that seems to be so pervasive.

And again backtracking to your question about if I play dynasty. One of my first dynasty teams was in 2013 and I took Julio, Bell and AB in the startup. I got 7 years out of Julio and Bell(6 if we count the missed season) and then dealt them this off-season for high picks and I still have AB. I just finished off my 6th straight season of being one of top two teams in the league because of these 3 players being my core for so long and again I exited out of Bell and Julio with high first round picks. So my opinion is it's lot more nuanced then saying 4 years is an eternity, 2 year is not enough but 3 years is just right.

35 minutes ago, Riffraff said:

Rookie deals are usually 4 years, unless a 1st NFL draft round prospect.
 

 

4 years seems more apt but I would and do look at each player on an individual basis, there is no set year for anticipated expiration or decline in value that works for all players. Some things are impossible to predict but contract, age/contract of supporting cast, security of coaching staff are key items I review and there is not set timeframe IMO that works but it's more of an individual basis. For example I got a team with a bunch of old WR's, Julio, Hilton and AB. I view that team as having 2-3 years to locate replacement WR's and as such a chance in 2-3 years if I fail at that task I'm looking at a rebuild. Case by case for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, menobrown said:

One of my first dynasty teams was in 2013 and I took Julio, Bell and AB in the startup. I got 7 years out of Julio and Bell(6 if we count the missed season)

Getting 3-10 years out of a player is irrelevant.  To me the important thing is looking at any player with a 3 year lens, regardless of their age.

I drafted many older vets in startups in the last few years because I was confident that I would get 3+ years out of them, but it doesn't matter HOW MANY years beyond 3 I get, because every year begins a new 3-year evaluation period.

If I look at Barkley as a 3 year investment today, it's also possible (likely?) that he will still be considered as a 3-year player three years down the road, that doesn't change the fact that I still evaluate him through that time period.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, tangfoot said:

Getting 3-10 years out of a player is irrelevant.  To me the important thing is looking at any player with a 3 year lens, regardless of their age.

I drafted many older vets in startups in the last few years because I was confident that I would get 3+ years out of them, but it doesn't matter HOW MANY years beyond 3 I get, because every year begins a new 3-year evaluation period.

If I look at Barkley as a 3 year investment today, it's also possible (likely?) that he will still be considered as a 3-year player three years down the road, that doesn't change the fact that I still evaluate him through that time period.

Yea, for sure not how I manage my teams but to each their own.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, SayWhat? said:

That’s fine and thats your approach, but then you’re likely to undervalue someone like CeeDee Lamb and overvalue Keenan Allen.   

If I still owned Allen anywhere, I would be moving him for anything I can get. 

He has been dynasty kryptonite for the past several seasons.  I sold my last shares in 2019 and was relieved that I was able to get out from under him at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, tangfoot said:

If I still owned Allen anywhere, I would be moving him for anything I can get. 

He has been dynasty kryptonite for the past several seasons.  I sold my last shares in 2019 and was relieved that I was able to get out from under him at all.

But at age 28 he likely has three decent years left in him.  And Lamb will likely start out a bit slowly as one of three solid WRs in an offense heavily featuring Zeke, so their production over the next three years is likely to be similar. No?  Shouldn’t they be valued similarly as of today?  If not, why not?  If the answer is because you simply hate Allen, then insert Robert Woods run the same analysis.  I’m generally dumbfounded how someone can say they play dynasty and don’t look past three years.  I positively refuse to believe that’s actually the case.  Otherwise most would take Allen or Woods over Lamb and do cartwheels.  Yet nobody is doing that.  Why not?  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SayWhat? said:

But at age 28 he likely has three decent years left in him.  And Lamb will likely start out a bit slowly as one of three solid WRs in an offense heavily featuring Zeke, so their production over the next three years is likely to be similar. No?  Shouldn’t they be valued similarly as of today?  If not, why not?  If the answer is because you simply hate Allen, then insert Robert Woods run the same analysis.  I’m generally dumbfounded how someone can say they play dynasty and don’t look past three years.  I positively refuse to believe that’s actually the case.  Otherwise most would take Allen or Woods over Lamb and do cartwheels.  Yet nobody is doing that.  Why not?  

3 decent years as a WR2 at best?  That's essentially worthless in dynasty and untradeable. 

I'm not looking at any two players and comparing them to their redraft point totals over the next three years, I'm also taking into account team situation, likely trade value and whether that value will increase or decrease over the period of time I'm consdering owning them.

Allen is a depreciating asset, regardless of what he scores over the next three seasons.  I would also argue that his team situation and QB are suboptimal and therefore it's damn likely that Lamb will outscore him as soon as 2021.   And even if he doesn't, Lamb's perceived value will be higher. 

I run my dynasty teams by buying low and selling high if I'm not in immediate contention.  The window for that is long past with Allen, but I would consider trading for him with a future 2nd round pick + player if I determined he could help me now.

You could view Robert Woods in a similar way, even though I believe that he will have a superior season to Allen in 2020. 

And FWIW, Lamb currently has an ADP above both Allen and Woods, meaning that dynasty players in general feel like he's the better 3-year investment.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, clvrpns said:

Good morning mates:

 

12-team, non-SF dyn, 0.5 PPR, 30-roster spot, start QRRWWTFFD

Team A: DJ Moore

Team B: D Parker + 2021 1st rounder

 

Separately,  I have to agree with keeping Barkley as above, especially in the lower starting requirement set-up for all the reasons stated. That being said, you need to gamble to make those big moves, and who knows what Akers and those other 2 firsts turn into. But, imo, history isn't on their side, and my concern would be Barkley keeps those picks from being very high but you never know.

Thank you mates.

I like Moore by a lot in that scenario.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't have enough tools to adequately rate this, so thought I'd ask you guys.

12 team ppr, QRRWWTFFDK

Team A: Aaron Rodgers and Preston Williams

Team B: Christian Kirk and Chris Herndon

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, facook said:

Don't have enough tools to adequately rate this, so thought I'd ask you guys.

12 team ppr, QRRWWTFFDK

Team A: Aaron Rodgers and Preston Williams

Team B: Christian Kirk and Chris Herndon

Rodgers and Williams by a country mile.  I'm way down on Christian Kirk's value since they traded for Nuk.

  • Thanks 1
  • Thinking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

15 minutes ago, tangfoot said:

3 decent years as a WR2 at best?  That's essentially worthless in dynasty and untradeable. 

If you're not looking beyond three years, then three years as a WR2 is the opposite of worthless.

15 minutes ago, tangfoot said:

I'm not looking at any two players and comparing them to their redraft point totals over the next three years, I'm also taking into account team situation, likely trade value and whether that value will increase or decrease over the period of time I'm consdering owning them.

But by stating that you're taking into account their likely trade value increasing/decreasing over that time frame, you're absolutely valuing players beyond three years. 

15 minutes ago, tangfoot said:

Allen is a depreciating asset, regardless of what he scores over the next three seasons.  I would also argue that his team situation and QB are suboptimal and therefore it's damn likely that Lamb will outscore him as soon as 2021.   And even if he doesn't, Lamb's perceived value will be higher. 

Allen is absolutely a depreciating asset, but not necessarily if you're only looking at his value over the next three years. He's likely to be pretty solid for the next three years. 

Of course Lamb's perceived value will be higher.  That's because he has a potential 10+ year career ahead of him, and it's 100% certain that Keenan Allen does not. 

15 minutes ago, tangfoot said:

And FWIW, Lamb currently has an ADP above both Allen and Woods, meaning that dynasty players in general feel like he's the better 3-year investment.

And of course Lamb has an ADP above Allen and Woods.  That's not because owners are only viewing these players in a three year window.  If they were, they'd heavily lean towards the guy(s) who are likely to score more points over the next three years.  Lamb's ADP is higher SOLELY because his outlook and ability to potentially help you win beyond the next three years (and be a non-depreciating asset) is light years better than Allen and Woods.  And sure, he has the potential to outscore them as soon as this year. 

It seems that you're more or less admitting you absolutely do look beyond three years, otherwise you wouldn't take into account much whether a player's trade value is likely to increase/decrease during that timeframe.  By taking that into account, you're absolutely looking beyond three years.  That's what missing from the "three year window" vantage point.  But then it's really not a three year window.  It feels like that's the disconnect. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SayWhat? said:

 

If you're not looking beyond three years, then three years as a WR2 is the opposite of worthless.

But by stating that you're taking into account their likely trade value increasing/decreasing over that time frame, you're absolutely valuing players beyond three years. 

Allen is absolutely a depreciating asset, but not necessarily if you're only looking at his value over the next three years. He's likely to be pretty solid for the next three years. 

Of course Lamb's perceived value will be higher.  That's because he has a potential 10+ year career ahead of him, and it's 100% certain that Keenan Allen does not. 

And of course Lamb has an ADP above Allen and Woods.  That's not because owners are only viewing these players in a three year window.  If they were, they'd heavily lean towards the guy(s) who are likely to score more points over the next three years.  Lamb's ADP is higher SOLELY because his outlook and ability to potentially help you win beyond the next three years (and be a non-depreciating asset) is light years better than Allen and Woods.  And sure, he has the potential to outscore them as soon as this year. 

It seems that you're more or less admitting you absolutely do look beyond three years, otherwise you wouldn't take into account much whether a player's trade value is likely to increase/decrease during that timeframe.  By taking that into account, you're absolutely looking beyond three years.  That's what missing from the "three year window" vantage point.  But then it's really not a three year window.  It feels like that's the disconnect. 

 

Thank you for mansplaining my dynasty strategy.  I'm done with you and this entire conversation.

  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, tangfoot said:

 

Thank you for mansplaining my dynasty strategy.  I'm done with you and this entire conversation.

Mansplaining?  Sensitive much?  Best of luck in your dynasty conquests over the next three years, kind sir.

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, SayWhat? said:

 

If you're not looking beyond three years, then three years as a WR2 is the opposite of worthless.

But by stating that you're taking into account their likely trade value increasing/decreasing over that time frame, you're absolutely valuing players beyond three years. 

Allen is absolutely a depreciating asset, but not necessarily if you're only looking at his value over the next three years. He's likely to be pretty solid for the next three years. 

Of course Lamb's perceived value will be higher.  That's because he has a potential 10+ year career ahead of him, and it's 100% certain that Keenan Allen does not. 

And of course Lamb has an ADP above Allen and Woods.  That's not because owners are only viewing these players in a three year window.  If they were, they'd heavily lean towards the guy(s) who are likely to score more points over the next three years.  Lamb's ADP is higher SOLELY because his outlook and ability to potentially help you win beyond the next three years (and be a non-depreciating asset) is light years better than Allen and Woods.  And sure, he has the potential to outscore them as soon as this year. 

It seems that you're more or less admitting you absolutely do look beyond three years, otherwise you wouldn't take into account much whether a player's trade value is likely to increase/decrease during that timeframe.  By taking that into account, you're absolutely looking beyond three years.  That's what missing from the "three year window" vantage point.  But then it's really not a three year window.  It feels like that's the disconnect. 

I think what @tangfoot is saying is that things change VERY fast in the NFL. You just never know. Heck, just a few years ago the top 3 RB's (or at least 3 of the top 5) were David Johnson, Leveon Bell, and Todd Gurley. Now they can all be had for a song. It's very hard to look out at the landscape and say someone will be stud for 8 years. It just doesn't happen that often.

Now sure, youth is better than age because there's a CHANCE a young guy stays studly for a long time (Zeke seems to be on that track), but it is pretty rare, so taking a shorter time outlook is generally more helpful. 

For the most part, I agree with @tangfoot that a three year sliding window is a good way to manage a dynasty team. It's not hard and fast - of course there are guys you pick and hold and hope they grow into their role (Davante Adams for example). But overall, 3 years is about as far out as I project.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Gottabesweet changed the title to ****OFFICIAL 2021 OFF- 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.


×
×
  • Create New...