Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Dynasty philosophy: Why don't people "go for it"?


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Dr. Octopus said:

The cheapest way you are ever going to land a stud is by using a draft pick to acquire him.

Sure, but you don't need a stud to win.  It helps mask other deficiencies but it isn't a requirement.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This is the rare trade topic that Is both too specific and too general. 1. Why don’t people go for it? I dunno - people in my league do for sure. My team made the playoffs last year, cashed in 3r

ZWK has done some really interesting work projecting player value based on past VBD trends. Shortly after the 2018 NFL draft he had Julio’s worth around that of the 1.02 or 1.03, IIRC. He was 29 at th

I think getting to the playoffs is primarily skill. I think winning in them is primarily luck. 

Just now, Gally said:

Sure, but you don't need a stud to win.  It helps mask other deficiencies but it isn't a requirement.  

So we don't want studs, since we can win without one? I'm not sure I get your point in relation to what I said.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MAC_32 said:

I would expect someone with this perspective to have such an opinion. I don't. I'm not going to sit here and say I'm a draft whiz, but I've had a lot of success building my teams through the draft. My dyno teams were at their worst when I took more of a short sighted approach. Since I've adjusted to something more youth and forward thinking centric I am consistently in the playoffs.

I'm not really advocating burning 1st round picks for soon to retire veterans (say, Julio Jones, for example). I think that's what people mean by a "rental". I don't like that.

I am talking more about players that have been in the league a couple/few years yet have shown they can play. I'd rather take a chance on winning this post season with Keenan Allen than I would hoping that Rashod Bateman will pan out. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Gally said:

And if you are confident in your drafting and evaluation then there are always gems to be had in the later halfs of drafts that can keep your talent pipeline going.  Obviously both ways work but in my observations the teams that are always hording picks and playing for the future are doing just that.......always playing for the future and never for the now.  I like when that happens.  It's why I have had my success.  They trade me now players for future picks every year.  I am always in it at the end and they maybe get there every 4 or 5 years and are in the bottom 3rd the rest of the time.  I would rather be competitive every year and retool on the fly.  Both ways work so to each their own.

I actually don't think I do well later in the draft. I try to orchestrate trade-up's throughout the season to maximize my number of top 30 picks. Sure, I've connected on some late rounders, but my hit rate seems to be highest relatively speaking round 2 give or take. I don't always find the biggest hit and I have been prone to trading them before breaking out, but there have been very few misses in recent years. And ultimately that's matters - not missing. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dr. Octopus said:

So we don't want studs, since we can win without one? I'm not sure I get your point in relation to what I said.

I don't need to hoard 1st rounders to try and get a cheap stud to win.  Moving those picks for pieces that put you over the top when others value those picks much more than I do has been a better method for me to stay competitive than the draft pick method.  

 

You also need a good top of a draft class because those for sure guys don't always hit either.  Bottom line I think the draft is a crap shoot - even a true stud (Barkley) may have outside influences (injuries, bad o-line) that make them not worth what they should be.  I know I am in the minority for most dynasty players but I find too many dynasty mentality people are always playing for next year and never win because of it.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gally said:

I don't need to hoard 1st rounders to try and get a cheap stud to win.  Moving those picks for pieces that put you over the top when others value those picks much more than I do has been a better method for me to stay competitive than the draft pick method.  

You're not really responding to what was said.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gally said:

Bottom line I think the draft is a crap shoot - even a true stud (Barkley) may have outside influences (injuries, bad o-line) that make them not worth what they should be.  

The dirty little secret in this game is most veterans are a crap shoot from season to season.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dr. Octopus said:

You're not really responding to what was said.

You said the cheapest way to land a stud is a draft pick.  I agree with this.  I don't agree that you need to land a cheap stud to win titles.  The point is to win titles so landing a cheap stud is not a requirement in my eyes.  It helps but I would rather use those picks for players that I have seen in the NFL perform well (trading in season for players that can help me to the title and for the next year - i.e. two year window).  Other's value picks more than I do so I can turn a first rounder into someone like Keenan Allen (as mentioned above) and a late 2nd or early 3rd and help myself win now.  Then do it again next year.  It has worked well for me.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dr. Octopus said:

The dirty little secret in this game is most veterans are a crap shoot from season to season.

The real dirty little secret is this game is 90% luck anyway no matter what you do.  hahahah

  • Like 2
  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Andy Dufresne said:

I'm not really advocating burning 1st round picks for soon to retire veterans (say, Julio Jones, for example). I think that's what people mean by a "rental". I don't like that.

I am talking more about players that have been in the league a couple/few years yet have shown they can play. I'd rather take a chance on winning this post season with Keenan Allen than I would hoping that Rashod Bateman will pan out. 

And he's exactly the type of player I likely would not target right now - not with a #1 anyway. I mentioned trading for Deebo before, who is 24. That isn't the only reason he became my target, but it was a contributing factor. I'm trying to buy-in before the peak. Keenan Allen is 28. After combining teasing with injuries his first 4 years he finally broke out at age 25 and has sustained since, but I expect the trek down the bell curve to begin sooner rather than later. My objective in acquiring Deebo is his next 4 years mirror Allen's last 4 after combining teasing with injuries to this point, like Allen had. 

There could be a set of circumstances in which I would consider something like that, but it would not be plan A.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dr. Octopus said:

The dirty little secret in this game is most veterans are a crap shoot from season to season.

But if you are trading for them in season when they are having a good season that is likely to continue.  For multiple seasons maybe not but you are trading for someone currently performing and typically they continue barring injury.  Whether that continues the following year or year after is a crap shoot but they have at least proven the ability to do it at the NFL level.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dr. Octopus said:

The dirty little secret in this game is most veterans are a crap shoot from season to season.

I'd probably agree with this. But I'd also say that's why it's important to target who is playing well THIS season if you have the chance to win.

The word & idea of "dynasty" is kind of a funny one. In the three Zealots leagues I've participated in for over a decade, I can't think of one where there was a repeat champion. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Andy Dufresne said:

I'd probably agree with this. But I'd also say that's why it's important to target who is playing well THIS season if you have the chance to win.

The word & idea of "dynasty" is kind of a funny one. In the three Zealots leagues I've participated in for over a decade, I can't think of one where there was a repeat champion. 

I think getting to the playoffs is primarily skill. I think winning in them is primarily luck. 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, MAC_32 said:

And he's exactly the type of player I likely would not target right now - not with a #1 anyway. I mentioned trading for Deebo before, who is 24. That isn't the only reason he became my target, but it was a contributing factor. I'm trying to buy-in before the peak. Keenan Allen is 28. After combining teasing with injuries his first 4 years he finally broke out at age 25 and has sustained since, but I expect the trek down the bell curve to begin sooner rather than later. My objective in acquiring Deebo is his next 4 years mirror Allen's last 4 after combining teasing with injuries to this point, like Allen had. 

There could be a set of circumstances in which I would consider something like that, but it would not be plan A.

Heh. And Deebo is the exact guy that I wouldn't acquire for a title run because he hasn't proven anything yet - he's teased it, but hasn't proven it. And with the state of the 49ers offense he doesn't look primed to help the next few weeks. That's as opposed to Allen who faces the Falcons, Raiders, and Broncos (all west coast games to boot).

Edited by Andy Dufresne
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MAC_32 said:

I think getting to the playoffs is primarily skill. I think winning in them is primarily luck. 

Lots of churn getting into the playoffs too. Point being that building a "dynasty" team that goes 10-3 year after year is kind of a unicorn. 

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

Lots of churn getting into the playoffs too. Point being that building a "dynasty" team that goes 10-3 year after year is kind of a unicorn. 

10-3? Sure. Playoff qualifier? I don't agree. My approach began to change mid last decade as access to information had clearly changed. How I handled each of my team's varied based on circumstances, but the objective was to get them in a spot like they are now. Succinctly, filled them with mid 20something's, whenever I accumulated depth trade for future picks, and whenever I developed problems trade for (cheap) vets. Of course I'll explore other avenues if opportunities arise, but that's the foundation.

My last 4 years:

8-5, 6-7, 11-2, 10-3 (one title, 4 seed)

6-7, 9-4, 8-5, 11-2 (one title, 1st round bye)

10-4, 8-6, 10-4, 7-6* (one title, need some help to make playoffs - only 4 teams)

9-4, 4-9, 8-5, 8-5 (no titles, 1st round bye)

My point isn't to say this is the right way and all should copy it. There are many different successful strategies that work for a myriad of different reasons based on each one's own unique strengths. My point is I think this is the right way - for me. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, MAC_32 said:

I think getting to the playoffs is primarily skill. I think winning in them is primarily luck. 

This is why in my dynasty league we don't have playoffs and play a full 17 games.  Best record wins the title.  Playoffs are a complete crapshoot as one bad outing or an in game injury and your season is toast even if you have the best overall team.  For dynasty taking that out of the equation has been nice.  

  • Thinking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

ZWK has done some really interesting work projecting player value based on past VBD trends. Shortly after the 2018 NFL draft he had Julio’s worth around that of the 1.02 or 1.03, IIRC. He was 29 at the time and his market value was well below that. 

I guess I don’t see the point in following hard rules. We don’t make moves in the abstract. Take value in whatever form it comes, IMO.

  • Like 4
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Andy Dufresne said:

Heh. And Deebo is the exact guy that I wouldn't acquire for a title run because he hasn't proven anything yet - he's teased it, but hasn't proven it. And with the state of the 49ers offense he doesn't look primed to help the next few weeks. That's as opposed to Allen who faces the Falcons, Raiders, and Broncos (all west coast games to boot).

Deebo is an acquisition building for next year.  Allen is an acquisition for winning this year........just as you have stated.  Two different situations for sure and two different philosophies.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My experience has taught me, that if your league is competitive, championship windows are generally open for short period of time.  I think a window can be as small as 1 year and as large as 4 years; however, more often than not, generally some where in between.  

If I can win now and keep the window open...I do so within reason.  If I can win now and either have no business being able to or if I feel the window is small...I pursue a ‘win now’ as aggressively as possible.  
 

It’s  fun to build a roster of talent that could become a winner.  Do you know what is even more fun?  Winning a championship.  
 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Gally said:

This is why in my dynasty league we don't have playoffs and play a full 17 games.  Best record wins the title.  Playoffs are a complete crapshoot as one bad outing or an in game injury and your season is toast even if you have the best overall team.  For dynasty taking that out of the equation has been nice.  

I wish more dynasty leagues did that. Particularly ones with a good amount of money at stake. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Dr. Octopus said:

The cheapest way you are ever going to land a stud is by using a draft pick to acquire him.

Don’t really agree, especially the shorter the bench size you go in a league. There is an opportunity cost you aren’t taking into account, you can trade that draft pick for one or more other picks or players that may turn into studs as well. Not every stud is a stud out of the gate and always increasing in value from the moment they enter the league. Not every stud is even drafted in rookie drafts sometimes. Spending a draft pick on a rookie is always a costly gamble just as it is a gamble to trade for a veteran instead.

 

The cheapest way is to hit waiver wire gold.

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

Don’t really agree, especially the shorter the bench size you go in a league. There is an opportunity cost you aren’t taking into account, you can trade that draft pick for one or more other picks or players that may turn into studs as well. Not every stud is a stud out of the gate and always increasing in value from the moment they enter the league. Not every stud is even drafted in rookie drafts sometimes. Spending a draft pick on a rookie is always a costly gamble just as it is a gamble to trade for a veteran instead.

 

The cheapest way is to hit waiver wire gold.

Can you say James Robinson?

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

Deebo is an acquisition building for next year.  Allen is an acquisition for winning this year........just as you have stated.  Two different situations for sure and two different philosophies.  

If I get burned then so be it, but I don't agree. He has enhanced injury risk right now, but discounting game 1 when he was on limited snaps his active games this season are consistent with his 2nd half last season when he was the #10 scorer once returning from injury. I think I'd have done the deal anyway, but earning a bye helped as I don't really want to mess with this Washington defense. What lies beyond though - he's got a couple of very favorable matchups the final 2 weeks. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, fruity pebbles said:

I wish more dynasty leagues did that. Particularly ones with a good amount of money at stake. 

I'm in a bourbon league - we all put up a bottle. I forget exactly how all the various payouts go (probably as a result of drinking too much bourbon), but the overall points winner gets one. One year it was actually someone who missed the playoffs.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, MAC_32 said:

If I get burned then so be it, but I don't agree. He has enhanced injury risk right now, but discounting game 1 when he was on limited snaps his active games this season are consistent with his 2nd half last season when he was the #10 scorer once returning from injury. I think I'd have done the deal anyway, but earning a bye helped as I don't really want to mess with this Washington defense. What lies beyond though - he's got a couple of very favorable matchups the final 2 weeks. 

I am not saying it is a bad acquisition at all.  I am saying his value is more future value than present value (not that he has no present value).  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ghostguy123 said:

If you do too much "win now" stuff you will most likely regret it later.   

I have made several "win later" type moves that actually helped me "now" as well.   Things change really in the NFL.  

Very true.  But it depends on the "Balance" effect.  You can sacrifice part of the future to pay dividends now.  But don't throw away all the future value either.  

I see it reasonable to give up a 1st round pick next year, but your return should offer something besides the "vet asset" like a return lower pick or young potential talent

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

Lots of churn getting into the playoffs too. Point being that building a "dynasty" team that goes 10-3 year after year is kind of a unicorn. 

Our 12 Team league, 6 Playoff teams from last year, only 2 repeated this year from last.  Granted #1 both times same team.  But for reference, they are already eliminated this year playoff.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Gally said:

I am not saying it is a bad acquisition at all.  I am saying his value is more future value than present value (not that he has no present value).  

Ah, gotcha. I follow now. I agree that it's more future years than current year. Cause Allen is a better bet the next 3 weeks. I'm just skeptical how much better.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ghostguy123 said:

If you do too much "win now" stuff you will most likely regret it later.   

I have made several "win later" type moves that actually helped me "now" as well.   Things change really in the NFL.  

Which is why people that work in 4-5 year windows really end up always playing for next year.  Looking at 2 yr windows has done me well as those are about as close to known as you can get.  Coaching changes, injuries, free agency really can screw up your best laid plans.  

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

Which is why people that work in 4-5 year windows really end up always playing for next year.  Looking at 2 yr windows has done me well as those are about as close to known as you can get.  Coaching changes, injuries, free agency really can screw up your best laid plans.  

That and some people just arent good at the strategy they are attempting.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ghostguy123 said:

That and some people just arent good at the strategy they are attempting.  

It's this. There's a balance between a forward thinking approach and...just always forward thinking. I have not figured out how to articulate it without going through anecdotal examples though. There is always nuance to consider, which is why I don't think guardrails are a good idea. There's an I-don't-know-how-to--quantify framework centered around maximizing the raw number of young assets without impeding the current roster as long as it is in contention.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all a great conversation. I am *always* in compete now mode. And I am *always* looking to the future as well. I fully reject any premise that they have to be mutually exclusive. With the probable exception of a team that really needs blown up. I've taken on a couple orphans like that, but I've never had a team of mine fall that hard. I don't care about nuanced trade-offs between what swaths of people consider as win-now vs rebuilding moves. Because I am always doing both. It's simply a matter of does this help my team or do I like it enough to try?

I could care less about my franchise's net worth of assets for the purposes of rosterbation or future forecasting, within reasonable limits of trade value. I don't want to do anything too stupid, but winning now is the only thing that matters. Getting value is a tool and a method, not an endgoal in and of itself. If I have to sacrifice value to gain a points advantage in the playoffs, I do it every time. It *does* depend how thin of a playoff team I think I am, though. Some teams limp into the playoffs and I have to be judicious about it. 

I don't need a *guarantee* that the acquired player will help my playoff run, if I like the chances, and especially with respect to the OP, if I have a big need at the position, of course I'm going to consider it. I think this idea of it being "guaranteed" gets to the heart of this discussion as it relates to risk tolerance. FF is chalked full of people that IMO are too risk averse. Which ironically I think is the most risky thing of all. We *have* to be aiming for where the FF landscape is heading, and of course to try and use our best aim. But to be afraid of pulling the trigger is the worst strategy of all. 

Rarely do I find myself without draft picks as I make other deals to get back in if I really run short. And my track record on draft picks and waiver acquisitions are probably the two strongest legs of my fantasy table, with trading a solid 3rd. Start sit decisions is by leaps and bounds my biggest weakness and 4th leg. I just don't worry about the future from the standpoint of letting it interfere with the present, which is about winning championships and nothing else. I'm always churning and trying to stay young and when you do that and hit on your picks there is no reason why you should have to hedge the future at the expense of the present.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dr. Octopus said:

You pick up “studs” on waivers regularly? Good for you.

No not studs per se, but fantasy relevant players and each year I seem to find at least 1 player I would describe as league winning. To me that doesn't have to just be the Damien Williams types that literally win your league in weeks 14-16, but inseason guys like Myles Gaskin that help get many solid regular season wins. Mike Davis. 

I have been able to consistently get guys like that who not only help me win, but who I have later flipped for massive profit. Robert Woods, Phillip Lindsay, even Tyreek Hill. Kittle. Last year I got McLaurin off waivers. I could go on and on. 

16 minutes ago, MAC_32 said:

Always try to find a James Robinson, but never plan as if you will.

I think you should plan like those opportunities are going to be out there and that you need to try and be ready for them. It's not always going to happen but every damn year there are waiver adds that change leagues. I am a little shocked that people wouldn't count on this at least a little. If for no other reason than to consider that if there is going to be some league winning type out there in a given season, it is either going to be you or your opponent that gets them. You can't count on it being you, but I feel like you should consider it a priority. 

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

No not studs per se, but fantasy relevant players and each year I seem to find at least 1 player I would describe as league winning. To me that doesn't have to just be the Damien Williams types that literally win your league in weeks 14-16, but inseason guys like Myles Gaskin that help get many solid regular season wins. Mike Davis. 

I have been able to consistently get guys like that who not only help me win, but who I have later flipped for massive profit. Robert Woods, Phillip Lindsay, even Tyreek Hill. Kittle. Last year I got McLaurin off waivers. I could go on and on. 

I think you should plan like those opportunities are going to be out there and that you need to try and be ready for them. It's not always going to happen but every damn year there are waiver adds that change leagues. I am a little shocked that people wouldn't count on this at least a little. If for no other reason than to consider that if there is going to be some league winning type out there in a given season, it is either going to be you or your opponent that gets them. You can't count on it being you, but I feel like you should consider it a priority. 

I don't think we disagree about this - I just think we approach it vastly different. I try to go into each season with a lineup I'm comfortable with and as much depth as possible with at least my own haul of future draft picks (ideally more). I also recognize it's impossible to have depth everywhere. I am constantly churning the bottom of my roster hoping to stumble upon one or many of these, but I don't consider them until after they actually happen. When I do then I'll decision make accordingly - whether it's patching a hole that developed or adding future draft capital.

Some season's on some roster's you're delivered too many body blows to handle, but with a focus on a relatively high number of young players I'm better equipped to handle the rigors of the season than my competition.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/5/2020 at 11:20 PM, Andy Dufresne said:

Anyway, this is more of a general point/question. I don't get playing it safe when you've qualified for the playoffs.

Are people really content just being pretty good in-season?

I've done both.  I pushed all-in last week trading my injured Saquon and disappointing Dobbins for CMC in the hope that he can push me over the top for the next few weeks.

In another league I don't see any scenario where my team will beat one of the top two teams in the league, so I stood pat.  I am a marginal playoff team at best, but as they say "a chip and a chair"

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ghostguy123 said:

If you do too much "win now" stuff you will most likely regret it later.   

I have made several "win later" type moves that actually helped me "now" as well.   Things change really in the NFL.  

Exactly. In May of THIS year, here is SI's top 10 dynasty WR's.

1. Michael Thomas

2. Tyreek Hill

3. Chris Godwin

4. De'Andre Hopkins

5. DJ Moore

6. Davante Adams

7. Mike Evans

8. Amari Cooper

9. Kenny Golladay

10. DK Metcalf

We haven't even finished the season yet and Thomas, Godwin, Moore, Evans, Cooper, and Golladay would all fall a pretty good amount if we ranked today. Hill, Adams, and Metcalf (and probably Hopkins) are really the only GUARANTEES to remain in the top 10 at this point.

Guys that may move into the top 10 would be AJ Brown, Ridley, Jefferson, Lamb, McClaurin, and maybe guys like Diggs, Allen, and Higgins.

Things do change fast.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have anything concrete to support this, but I disagree with the idea that the clearest path to championships is maximizing volume of playoff appearances rather than quality of playoff appearances. I want to be on the edges of the distribution curve - dominating and securing bye weeks or accumulating premium picks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

with established teams, i try to shore up my rosters for playoff runs if i think i have a Top 4 team...  but i don't think i have ever gone "all in" to the extent that i trade valuable young assets. Draft pics are different. I mainly play in devy leagues and rarely keep my rookie 1sts since they are later and the pool is depleted (3 years ago netted Ebron before the season, 2 years got Jackson/Samuel for Roth and my 1st, this year during the season RJIII). I keep my devy players and picks longer to try and replenish the youth pipeline.

I construct rosters in rolling 3 year periods, laddering the ages at each position like bonds or cds. The older players have zero trade value and I am willing to let them die on my roster. Guys like White, M Jones, Hilton may be a bye or flex filler... but to have the chuztpah to start in the playoffs? Jones, maybe.

I respectfully disagree with CC about playoff appearance volume. Any chance to get money back and have a weighted coin flip for more money should always be taken. I'm realistic with three teams that are 6 seeds, but on any given Sunday, Monday and sometimes Tuesday and Wednesday, anything can happen. I rather have that than the 1.06 rookie pick. Any team that has no shot at the playoffs i am always looking to acquire youth/picks. But some leagues picks are thrown around like manhole covers

as for finding value on the WW besides Robinson, last year Higbee before his run and Tonyan after week 3 are hits... usually you find some emergency depth like Bridgewater or Edwards Balt RB. But if its a 14 teamer and/or larger rosters, there is very little out there on the WW.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I look to make trades in both directions - trades that help me win now at the expense of the future, and trades that help build my team for the future at the expense of making it harder to win now.

But in practice I wind up making more trades (and especially more big trades) which help me build for the future and weaken me in the present (even when I'm a contender). And when I look at big "win-now" trades that other teams make, it's more common for me to think that the win-now team got the worse end of the deal.

Two reasons why you might expect to find good opportunities for trades that help you win now:

1. There are increasing returns to team quality: the better your team is, the more its chances of winning the championship improve for each 1 ppg increase in its scoring. So it's efficient to clump production from worse teams to better teams (or from years when your team is worse to years when your team is better).

2. The teams that should be most desperate to make a trade are the ones that are out of contention this year and have declining assets (whose value for this year constitutes a large fraction of their total value).

But in practice these factors usually get outweighed by people's tendency to overvalue older players (established names) and the current season relative to picks/prospects and future seasons.

So most of the win-now trades I make are smaller deals (like trading for Alex Smith in a superflex league where I was thin at QB) rather than going all-in, and my bigger deals are more often either time-neutral or win-later moves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't speak for other owners but I know I have been willing to go all in to improve my chances of winning a championship and I will sacrifice future value and sometimes overall value to do it.

When I have done it, its usually when my team is already very good and often times I have extra draft picks to work with anyways.

If my team isn't quite good enough to contend in my opinion then maybe I wont do it.

Ultimately I have to like the deal in the first place.

I dont really like Goedert for a 1st round pick. I think Goedert has been over valued his entire time in the league. Much of his value is because of what Zach Ertz has done. People just assume that Goedert will put up similar numbers, but the Eagles offense has been unbalanced for awhile now. They have made some poor decisions at the WR position as part of why Ertz has been so good. If the Eagles acquire quality WR and an offense that is more balanced in years ahead essentially what you have done is buy a TE because of the success of that players predecessor from a long time ago.

I think TE in general are difficult to trade in leagues that only require you to start one. Every year there is a conversation about how TE do not matter besides the top 1-5 guys and Goedert is not one of them imo.

With a middling team by my estimation I am more likely to trade for future value than value right now. My team has to be really good for me to consider sacrificing value for a short term bump in performance.

I do buy older players a lot though because of the price. Not because Im going all in.

The best example I can think of going all in was when I traded my 1st for Tiki Barber after he announced he was going to retire at the end of the year. My team was already excellent and I was making the playoffs easily without the trade, but I had the assets so I paid what would become the 11th overall rookie pick for 5 or 6 games of Tiki Barber.

No regrets about it at all but that team was so strong at the time I could shed multiple 1st round picks or players and it would still be good. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, DexterDew said:

I respectfully disagree with CC about playoff appearance volume. Any chance to get money back and have a weighted coin flip for more money should always be taken. I'm realistic with three teams that are 6 seeds, but on any given Sunday, Monday and sometimes Tuesday and Wednesday, anything can happen. I rather have that than the 1.06 rookie pick. Any team that has no shot at the playoffs i am always looking to acquire youth/picks. But some leagues picks are thrown around like manhole covers

I'm not sure we disagree, based on the example you provided. I'd take a playoff appearance and the 1.07 over the 1.06 too. But if I thought sneaking into the playoffs was my ceiling, I likely wouldn't be in that position at the end of the season. Teams with a bye week are more than twice as likely to win a championship than teams without one. (Precisely twice as likely if we assume rosters are equal, but they usually favor the teams who earned the bye week.) So I would rather be a top team for n years than a slightly above average team for n*2.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MAC_32 said:

I don't think we disagree about this - I just think we approach it vastly different. I try to go into each season with a lineup I'm comfortable with and as much depth as possible with at least my own haul of future draft picks (ideally more). I also recognize it's impossible to have depth everywhere. I am constantly churning the bottom of my roster hoping to stumble upon one or many of these, but I don't consider them until after they actually happen. When I do then I'll decision make accordingly - whether it's patching a hole that developed or adding future draft capital.

Some season's on some roster's you're delivered too many body blows to handle, but with a focus on a relatively high number of young players I'm better equipped to handle the rigors of the season than my competition.

Yeah I don't think we approach it much differently either. I think there is a lot of hair splitting going on (I'm guilty) but we all largely agree. We might not agree on a specific example like the Goedert one. 

For everyone - how about this one that I've talked about in the trade thread (and maybe Waller)? Two weeks ago a team that wants to win now gave me Kittle and his 2021 2nd for my Waller. Both of our teams were fringe playoff teams at the time. FFPC dynasty. I took the deal, thinking his team was marginal enough that Waller wouldn't put him over the top to get in the playoffs or to win the title. His 51.50 last week proved me wrong on that. 

But on paper Kittle and a 2nd is clearly on my side, no? Without his 51.50 he wouldn't have made it in as the 6 seed and I'd be one step closer to getting his 1.01 and 2.01 (I got his 1st in a different deal with someone else earlier). 

As it is he is getting an immediate return as Waller is *guaranteed to improve his lineup* outside of injury, and he has qualified for the week 14 playin. Furthermore Waller looks like he will hold value for his franchise for at least a couple more years I would think, so his portfolio outlook for the future isn't such a bleak "win-now" move. 

My question for the posters who are perhaps more risk averse on this topic, would that kind of deal work? This guy had absolutely nothing else at the position after Kittle went down.

As much as I am gung ho on the concept of strategizing the best of both worlds and always competing to win now, I fully agree there are limits to this. If I had been in his shoes there is no way I would have gave Kittle and a 2nd. But if I felt I had a legit chance to win with Waller (and I'm a huge fanboy so I would) I would have certainly made the swap, but with the Waller side giving more. This was a race to my mouse button trade for me. I would have paid more for Kittle for sure. And I still think this guy squeaked into the playoffs and may get bounced. I hope. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MAC_32 said:

I don't think we disagree about this - I just think we approach it vastly different. I try to go into each season with a lineup I'm comfortable with and as much depth as possible with at least my own haul of future draft picks (ideally more). I also recognize it's impossible to have depth everywhere. I am constantly churning the bottom of my roster hoping to stumble upon one or many of these, but I don't consider them until after they actually happen. When I do then I'll decision make accordingly - whether it's patching a hole that developed or adding future draft capital.

Some season's on some roster's you're delivered too many body blows to handle, but with a focus on a relatively high number of young players I'm better equipped to handle the rigors of the season than my competition.

This is absolutely true. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, barackdhouse said:

Yeah I don't think we approach it much differently either. I think there is a lot of hair splitting going on (I'm guilty) but we all largely agree. We might not agree on a specific example like the Goedert one. 

For everyone - how about this one that I've talked about in the trade thread (and maybe Waller)? Two weeks ago a team that wants to win now gave me Kittle and his 2021 2nd for my Waller. Both of our teams were fringe playoff teams at the time. FFPC dynasty. I took the deal, thinking his team was marginal enough that Waller wouldn't put him over the top to get in the playoffs or to win the title. His 51.50 last week proved me wrong on that. 

But on paper Kittle and a 2nd is clearly on my side, no? Without his 51.50 he wouldn't have made it in as the 6 seed and I'd be one step closer to getting his 1.01 and 2.01 (I got his 1st in a different deal with someone else earlier). 

As it is he is getting an immediate return as Waller is *guaranteed to improve his lineup* outside of injury, and he has qualified for the week 14 playin. Furthermore Waller looks like he will hold value for his franchise for at least a couple more years I would think, so his portfolio outlook for the future isn't such a bleak "win-now" move. 

My question for the posters who are perhaps more risk averse on this topic, would that kind of deal work? This guy had absolutely nothing else at the position after Kittle went down.

As much as I am gung ho on the concept of strategizing the best of both worlds and always competing to win now, I fully agree there are limits to this. If I had been in his shoes there is no way I would have gave Kittle and a 2nd. But if I felt I had a legit chance to win with Waller (and I'm a huge fanboy so I would) I would have certainly made the swap, but with the Waller side giving more. This was a race to my mouse button trade for me. I would have paid more for Kittle for sure. And I still think this guy squeaked into the playoffs and may get bounced. I hope. 

 

 

I think this is a great example of a deal that is pretty much a slam dunk in Kittles favor from a macro level view of their careers but the value for this year is completely in Wallers favor.

I don't see myself taking that risk in the scenario that you describe if I were that owner, but I have seen guys do stuff like this successfully before and make a run. 

Its possible that Kittle doesn't make the same impact later on in his career as he did in his best season which was under some unique circumstances. SF has some good WR now that they didn't have then, they are in better shape than the Eagles on that front I think, just looking at the opportunity side of things.

When I say overall value I am talking about where the assets are valued in a start up. That is a clear win for the Kittle and 2nd round pick side of the deal and in the long run will likely net more points than the Waller side will.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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...