So, as stated in subject, this is a general question, although it is a specific scenario that makes me ask wonder about it. The question is about the validity of this philosophy: "I only gave up [this draft capital, A] and [these guys in a trade, B] to acquire [those assets, C]. Even though [those assets, C] are considered to be worth more than [potential trade acquisitions, D], what I gave up to get [those assets, C] is worth significantly less than [potential trade acquisitions, D]. So, overall, my net transaction would still be significantly good."
Okay so here is a real life example, since that abstract statement doesn't roll off the tongue. I have posted this trade offer in the past on this board.
(12 team, 20-man roster, PPR, 1 QB, 2 RB, 2 WR, 1 FX, K, DST) I was offered McCaffrey in exchange for AJ Brown, the 1.02, the 1.06, and the 1.08. (Also with Lamb in place of Brown.) The concensus I got was that what I was being asked was a little over the top, and that one of those picks would need to be dropped to be a respectable trade.
But sometimes I can't help but think about how I acquired those assets.
I drafted Brown with the 3.04 in 2019.
I traded Darius Slayton and Tevin Coleman (last year offseason) for what turned out to be the 1.08 and 2.08 in 2021.
I traded (also last year offseason) what turned out to be the 2.02 and 2.08 in 2021 and Bryce Love for what turned out to be the 1.06 in 2021.
The 1.02 in 2021 is my natural first round pick.
So ... The net result if I made the McCaffrey trade:
I give up the 3.04 in 2019, Slayton, Coleman, Love, and the 1.02 and 2.02 in 2021, for McCaffrey.
When you think of it that way, it's preposterous to not like the net result. But that still doesn't mean it's good to do it.
One school of thought would say that what you've done in past transactions should have absolutely nothing to do with present transactions. Another would say that the past could be used to justify present transactions, but within reason. I feel like this case isn't within reason.
You could take it to an extreme with an analogy: You buy a lottery ticket for $1. You win $1,000,000 from the ticket. The next day someone offers you a $3,000 car for the entirety of your winnings. You say "Well, heck, I only paid a buck for the ticket, I can buy that car and overall I'm making out like a bandit!"
The difference here is, obviously, it's much less extreme, and also there are not McCaffrey's for sale at reasonable prices on every street you drive down.
I still don't plan on taking that trade (we had trade talks again yesterday, but he stuck with those same 2 offers). But regardless, just kind of wondered, do you guys use that type of rationale in any of your fantasy trade scenarios? Strictly avoid it?
Okay so here is a real life example, since that abstract statement doesn't roll off the tongue. I have posted this trade offer in the past on this board.
(12 team, 20-man roster, PPR, 1 QB, 2 RB, 2 WR, 1 FX, K, DST) I was offered McCaffrey in exchange for AJ Brown, the 1.02, the 1.06, and the 1.08. (Also with Lamb in place of Brown.) The concensus I got was that what I was being asked was a little over the top, and that one of those picks would need to be dropped to be a respectable trade.
But sometimes I can't help but think about how I acquired those assets.
I drafted Brown with the 3.04 in 2019.
I traded Darius Slayton and Tevin Coleman (last year offseason) for what turned out to be the 1.08 and 2.08 in 2021.
I traded (also last year offseason) what turned out to be the 2.02 and 2.08 in 2021 and Bryce Love for what turned out to be the 1.06 in 2021.
The 1.02 in 2021 is my natural first round pick.
So ... The net result if I made the McCaffrey trade:
I give up the 3.04 in 2019, Slayton, Coleman, Love, and the 1.02 and 2.02 in 2021, for McCaffrey.
When you think of it that way, it's preposterous to not like the net result. But that still doesn't mean it's good to do it.
One school of thought would say that what you've done in past transactions should have absolutely nothing to do with present transactions. Another would say that the past could be used to justify present transactions, but within reason. I feel like this case isn't within reason.
You could take it to an extreme with an analogy: You buy a lottery ticket for $1. You win $1,000,000 from the ticket. The next day someone offers you a $3,000 car for the entirety of your winnings. You say "Well, heck, I only paid a buck for the ticket, I can buy that car and overall I'm making out like a bandit!"
The difference here is, obviously, it's much less extreme, and also there are not McCaffrey's for sale at reasonable prices on every street you drive down.
I still don't plan on taking that trade (we had trade talks again yesterday, but he stuck with those same 2 offers). But regardless, just kind of wondered, do you guys use that type of rationale in any of your fantasy trade scenarios? Strictly avoid it?
