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.
Yeah, I'd ask for a 1st, and add something to him to get a 1st.
Dude, you're spilling my strategy! Some people from my league could be here and figure it out.Reading these comments, I am glad I don't play dynasty. It looks like the strategy is to hoard picks, then when those picks turn into points trade them for more picks, and sprinkle in some dog **** to make the deal seem sweeter
Do any of you actually enjoy winning fantasy football games and championships or is it all about hoarding picks?
eta: this hot take is not just based on this thread, it seems every dynasty talk I see is about cashing out guys who are scoring points today for future picks that may score points years down the road
Keep hearing this. Not an impressive athelete blah blah. I don't know. On his TD run he was looking like quite the violent runner.
No one every sees the talent until they string together multiple weeks. I saw it week 1 and chose him over everyone’s darling Pacua.
I would take that in a heartbeat.
I have Akers and Williams and I would take that deal without hesitation.
I mean I would take the deal being offered to him. To acquire Williams.
Not a good move long term imo.
Yeah, you're right about that. Hard to know what to think, and he wasn't even a particularly highly-touted guy. 15th RB taken in the NFL draft last year. Did not expect to see this happen, especially with Akers' tremendous finish to 2022. But here we are.
I would take a 1st for Williams and I have Akers, not that it matters now. That is how I meant it. Having a McVay RB is risky business.
I couldnt find Bozeman Bruisers original post here but its something I would like to respond to.Dude, you're spilling my strategy! Some people from my league could be here and figure it out.Reading these comments, I am glad I don't play dynasty. It looks like the strategy is to hoard picks, then when those picks turn into points trade them for more picks, and sprinkle in some dog **** to make the deal seem sweeter
Do any of you actually enjoy winning fantasy football games and championships or is it all about hoarding picks?
eta: this hot take is not just based on this thread, it seems every dynasty talk I see is about cashing out guys who are scoring points today for future picks that may score points years down the road
Yep, that's a good explanation. And my comment was only half-facetious, as my dynasty strategy is similar to what Bozeman was saying overall, but (hopefully) not so literally "selling all point-scorers for picks". It's a balance, but you generally want as much value as you can get, at all times. Especially in my league where trading picks more than 1 year out has been banned for the last couple seasons, I very much try to hoard picks. Then immediately after the draft I can try to flip one or two of my new rookies for next year's picks (thereby "sort of" circumventing the ban).I couldnt find Bozeman Bruisers original post here but its something I would like to respond to.Dude, you're spilling my strategy! Some people from my league could be here and figure it out.Reading these comments, I am glad I don't play dynasty. It looks like the strategy is to hoard picks, then when those picks turn into points trade them for more picks, and sprinkle in some dog **** to make the deal seem sweeter
Do any of you actually enjoy winning fantasy football games and championships or is it all about hoarding picks?
eta: this hot take is not just based on this thread, it seems every dynasty talk I see is about cashing out guys who are scoring points today for future picks that may score points years down the road
I think there is a lot of merit to this perspective of preferring players who are playing now and can potentially score points that can help your team win games now. Many managers in dynasty formats are perpetually chasing the future and not living in the present.
At the same time in dynasty rookie picks are the most fluid form of currency a manager can own because they are not tied to a specific asset, which will have more variable value depending on competitors priorities and current roster construction. Some of those teams may only be seeking players at one position but not others, and their opinions on the specific players will be different as well.
A draft pick could be used on any position and any player they might like. Either by drafting that player with the pick, or by trading that pick for a different player they want.
Because of the limitations of roster spots the draft picks are a way of expanding the overall value of your team. If you trade a player for a pick you then free up a roster spot to pick up someone else. Rinse and repeat with several transactions made this way.
Because in dynasty all players are kept year after year it is possible for dynasty teams to build up their rosters with many strong players as the core of their team and not have the need for free agent replacements to improve their starting lineups.
So these additional roster spots are used to churn free agent players and the more of those that can be sold for picks, the greater the value of the overall team becomes.
Draft picks often function like bonds as well. Their value increases as they mature, when those picks get closer to the actual draft they will be used in. So the manager can use timing with their trades to leverage more value out of those picks, by buying them when their cash in point is far away and selling them when that point is near.
I do think not allowing picks to be traded more than one year away makes for a healthier league as teams cannot be gutted for multiple seasons of picks and then abandoned, leaving that team with no viable assets for multiple seasons.Yep, that's a good explanation. And my comment was only half-facetious, as my dynasty strategy is similar to what Bozeman was saying overall, but (hopefully) not so literally "selling all point-scorers for picks". It's a balance, but you generally want as much value as you can get, at all times. Especially in my league where trading picks more than 1 year out has been banned for the last couple seasons, I very much try to hoard picks. Then immediately after the draft I can try to flip one or two of my new rookies for next year's picks (thereby "sort of" circumventing the ban).I couldnt find Bozeman Bruisers original post here but its something I would like to respond to.Dude, you're spilling my strategy! Some people from my league could be here and figure it out.Reading these comments, I am glad I don't play dynasty. It looks like the strategy is to hoard picks, then when those picks turn into points trade them for more picks, and sprinkle in some dog **** to make the deal seem sweeter
Do any of you actually enjoy winning fantasy football games and championships or is it all about hoarding picks?
eta: this hot take is not just based on this thread, it seems every dynasty talk I see is about cashing out guys who are scoring points today for future picks that may score points years down the road
I think there is a lot of merit to this perspective of preferring players who are playing now and can potentially score points that can help your team win games now. Many managers in dynasty formats are perpetually chasing the future and not living in the present.
At the same time in dynasty rookie picks are the most fluid form of currency a manager can own because they are not tied to a specific asset, which will have more variable value depending on competitors priorities and current roster construction. Some of those teams may only be seeking players at one position but not others, and their opinions on the specific players will be different as well.
A draft pick could be used on any position and any player they might like. Either by drafting that player with the pick, or by trading that pick for a different player they want.
Because of the limitations of roster spots the draft picks are a way of expanding the overall value of your team. If you trade a player for a pick you then free up a roster spot to pick up someone else. Rinse and repeat with several transactions made this way.
Because in dynasty all players are kept year after year it is possible for dynasty teams to build up their rosters with many strong players as the core of their team and not have the need for free agent replacements to improve their starting lineups.
So these additional roster spots are used to churn free agent players and the more of those that can be sold for picks, the greater the value of the overall team becomes.
Draft picks often function like bonds as well. Their value increases as they mature, when those picks get closer to the actual draft they will be used in. So the manager can use timing with their trades to leverage more value out of those picks, by buying them when their cash in point is far away and selling them when that point is near.
Personally I hate the rule. But I can understand that perspective. We've only had maybe 3 departures in the last 10 years, if I had to guess a number on it. And I don't really think any were "gutted". But you never know when someone might take advantage of the system.I do think not allowing picks to be traded more than one year away makes for a healthier league as teams cannot be gutted for multiple seasons of picks and then abandoned, leaving that team with no viable assets for multiple seasons.Yep, that's a good explanation. And my comment was only half-facetious, as my dynasty strategy is similar to what Bozeman was saying overall, but (hopefully) not so literally "selling all point-scorers for picks". It's a balance, but you generally want as much value as you can get, at all times. Especially in my league where trading picks more than 1 year out has been banned for the last couple seasons, I very much try to hoard picks. Then immediately after the draft I can try to flip one or two of my new rookies for next year's picks (thereby "sort of" circumventing the ban).I couldnt find Bozeman Bruisers original post here but its something I would like to respond to.Dude, you're spilling my strategy! Some people from my league could be here and figure it out.Reading these comments, I am glad I don't play dynasty. It looks like the strategy is to hoard picks, then when those picks turn into points trade them for more picks, and sprinkle in some dog **** to make the deal seem sweeter
Do any of you actually enjoy winning fantasy football games and championships or is it all about hoarding picks?
eta: this hot take is not just based on this thread, it seems every dynasty talk I see is about cashing out guys who are scoring points today for future picks that may score points years down the road
I think there is a lot of merit to this perspective of preferring players who are playing now and can potentially score points that can help your team win games now. Many managers in dynasty formats are perpetually chasing the future and not living in the present.
At the same time in dynasty rookie picks are the most fluid form of currency a manager can own because they are not tied to a specific asset, which will have more variable value depending on competitors priorities and current roster construction. Some of those teams may only be seeking players at one position but not others, and their opinions on the specific players will be different as well.
A draft pick could be used on any position and any player they might like. Either by drafting that player with the pick, or by trading that pick for a different player they want.
Because of the limitations of roster spots the draft picks are a way of expanding the overall value of your team. If you trade a player for a pick you then free up a roster spot to pick up someone else. Rinse and repeat with several transactions made this way.
Because in dynasty all players are kept year after year it is possible for dynasty teams to build up their rosters with many strong players as the core of their team and not have the need for free agent replacements to improve their starting lineups.
So these additional roster spots are used to churn free agent players and the more of those that can be sold for picks, the greater the value of the overall team becomes.
Draft picks often function like bonds as well. Their value increases as they mature, when those picks get closer to the actual draft they will be used in. So the manager can use timing with their trades to leverage more value out of those picks, by buying them when their cash in point is far away and selling them when that point is near.
Depends on the league of course, but from a commishioners perspective not allowing that can help the league be more stable.
In some leagues managers are committed enough long term for this to be less of a concern, but I tend to agree with that limitation being more healthy for the league in a vacuum.
Yes there are a lot of different angles to this.
Thats a good thought and maybe it would be better if our threads were more organized than they are.
Nah he’s the man here, don’t let the past affect this season. Gurley, Henderson and Akers were all worth starting at one point.
I agree short term. Long term is unknown given McVay's flip flopping.
Yeah I can understand not wanting to have that limitation.Personally I hate the rule. But I can understand that perspective. We've only had maybe 3 departures in the last 10 years, if I had to guess a number on it. And I don't really think any were "gutted". But you never know when someone might take advantage of the system.I do think not allowing picks to be traded more than one year away makes for a healthier league as teams cannot be gutted for multiple seasons of picks and then abandoned, leaving that team with no viable assets for multiple seasons.Yep, that's a good explanation. And my comment was only half-facetious, as my dynasty strategy is similar to what Bozeman was saying overall, but (hopefully) not so literally "selling all point-scorers for picks". It's a balance, but you generally want as much value as you can get, at all times. Especially in my league where trading picks more than 1 year out has been banned for the last couple seasons, I very much try to hoard picks. Then immediately after the draft I can try to flip one or two of my new rookies for next year's picks (thereby "sort of" circumventing the ban).I couldnt find Bozeman Bruisers original post here but its something I would like to respond to.Dude, you're spilling my strategy! Some people from my league could be here and figure it out.Reading these comments, I am glad I don't play dynasty. It looks like the strategy is to hoard picks, then when those picks turn into points trade them for more picks, and sprinkle in some dog **** to make the deal seem sweeter
Do any of you actually enjoy winning fantasy football games and championships or is it all about hoarding picks?
eta: this hot take is not just based on this thread, it seems every dynasty talk I see is about cashing out guys who are scoring points today for future picks that may score points years down the road
I think there is a lot of merit to this perspective of preferring players who are playing now and can potentially score points that can help your team win games now. Many managers in dynasty formats are perpetually chasing the future and not living in the present.
At the same time in dynasty rookie picks are the most fluid form of currency a manager can own because they are not tied to a specific asset, which will have more variable value depending on competitors priorities and current roster construction. Some of those teams may only be seeking players at one position but not others, and their opinions on the specific players will be different as well.
A draft pick could be used on any position and any player they might like. Either by drafting that player with the pick, or by trading that pick for a different player they want.
Because of the limitations of roster spots the draft picks are a way of expanding the overall value of your team. If you trade a player for a pick you then free up a roster spot to pick up someone else. Rinse and repeat with several transactions made this way.
Because in dynasty all players are kept year after year it is possible for dynasty teams to build up their rosters with many strong players as the core of their team and not have the need for free agent replacements to improve their starting lineups.
So these additional roster spots are used to churn free agent players and the more of those that can be sold for picks, the greater the value of the overall team becomes.
Draft picks often function like bonds as well. Their value increases as they mature, when those picks get closer to the actual draft they will be used in. So the manager can use timing with their trades to leverage more value out of those picks, by buying them when their cash in point is far away and selling them when that point is near.
Depends on the league of course, but from a commishioners perspective not allowing that can help the league be more stable.
In some leagues managers are committed enough long term for this to be less of a concern, but I tend to agree with that limitation being more healthy for the league in a vacuum.
I did lobby to remove the rule the year after it was put into place. But less than half the league liked the idea of removing it. I could bring it up every year, but I don't want to be insufferable.Yeah I can understand not wanting to have that limitation.Personally I hate the rule. But I can understand that perspective. We've only had maybe 3 departures in the last 10 years, if I had to guess a number on it. And I don't really think any were "gutted". But you never know when someone might take advantage of the system.I do think not allowing picks to be traded more than one year away makes for a healthier league as teams cannot be gutted for multiple seasons of picks and then abandoned, leaving that team with no viable assets for multiple seasons.Yep, that's a good explanation. And my comment was only half-facetious, as my dynasty strategy is similar to what Bozeman was saying overall, but (hopefully) not so literally "selling all point-scorers for picks". It's a balance, but you generally want as much value as you can get, at all times. Especially in my league where trading picks more than 1 year out has been banned for the last couple seasons, I very much try to hoard picks. Then immediately after the draft I can try to flip one or two of my new rookies for next year's picks (thereby "sort of" circumventing the ban).I couldnt find Bozeman Bruisers original post here but its something I would like to respond to.Dude, you're spilling my strategy! Some people from my league could be here and figure it out.Reading these comments, I am glad I don't play dynasty. It looks like the strategy is to hoard picks, then when those picks turn into points trade them for more picks, and sprinkle in some dog **** to make the deal seem sweeter
Do any of you actually enjoy winning fantasy football games and championships or is it all about hoarding picks?
eta: this hot take is not just based on this thread, it seems every dynasty talk I see is about cashing out guys who are scoring points today for future picks that may score points years down the road
I think there is a lot of merit to this perspective of preferring players who are playing now and can potentially score points that can help your team win games now. Many managers in dynasty formats are perpetually chasing the future and not living in the present.
At the same time in dynasty rookie picks are the most fluid form of currency a manager can own because they are not tied to a specific asset, which will have more variable value depending on competitors priorities and current roster construction. Some of those teams may only be seeking players at one position but not others, and their opinions on the specific players will be different as well.
A draft pick could be used on any position and any player they might like. Either by drafting that player with the pick, or by trading that pick for a different player they want.
Because of the limitations of roster spots the draft picks are a way of expanding the overall value of your team. If you trade a player for a pick you then free up a roster spot to pick up someone else. Rinse and repeat with several transactions made this way.
Because in dynasty all players are kept year after year it is possible for dynasty teams to build up their rosters with many strong players as the core of their team and not have the need for free agent replacements to improve their starting lineups.
So these additional roster spots are used to churn free agent players and the more of those that can be sold for picks, the greater the value of the overall team becomes.
Draft picks often function like bonds as well. Their value increases as they mature, when those picks get closer to the actual draft they will be used in. So the manager can use timing with their trades to leverage more value out of those picks, by buying them when their cash in point is far away and selling them when that point is near.
Depends on the league of course, but from a commishioners perspective not allowing that can help the league be more stable.
In some leagues managers are committed enough long term for this to be less of a concern, but I tend to agree with that limitation being more healthy for the league in a vacuum.
If its long term league as you say try to lobby for a change and if enough owners agree maybe it can be changed.
I have played in a lot of different dynasty leagues and some of them not having this limitation would be fine.
Others I have seen a lot of turnover in managers and even leagues folding. This is what this rule is trying to prevent.
I have seen leagues where managers are completely win now and some of them even cash in for a year then bail afterwards leaving the new owner in a difficult spot trying to fix that team afterwards, or perhaps the worse example is the manager who becomes the victim of too many trades then leaves an even worse roster than the win now managers did.
Rosters where you have to pay someone to take over a long term rebuild. Less risk of that happening if they cant sell all their picks multiple seasons ahead.
As a commish of 3 dynasty leagues we only allow trading of picks 1 year into the future. I've had too many owners treat dynasty leagues like a redraft and sell all their future picks for aging veterans and whether they win or not, leave the league. I'm then left trying to find new owners for teams with no picks and a roster full of geezers. No thanks. I've also been part of leagues that fold because of this mentality and a commish that gives up trying to find owners for these bad teams and no one else wants the job. Again, no thanks.I did lobby to remove the rule the year after it was put into place. But less than half the league liked the idea of removing it. I could bring it up every year, but I don't want to be insufferable.Yeah I can understand not wanting to have that limitation.Personally I hate the rule. But I can understand that perspective. We've only had maybe 3 departures in the last 10 years, if I had to guess a number on it. And I don't really think any were "gutted". But you never know when someone might take advantage of the system.I do think not allowing picks to be traded more than one year away makes for a healthier league as teams cannot be gutted for multiple seasons of picks and then abandoned, leaving that team with no viable assets for multiple seasons.Yep, that's a good explanation. And my comment was only half-facetious, as my dynasty strategy is similar to what Bozeman was saying overall, but (hopefully) not so literally "selling all point-scorers for picks". It's a balance, but you generally want as much value as you can get, at all times. Especially in my league where trading picks more than 1 year out has been banned for the last couple seasons, I very much try to hoard picks. Then immediately after the draft I can try to flip one or two of my new rookies for next year's picks (thereby "sort of" circumventing the ban).I couldnt find Bozeman Bruisers original post here but its something I would like to respond to.Dude, you're spilling my strategy! Some people from my league could be here and figure it out.Reading these comments, I am glad I don't play dynasty. It looks like the strategy is to hoard picks, then when those picks turn into points trade them for more picks, and sprinkle in some dog **** to make the deal seem sweeter
Do any of you actually enjoy winning fantasy football games and championships or is it all about hoarding picks?
eta: this hot take is not just based on this thread, it seems every dynasty talk I see is about cashing out guys who are scoring points today for future picks that may score points years down the road
I think there is a lot of merit to this perspective of preferring players who are playing now and can potentially score points that can help your team win games now. Many managers in dynasty formats are perpetually chasing the future and not living in the present.
At the same time in dynasty rookie picks are the most fluid form of currency a manager can own because they are not tied to a specific asset, which will have more variable value depending on competitors priorities and current roster construction. Some of those teams may only be seeking players at one position but not others, and their opinions on the specific players will be different as well.
A draft pick could be used on any position and any player they might like. Either by drafting that player with the pick, or by trading that pick for a different player they want.
Because of the limitations of roster spots the draft picks are a way of expanding the overall value of your team. If you trade a player for a pick you then free up a roster spot to pick up someone else. Rinse and repeat with several transactions made this way.
Because in dynasty all players are kept year after year it is possible for dynasty teams to build up their rosters with many strong players as the core of their team and not have the need for free agent replacements to improve their starting lineups.
So these additional roster spots are used to churn free agent players and the more of those that can be sold for picks, the greater the value of the overall team becomes.
Draft picks often function like bonds as well. Their value increases as they mature, when those picks get closer to the actual draft they will be used in. So the manager can use timing with their trades to leverage more value out of those picks, by buying them when their cash in point is far away and selling them when that point is near.
Depends on the league of course, but from a commishioners perspective not allowing that can help the league be more stable.
In some leagues managers are committed enough long term for this to be less of a concern, but I tend to agree with that limitation being more healthy for the league in a vacuum.
If its long term league as you say try to lobby for a change and if enough owners agree maybe it can be changed.
I have played in a lot of different dynasty leagues and some of them not having this limitation would be fine.
Others I have seen a lot of turnover in managers and even leagues folding. This is what this rule is trying to prevent.
I have seen leagues where managers are completely win now and some of them even cash in for a year then bail afterwards leaving the new owner in a difficult spot trying to fix that team afterwards, or perhaps the worse example is the manager who becomes the victim of too many trades then leaves an even worse roster than the win now managers did.
Rosters where you have to pay someone to take over a long term rebuild. Less risk of that happening if they cant sell all their picks multiple seasons ahead.
I’m in a league where if you trade your first rounder more than a year out you have to pay your dues for the upcoming season up front. It doesn’t have a ton of turnover anyway but we haven’t had anyone stripmine a team for a shot at prize money and runI did lobby to remove the rule the year after it was put into place. But less than half the league liked the idea of removing it. I could bring it up every year, but I don't want to be insufferable.Yeah I can understand not wanting to have that limitation.Personally I hate the rule. But I can understand that perspective. We've only had maybe 3 departures in the last 10 years, if I had to guess a number on it. And I don't really think any were "gutted". But you never know when someone might take advantage of the system.I do think not allowing picks to be traded more than one year away makes for a healthier league as teams cannot be gutted for multiple seasons of picks and then abandoned, leaving that team with no viable assets for multiple seasons.Yep, that's a good explanation. And my comment was only half-facetious, as my dynasty strategy is similar to what Bozeman was saying overall, but (hopefully) not so literally "selling all point-scorers for picks". It's a balance, but you generally want as much value as you can get, at all times. Especially in my league where trading picks more than 1 year out has been banned for the last couple seasons, I very much try to hoard picks. Then immediately after the draft I can try to flip one or two of my new rookies for next year's picks (thereby "sort of" circumventing the ban).I couldnt find Bozeman Bruisers original post here but its something I would like to respond to.Dude, you're spilling my strategy! Some people from my league could be here and figure it out.Reading these comments, I am glad I don't play dynasty. It looks like the strategy is to hoard picks, then when those picks turn into points trade them for more picks, and sprinkle in some dog **** to make the deal seem sweeter
Do any of you actually enjoy winning fantasy football games and championships or is it all about hoarding picks?
eta: this hot take is not just based on this thread, it seems every dynasty talk I see is about cashing out guys who are scoring points today for future picks that may score points years down the road
I think there is a lot of merit to this perspective of preferring players who are playing now and can potentially score points that can help your team win games now. Many managers in dynasty formats are perpetually chasing the future and not living in the present.
At the same time in dynasty rookie picks are the most fluid form of currency a manager can own because they are not tied to a specific asset, which will have more variable value depending on competitors priorities and current roster construction. Some of those teams may only be seeking players at one position but not others, and their opinions on the specific players will be different as well.
A draft pick could be used on any position and any player they might like. Either by drafting that player with the pick, or by trading that pick for a different player they want.
Because of the limitations of roster spots the draft picks are a way of expanding the overall value of your team. If you trade a player for a pick you then free up a roster spot to pick up someone else. Rinse and repeat with several transactions made this way.
Because in dynasty all players are kept year after year it is possible for dynasty teams to build up their rosters with many strong players as the core of their team and not have the need for free agent replacements to improve their starting lineups.
So these additional roster spots are used to churn free agent players and the more of those that can be sold for picks, the greater the value of the overall team becomes.
Draft picks often function like bonds as well. Their value increases as they mature, when those picks get closer to the actual draft they will be used in. So the manager can use timing with their trades to leverage more value out of those picks, by buying them when their cash in point is far away and selling them when that point is near.
Depends on the league of course, but from a commishioners perspective not allowing that can help the league be more stable.
In some leagues managers are committed enough long term for this to be less of a concern, but I tend to agree with that limitation being more healthy for the league in a vacuum.
If its long term league as you say try to lobby for a change and if enough owners agree maybe it can be changed.
I have played in a lot of different dynasty leagues and some of them not having this limitation would be fine.
Others I have seen a lot of turnover in managers and even leagues folding. This is what this rule is trying to prevent.
I have seen leagues where managers are completely win now and some of them even cash in for a year then bail afterwards leaving the new owner in a difficult spot trying to fix that team afterwards, or perhaps the worse example is the manager who becomes the victim of too many trades then leaves an even worse roster than the win now managers did.
Rosters where you have to pay someone to take over a long term rebuild. Less risk of that happening if they cant sell all their picks multiple seasons ahead.
Yeah its not as easy decision at all.
I think that can be a good compromise.I’m in a league where if you trade your first rounder more than a year out you have to pay your dues for the upcoming season up front. It doesn’t have a ton of turnover anyway but we haven’t had anyone stripmine a team for a shot at prize money and runI did lobby to remove the rule the year after it was put into place. But less than half the league liked the idea of removing it. I could bring it up every year, but I don't want to be insufferable.Yeah I can understand not wanting to have that limitation.Personally I hate the rule. But I can understand that perspective. We've only had maybe 3 departures in the last 10 years, if I had to guess a number on it. And I don't really think any were "gutted". But you never know when someone might take advantage of the system.I do think not allowing picks to be traded more than one year away makes for a healthier league as teams cannot be gutted for multiple seasons of picks and then abandoned, leaving that team with no viable assets for multiple seasons.Yep, that's a good explanation. And my comment was only half-facetious, as my dynasty strategy is similar to what Bozeman was saying overall, but (hopefully) not so literally "selling all point-scorers for picks". It's a balance, but you generally want as much value as you can get, at all times. Especially in my league where trading picks more than 1 year out has been banned for the last couple seasons, I very much try to hoard picks. Then immediately after the draft I can try to flip one or two of my new rookies for next year's picks (thereby "sort of" circumventing the ban).I couldnt find Bozeman Bruisers original post here but its something I would like to respond to.Dude, you're spilling my strategy! Some people from my league could be here and figure it out.Reading these comments, I am glad I don't play dynasty. It looks like the strategy is to hoard picks, then when those picks turn into points trade them for more picks, and sprinkle in some dog **** to make the deal seem sweeter
Do any of you actually enjoy winning fantasy football games and championships or is it all about hoarding picks?
eta: this hot take is not just based on this thread, it seems every dynasty talk I see is about cashing out guys who are scoring points today for future picks that may score points years down the road
I think there is a lot of merit to this perspective of preferring players who are playing now and can potentially score points that can help your team win games now. Many managers in dynasty formats are perpetually chasing the future and not living in the present.
At the same time in dynasty rookie picks are the most fluid form of currency a manager can own because they are not tied to a specific asset, which will have more variable value depending on competitors priorities and current roster construction. Some of those teams may only be seeking players at one position but not others, and their opinions on the specific players will be different as well.
A draft pick could be used on any position and any player they might like. Either by drafting that player with the pick, or by trading that pick for a different player they want.
Because of the limitations of roster spots the draft picks are a way of expanding the overall value of your team. If you trade a player for a pick you then free up a roster spot to pick up someone else. Rinse and repeat with several transactions made this way.
Because in dynasty all players are kept year after year it is possible for dynasty teams to build up their rosters with many strong players as the core of their team and not have the need for free agent replacements to improve their starting lineups.
So these additional roster spots are used to churn free agent players and the more of those that can be sold for picks, the greater the value of the overall team becomes.
Draft picks often function like bonds as well. Their value increases as they mature, when those picks get closer to the actual draft they will be used in. So the manager can use timing with their trades to leverage more value out of those picks, by buying them when their cash in point is far away and selling them when that point is near.
Depends on the league of course, but from a commishioners perspective not allowing that can help the league be more stable.
In some leagues managers are committed enough long term for this to be less of a concern, but I tend to agree with that limitation being more healthy for the league in a vacuum.
If its long term league as you say try to lobby for a change and if enough owners agree maybe it can be changed.
I have played in a lot of different dynasty leagues and some of them not having this limitation would be fine.
Others I have seen a lot of turnover in managers and even leagues folding. This is what this rule is trying to prevent.
I have seen leagues where managers are completely win now and some of them even cash in for a year then bail afterwards leaving the new owner in a difficult spot trying to fix that team afterwards, or perhaps the worse example is the manager who becomes the victim of too many trades then leaves an even worse roster than the win now managers did.
Rosters where you have to pay someone to take over a long term rebuild. Less risk of that happening if they cant sell all their picks multiple seasons ahead.
I got Elijah Moore for him prior to this weekends games. No regerts. Gotta be worth a late first now.
That is pretty nutz. Thats the NFL not for long.
Kyren Williams reacts to his first NFL start against the 49ers | Rams vs. 49ers Postgame 9.17.23
Rams' running back Kyren Williams got his first NFL start against the San Francisco 49ers. Williams finished with 14 rushes for 52 yards, six receptions on 1...www.youtube.com
I haven't seen it confirmed anywhere officially, but in the post game interview with Kyren it sure sounds like Akers is gone and he is the #1 for the rest of the season barring injury.
Crazy that the #2 RB and #2 WR overall in PPR are both from the Rams, not named Kupp or Akers, and could have been had in the last round of the draft or off waivers after week 1.
I seem to remember he was good in the passing game but not much else. Hard to find games? He played for Norte Dame for crying out loud.
I think he was suggesting the guy didnt play enough. so there wasnt a ton of tape to find.
I still believe what I said on page 1 here. I was sure he’d play early because he relished blocking at Notre Dame.
At Notre Dame? He was THE guy for a few years. He was the guy to game plan around and why ND was in the playoffs a few years ago, so I think people just forgot about him after Covid.
well, he sure looks good now. what happened in the past is past.
Game cut ups of him
The 40 doesn’t factor much at all into my rankings.
I appreciate this feedback.
Was in this same exact situation and getting the same results and felt the same way about bringing it up for a third year in a row. What I wound up doing that third year instead of suggesting to get rid of the rule, was playing into the reason they felt it was necessary in the first place. I suggested that any team that wants to trade future year picks just needs to pay the buy in for that season, that way they are actually tied to the longevity of the team (and the league). So if you're buy in is $100 and you traded your 2024 and 2025 first round picks this offseason to get 1.01 and draft Bijan, you also pre-paid the buy ins for those next two seasons. This also means if an owner does cripple a team and flake out, it makes it a lot easier to backfill their spot by telling the new potential owner "yeah the team is kinda crap and you're missing your next two first round picks, but the buy-in's are on the house and you can play for free these next two years while you rebuild". It universally passed.I did lobby to remove the rule the year after it was put into place. But less than half the league liked the idea of removing it. I could bring it up every year, but I don't want to be insufferable.Yeah I can understand not wanting to have that limitation.Personally I hate the rule. But I can understand that perspective. We've only had maybe 3 departures in the last 10 years, if I had to guess a number on it. And I don't really think any were "gutted". But you never know when someone might take advantage of the system.I do think not allowing picks to be traded more than one year away makes for a healthier league as teams cannot be gutted for multiple seasons of picks and then abandoned, leaving that team with no viable assets for multiple seasons.Yep, that's a good explanation. And my comment was only half-facetious, as my dynasty strategy is similar to what Bozeman was saying overall, but (hopefully) not so literally "selling all point-scorers for picks". It's a balance, but you generally want as much value as you can get, at all times. Especially in my league where trading picks more than 1 year out has been banned for the last couple seasons, I very much try to hoard picks. Then immediately after the draft I can try to flip one or two of my new rookies for next year's picks (thereby "sort of" circumventing the ban).I couldnt find Bozeman Bruisers original post here but its something I would like to respond to.Dude, you're spilling my strategy! Some people from my league could be here and figure it out.Reading these comments, I am glad I don't play dynasty. It looks like the strategy is to hoard picks, then when those picks turn into points trade them for more picks, and sprinkle in some dog **** to make the deal seem sweeter
Do any of you actually enjoy winning fantasy football games and championships or is it all about hoarding picks?
eta: this hot take is not just based on this thread, it seems every dynasty talk I see is about cashing out guys who are scoring points today for future picks that may score points years down the road
I think there is a lot of merit to this perspective of preferring players who are playing now and can potentially score points that can help your team win games now. Many managers in dynasty formats are perpetually chasing the future and not living in the present.
At the same time in dynasty rookie picks are the most fluid form of currency a manager can own because they are not tied to a specific asset, which will have more variable value depending on competitors priorities and current roster construction. Some of those teams may only be seeking players at one position but not others, and their opinions on the specific players will be different as well.
A draft pick could be used on any position and any player they might like. Either by drafting that player with the pick, or by trading that pick for a different player they want.
Because of the limitations of roster spots the draft picks are a way of expanding the overall value of your team. If you trade a player for a pick you then free up a roster spot to pick up someone else. Rinse and repeat with several transactions made this way.
Because in dynasty all players are kept year after year it is possible for dynasty teams to build up their rosters with many strong players as the core of their team and not have the need for free agent replacements to improve their starting lineups.
So these additional roster spots are used to churn free agent players and the more of those that can be sold for picks, the greater the value of the overall team becomes.
Draft picks often function like bonds as well. Their value increases as they mature, when those picks get closer to the actual draft they will be used in. So the manager can use timing with their trades to leverage more value out of those picks, by buying them when their cash in point is far away and selling them when that point is near.
Depends on the league of course, but from a commishioners perspective not allowing that can help the league be more stable.
In some leagues managers are committed enough long term for this to be less of a concern, but I tend to agree with that limitation being more healthy for the league in a vacuum.
If its long term league as you say try to lobby for a change and if enough owners agree maybe it can be changed.
I have played in a lot of different dynasty leagues and some of them not having this limitation would be fine.
Others I have seen a lot of turnover in managers and even leagues folding. This is what this rule is trying to prevent.
I have seen leagues where managers are completely win now and some of them even cash in for a year then bail afterwards leaving the new owner in a difficult spot trying to fix that team afterwards, or perhaps the worse example is the manager who becomes the victim of too many trades then leaves an even worse roster than the win now managers did.
Rosters where you have to pay someone to take over a long term rebuild. Less risk of that happening if they cant sell all their picks multiple seasons ahead.
fixedWas in this same exact situation and getting the same results and felt the same way about bringing it up for a third year in a row. What I wound up doing that third year instead of suggesting to get rid of the rule, was playing into the reason they felt it was necessary in the first place. I suggested that any team that wants to trade future year picks just needs to pay the buy in for that season, that way they are actually tied to the longevity of the team (and the league). So ifI did lobby to remove the rule the year after it was put into place. But less than half the league liked the idea of removing it. I could bring it up every year, but I don't want to be insufferable.Yeah I can understand not wanting to have that limitation.Personally I hate the rule. But I can understand that perspective. We've only had maybe 3 departures in the last 10 years, if I had to guess a number on it. And I don't really think any were "gutted". But you never know when someone might take advantage of the system.I do think not allowing picks to be traded more than one year away makes for a healthier league as teams cannot be gutted for multiple seasons of picks and then abandoned, leaving that team with no viable assets for multiple seasons.Yep, that's a good explanation. And my comment was only half-facetious, as my dynasty strategy is similar to what Bozeman was saying overall, but (hopefully) not so literally "selling all point-scorers for picks". It's a balance, but you generally want as much value as you can get, at all times. Especially in my league where trading picks more than 1 year out has been banned for the last couple seasons, I very much try to hoard picks. Then immediately after the draft I can try to flip one or two of my new rookies for next year's picks (thereby "sort of" circumventing the ban).I couldnt find Bozeman Bruisers original post here but its something I would like to respond to.Dude, you're spilling my strategy! Some people from my league could be here and figure it out.Reading these comments, I am glad I don't play dynasty. It looks like the strategy is to hoard picks, then when those picks turn into points trade them for more picks, and sprinkle in some dog **** to make the deal seem sweeter
Do any of you actually enjoy winning fantasy football games and championships or is it all about hoarding picks?
eta: this hot take is not just based on this thread, it seems every dynasty talk I see is about cashing out guys who are scoring points today for future picks that may score points years down the road
I think there is a lot of merit to this perspective of preferring players who are playing now and can potentially score points that can help your team win games now. Many managers in dynasty formats are perpetually chasing the future and not living in the present.
At the same time in dynasty rookie picks are the most fluid form of currency a manager can own because they are not tied to a specific asset, which will have more variable value depending on competitors priorities and current roster construction. Some of those teams may only be seeking players at one position but not others, and their opinions on the specific players will be different as well.
A draft pick could be used on any position and any player they might like. Either by drafting that player with the pick, or by trading that pick for a different player they want.
Because of the limitations of roster spots the draft picks are a way of expanding the overall value of your team. If you trade a player for a pick you then free up a roster spot to pick up someone else. Rinse and repeat with several transactions made this way.
Because in dynasty all players are kept year after year it is possible for dynasty teams to build up their rosters with many strong players as the core of their team and not have the need for free agent replacements to improve their starting lineups.
So these additional roster spots are used to churn free agent players and the more of those that can be sold for picks, the greater the value of the overall team becomes.
Draft picks often function like bonds as well. Their value increases as they mature, when those picks get closer to the actual draft they will be used in. So the manager can use timing with their trades to leverage more value out of those picks, by buying them when their cash in point is far away and selling them when that point is near.
Depends on the league of course, but from a commishioners perspective not allowing that can help the league be more stable.
In some leagues managers are committed enough long term for this to be less of a concern, but I tend to agree with that limitation being more healthy for the league in a vacuum.
If its long term league as you say try to lobby for a change and if enough owners agree maybe it can be changed.
I have played in a lot of different dynasty leagues and some of them not having this limitation would be fine.
Others I have seen a lot of turnover in managers and even leagues folding. This is what this rule is trying to prevent.
I have seen leagues where managers are completely win now and some of them even cash in for a year then bail afterwards leaving the new owner in a difficult spot trying to fix that team afterwards, or perhaps the worse example is the manager who becomes the victim of too many trades then leaves an even worse roster than the win now managers did.
Rosters where you have to pay someone to take over a long term rebuild. Less risk of that happening if they cant sell all their picks multiple seasons ahead.you'reyour buy in is $100 and you traded your 2024 and 2025 first round picks this offseason to get 1.01 and draft Bijan, you also pre-paid the buy ins for those next two seasons. This also means if an owner does cripple a team and flake out, it makes it a lot easier to backfill their spot by telling the new potential owner "yeah the team is kinda crap and you're missing your next two first round picks, but the buy-in's are on the house and you can play for free these next two years while you rebuild". It universally passed.
edit: posted before reading all the following comments and seeing someone else also say this. TLDR, what that guy said lol.
CorrectedWas in this same exact situation and getting the same results and felt the same way about bringing it up for a third year in a row. What I wound up doing that third year instead of suggesting to get rid of the rule, was playing into the reason they felt it was necessary in the first place. I suggested that any team that wants to trade future year picks just needs to pay the buy in for that season, that way they are actually tied to the longevity of the team (and the league). So ifI did lobby to remove the rule the year after it was put into place. But less than half the league liked the idea of removing it. I could bring it up every year, but I don't want to be insufferable.Yeah I can understand not wanting to have that limitation.Personally I hate the rule. But I can understand that perspective. We've only had maybe 3 departures in the last 10 years, if I had to guess a number on it. And I don't really think any were "gutted". But you never know when someone might take advantage of the system.I do think not allowing picks to be traded more than one year away makes for a healthier league as teams cannot be gutted for multiple seasons of picks and then abandoned, leaving that team with no viable assets for multiple seasons.Yep, that's a good explanation. And my comment was only half-facetious, as my dynasty strategy is similar to what Bozeman was saying overall, but (hopefully) not so literally "selling all point-scorers for picks". It's a balance, but you generally want as much value as you can get, at all times. Especially in my league where trading picks more than 1 year out has been banned for the last couple seasons, I very much try to hoard picks. Then immediately after the draft I can try to flip one or two of my new rookies for next year's picks (thereby "sort of" circumventing the ban).I couldnt find Bozeman Bruisers original post here but its something I would like to respond to.Dude, you're spilling my strategy! Some people from my league could be here and figure it out.Reading these comments, I am glad I don't play dynasty. It looks like the strategy is to hoard picks, then when those picks turn into points trade them for more picks, and sprinkle in some dog **** to make the deal seem sweeter
Do any of you actually enjoy winning fantasy football games and championships or is it all about hoarding picks?
eta: this hot take is not just based on this thread, it seems every dynasty talk I see is about cashing out guys who are scoring points today for future picks that may score points years down the road
I think there is a lot of merit to this perspective of preferring players who are playing now and can potentially score points that can help your team win games now. Many managers in dynasty formats are perpetually chasing the future and not living in the present.
At the same time in dynasty rookie picks are the most fluid form of currency a manager can own because they are not tied to a specific asset, which will have more variable value depending on competitors priorities and current roster construction. Some of those teams may only be seeking players at one position but not others, and their opinions on the specific players will be different as well.
A draft pick could be used on any position and any player they might like. Either by drafting that player with the pick, or by trading that pick for a different player they want.
Because of the limitations of roster spots the draft picks are a way of expanding the overall value of your team. If you trade a player for a pick you then free up a roster spot to pick up someone else. Rinse and repeat with several transactions made this way.
Because in dynasty all players are kept year after year it is possible for dynasty teams to build up their rosters with many strong players as the core of their team and not have the need for free agent replacements to improve their starting lineups.
So these additional roster spots are used to churn free agent players and the more of those that can be sold for picks, the greater the value of the overall team becomes.
Draft picks often function like bonds as well. Their value increases as they mature, when those picks get closer to the actual draft they will be used in. So the manager can use timing with their trades to leverage more value out of those picks, by buying them when their cash in point is far away and selling them when that point is near.
Depends on the league of course, but from a commishioners perspective not allowing that can help the league be more stable.
In some leagues managers are committed enough long term for this to be less of a concern, but I tend to agree with that limitation being more healthy for the league in a vacuum.
If its long term league as you say try to lobby for a change and if enough owners agree maybe it can be changed.
I have played in a lot of different dynasty leagues and some of them not having this limitation would be fine.
Others I have seen a lot of turnover in managers and even leagues folding. This is what this rule is trying to prevent.
I have seen leagues where managers are completely win now and some of them even cash in for a year then bail afterwards leaving the new owner in a difficult spot trying to fix that team afterwards, or perhaps the worse example is the manager who becomes the victim of too many trades then leaves an even worse roster than the win now managers did.
Rosters where you have to pay someone to take over a long term rebuild. Less risk of that happening if they cant sell all their picks multiple seasons ahead.you'reyour buy in is $100 and you traded your 2024 and 2025 first round picks this offseason to get 1.01 and draft Bijan, you also pre-paid the buy ins for those next two seasons. This also means if an owner does cripple a team and flake out, it makes it a lot easier to backfill their spot by telling the new potential owner "yeah the team is kinda crap and you're missing your next two first round picks, but the buy-in's are on the house and you can play for free these next two years while you rebuild". It universally passed.
edit: posted before reading all the following comments and seeing someone else also say this. TLDR, what that guy said lol.fixedcorrected
