lardonastick
Footballguy
40 man rosters, with limited IDP (start DL/LB/DB, with depressed scoring). Teams should have at least 30 roster spost for offensive players. This was a BAD trade, imho.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
*** OFFICIAL *** 13/14 Off-Season Dynasty Trade Thread (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Concept Coop
- Start date
cstu
Footballguy
It's not boring because you can take advantage of the reduced value of RB's. I was able to rebuild in one year after decimating my team and acquired Forte, Foster and CJ for picks no earlier than 1.9.I have never cared about the aesthetics of making fantasy leagues as close as possible to the actual nfl. Its a game involving player projections and its fun to figure out who you think is going to do well and who isn't.Leagues that ridiculously overvalue the wide receiver position (Or any position where you can start several guys at the same position and they are way more valuable than other positions) inevitably become a game of "pick the best players at this position" instead of "pick the best team of players". I don't find that compelling or fun any more than the old start 2rb and a flex non ppr redraft lagues where everyone just drafted running back running back running back and the fifth best receiver was available at the bottom of the second round because stud rb theory. Nobody will trade a stud receiver for anything short of another stud receiver, just like nobody back then would trade a stud running back for anything short of another stud running back. Its boring.
Really though, why don't you like it? I would guess most NFL teams would rather have Watkins/Evans/Floyd/Jeffrey than Lacy.
I don't have a glamour team like the one with Julio/Green/Brown/Cruz but it will compete.
bostonfred
Footballguy
Now you're just trying to upset me
lardonastick
Footballguy
Start Q RR WWW T F (R/W/T) - non PPR. Very large rosters.
Wes Welker
for
2.05 (17 overall)
I was the team trading away Welker. I acquired him earlier in the offseason for 2.10 in hopes of packaging him with something else to get a better pick. Didn't exactly turn out that way, but I'm still happy with the result (moving up five spots in round two for free).
Wes Welker
for
2.05 (17 overall)
I was the team trading away Welker. I acquired him earlier in the offseason for 2.10 in hopes of packaging him with something else to get a better pick. Didn't exactly turn out that way, but I'm still happy with the result (moving up five spots in round two for free).
Made a couple trades in my 12 Team PPR Salary Cap Contract League ($500):
Gave: Eddie Lacy ($63, 2 years)
Received: Demaryius Thomas ($76, 2 years)
Gave: Keenan Allen ($2, 1 year)
Received: Jordy Nelson ($46, 2 years)
Trade 1 was pretty close for me, but I just like DT to put up another huge year with Manning. The $13 in salary wasn't that much of a difference for me.
Trade 2, Allen is obviously a steal but he would be a fringe starter for me with my roster and I only have him for this year. Nelson is a top 10 WR in a 2 year window and he has a pretty low contract. He will likely be my 3rd WR behind Julio/Dez and Alshon.
Gave: Eddie Lacy ($63, 2 years)
Received: Demaryius Thomas ($76, 2 years)
Gave: Keenan Allen ($2, 1 year)
Received: Jordy Nelson ($46, 2 years)
Trade 1 was pretty close for me, but I just like DT to put up another huge year with Manning. The $13 in salary wasn't that much of a difference for me.
Trade 2, Allen is obviously a steal but he would be a fringe starter for me with my roster and I only have him for this year. Nelson is a top 10 WR in a 2 year window and he has a pretty low contract. He will likely be my 3rd WR behind Julio/Dez and Alshon.
One More Rep
Footballguy
slackjawedyokel
Footballguy
3rd behind Julio/Dez and Alshon?
Julio and Dez are FA's and I am going to land 1 of them with my cap space. I have Matt Ryan, DT, Alshon, Jordy, Floyd, Hunter, Gordon and Thomas for roughly half of my cap. So I am going after 1 of them and Jamaal Charles, should have a pretty decent shot at a championship but one team does have Shady, Lacy, Megaron and Green but no TE and only has about $10-15 in cap space.
slackjawedyokel
Footballguy
Ah got it. I love the contract leagues. Its another level of strategy and really alters the perception of players. Solid owners tend to really be rewarded too.
NeonDeion21
Footballguy
12 team PPR - Start 2 RBs, 3 WRs and Superflex:
LeSean McCoy for Julio Jones, Stevan Ridley, Brandin Cooks, Anquan Boldin.
LeSean McCoy for Julio Jones, Stevan Ridley, Brandin Cooks, Anquan Boldin.
jeaton6
Footballguy
Evil G
Footballguy
Not so much tanking, I think, as putting my best assets on TAXI. This trade has evoked a lot of discussion, which I am not used to...so perhaps some context would help those wishing to further discuss WR versus RB dynasty value during a rebuild.
This is actually the 2nd year of the League in question. I got drunk during the Start-up Auction Draft and built a poor team. Its main assets were LeVeon Bell, RGIII, Crabtree, Harvin and Doug Martin. Half way through the year, I bailed on my injured team and made a whole list of moves.
Q: Bridgewater, Manuel, Carr
R: Hyde, Freeman, Starks, Michael, Blue
W: Boykin, Marlon Brown, Hunter, Patterson, Randle, Da'Rick,
T: Bostick, Finley, Rivera, Ausberry, Robinson
IR: Gordon (suspended players eligible, he'll be on IR as soon as the suspension is announced)
TAXI: Lacy, Watkins, Evans, Ebron
I have four 2015 1sts, an early 2nd, plus a few other picks, all 2016 picks intact.
I have a feeling I could be competitive as early as 2015, and certainly back on my feet 2016, drafting RBs with the 2015 picks and trading for an established QB.
Telling the truth, I would consider parlaying Lacy into WR value if it better suited me, but I haven't begun to seek a trade partner.
Last edited by a moderator:
Evil G
Footballguy
This league allows for rookies and 2nd year men to live on TAXI, assuming you haven't used them in on your active roster (starters/bench)
Since I just traded for Lacy, he's eligible (for me). The other 3 are rookies I drafted. While on TAXI, they are contract-year exempt.
This is a 3-year Max non-salaried contract league.
This is not tanking,
With contract years you want to max your best players windows. Taking Lacy off now and wasting a year when you can't win is foolish. Leaving him on the taxi is good roster management and planning
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
That seems like a dangerous rule - why would that be allowed because it just leads to obvious tanking?
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
It's a bad rule that needs to be changed. It isn't "tanking" within the letter of the law of the rules but it surely is within the spirit.
It's also a loophole that the team that just acquired Lacy can place him there if he was activated by his former owner last year.
cstu
Footballguy
If you are going to have a taxi squad then it would make sense to me that once a player is taken off one team's taxi squad that he can never be put back on one.
FUBAR
Footballguy
sounds like you'd prefer an all flex league.I have never cared about the aesthetics of making fantasy leagues as close as possible to the actual nfl. Its a game involving player projections and its fun to figure out who you think is going to do well and who isn't.Leagues that ridiculously overvalue the wide receiver position (Or any position where you can start several guys at the same position and they are way more valuable than other positions) inevitably become a game of "pick the best players at this position" instead of "pick the best team of players". I don't find that compelling or fun any more than the old start 2rb and a flex non ppr redraft lagues where everyone just drafted running back running back running back and the fifth best receiver was available at the bottom of the second round because stud rb theory. Nobody will trade a stud receiver for anything short of another stud receiver, just like nobody back then would trade a stud running back for anything short of another stud running back. Its boring.
Really though, why don't you like it? I would guess most NFL teams would rather have Watkins/Evans/Floyd/Jeffrey than Lacy.
I'm usually a fan of finding the best way to maximize cost/value in all leagues.
FUBAR
Footballguy
you're intentionally not playing your best players in an effort to improve your chances to win a couple years from now.
Isn't that the definition of tanking?
This is usually the way they work.
To take a player off means you have to assign contract years to him. If there is a max of 3 I wouldn't be taking guys off too early to maximize my window to compete and wasting 1/3rd of their career on a year I can't win at other positions
Adam Harstad
Moderator
I agree that this is good roster management. Why waste a contract year if you don't have to? The improvement in draft position, in my mind, is secondary to getting an extra year of Lacy on the back end.
I also agree that the rule is poorly written. If Lacy's original owner couldn't put him on the Taxi Squad, his new owner shouldn't be able to, either.
I guess you could say that but if there are contract years and a taxi squad I would be hard pressed to find anyone in any of those types of league calling that tanking. If the max length you can keep players is 3 years and the year is whenever you activate them whether now or November you have still used one year. The I think maximizing your window on certain players is pretty smart.
If Lacy were sitting on my bench and I wasn't starting him that is tanking. Keeping him on my taxi so his timer doesn't start is not
But I don't know about the other leagues just how my contract leagues work. Once a player is activated he can never be on another Taxi Squad for any owner
Adam Harstad
Moderator
I generally define "tanking" as any move that a team would not make if draft position was assigned totally randomly- i.e. any move that only gets made because draft position considerations push it over the top. If draft position were assigned completely randomly, it would still make sense to taxi Lacy just for the extra year of his services on the back end. Therefore, I would not consider it tanking. The improved draft position is certainly a benefit and undoubtedly a consideration, but it's a secondary consideration. The move would be worth making even absent the draft position consideration.
With that, like I said, it seems like a bad rule to me.
Really like your first deal.
Sort of torn on the second one adding that much $$ to the cap but I like Nelson > Allen so good move
SproutDaddy
Footballguy
Not involved. 12 team ppr/heavy IDP
A gave up:
Bowe, Dwayne KCC WR
Marshall, Brandon CHI WR
Ebron, Eric DET TE
Watt, J.J. HOU DE
David, Lavonte TBB LB
Year 2015 Round 4 Draft Pick
Year 2015 Round 5 Draft Pick
B gave up:
Hopkins, DeAndre HOU WR
Thomas, Demaryius DEN WR
Graham, Garrett HOU TE
Quinn, Robert STL DE
Willis, Patrick SFO LB
Year 2015 Round 1 Draft Pick
Year 2015 Round 2 Draft Pick
Seems like the picks are on opposite sides. A got better wrs and picks.
A gave up:
Bowe, Dwayne KCC WR
Marshall, Brandon CHI WR
Ebron, Eric DET TE
Watt, J.J. HOU DE
David, Lavonte TBB LB
Year 2015 Round 4 Draft Pick
Year 2015 Round 5 Draft Pick
B gave up:
Hopkins, DeAndre HOU WR
Thomas, Demaryius DEN WR
Graham, Garrett HOU TE
Quinn, Robert STL DE
Willis, Patrick SFO LB
Year 2015 Round 1 Draft Pick
Year 2015 Round 2 Draft Pick
Seems like the picks are on opposite sides. A got better wrs and picks.
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
Agreed, though I don't play IDP so I don't know how much those players change things.
Last edited by a moderator:
valhallan
Footballguy
Yeah, bad deal for B. Watt and Quinn are a wash. David is probably the top dynasty LB but Willis is still a viable top 10 option. Obviously DT is the best offensive player in the deal. Throw in the picks and its a huge win for A.
If it is IDP heavy Watt and LDavid could be argued as the top DL and LB easily worth the picks on top of Quinn/Willis. I do not think Quinn and Watt are a wash but others may see it that way and David >> Willis
I think it is a pretty fair trade overall but I would side with DT/Hopkins myself even if it was TE premium. Some people value IDP's more heavily than I do
12 Team / Superflex / TE bonus / QRRWWTFFFF
Team A gave up:
Freeman, Devonta ATL RB;
Hyde, Carlos SFO RB;
Allen, Dwayne IND TE;
Streater, Rod OAK WR;
3x 2015 Round 3 Draft Pick
Team B gave up:
Cruz, Victor NYG WR;
Crowell, Isaiah CLE RB;
Bryant, Martavis PIT WR;
Rodgers, Richard GBP TE;
Willson, Luke SEA TE;
2015 Round 1 Draft Pick
Team A gave up:
Freeman, Devonta ATL RB;
Hyde, Carlos SFO RB;
Allen, Dwayne IND TE;
Streater, Rod OAK WR;
3x 2015 Round 3 Draft Pick
Team B gave up:
Cruz, Victor NYG WR;
Crowell, Isaiah CLE RB;
Bryant, Martavis PIT WR;
Rodgers, Richard GBP TE;
Willson, Luke SEA TE;
2015 Round 1 Draft Pick
Last edited by a moderator:
One More Rep
Footballguy
DT sideSproutDaddy said:
Evil G
Footballguy
The discussion began with talk based on the value of WR vs RB in a rebuilding situation. Based on this discussion, I laid out some context on why I might have made the moves I did, within specific league confines. Whether or not others dig the rule about TAXI isn't all that relevant...as politely as I can say so.Adam Harstad said:
A debate about what does, or what does not constitute tanking is relative to a given set of league rules - and I would argue such is best left for a collection of league-mates to decide as a group.
What's more important is whether harboring RB or WR talent on a one/two year rebuilding cycle is a superior strategy to the other, especially when those harbored are very young.
Bamac
Footballguy
I like Brown as much as the next guy, but give me the picks/youngsters.
Yes I would agree with that 100%. Terrible rule if that is how it exists however I didn't see anywhere that was the rule
FUBAR
Footballguy
as long as the owners come to an agreement and the rule is consistent, there's no problem with this rule or one that allows you to put a 2nd year player on the TS who you used last year. If an owner called up Knile Davis or Edwin Baker up for the end of 2013, some leagues would allow the 2nd year player to be put back on the Taxi Squad for 2014. I have no issue with this rule; my only league with a TS has this rule and it seems to work fine.As for tanking, while this is just one writer's opinion, it makes sense to me:
http://www.sbnation.com/2014/1/10/5266770/nba-draft-lottery-tanking-gm
Understand this was a tangent, but it's one worth discussing IMO.
Last edited by a moderator:
Adam Harstad
Moderator
The problem is that you cannot so narrowly define "trying to win" in dynasty. Trying to win what? A single game? This year's championship? All the championships ever?
As for tanking, while this is just one writer's opinion, it makes sense to me:
http://www.sbnation.com/2014/1/10/5266770/nba-draft-lottery-tanking-gm
Understand this was a tangent, but it's one worth discussing IMO.
Let's say you were in a league last year that had a positional maximum of 6 WRs, and you had Calvin, Julio, Harvin, and Crabtree. When Calvin's bye came around, what do you do? If you don't cut one of those four to add Brian Hartline, then you are demonstrating an "intent to do less than everything [you] can to win". By that definition, a refusal to cut Julio Jones for Brian Hartline is tanking.
Or a specific example that I dealt with last year. I had a team that was not going to make the playoffs. Jordan Reed was on my Taxi Squad, and he was outscoring the player I was starting in my flex (Tyler Eifert). The league's rules, though, stated that Taxi Squads were set before the season and once a player was removed he could never be added back. The league in question had shallow benches, and most of my bench was already devoted to carrying injured players and non-contributors (Julio, Harvin, Crabtree, Hunter, Eifert, Gronkowski, etc). I was faced with an option- activating Jordan Reed would improve my weekly scores, but it would also cost me one of my precious few roster spots on a team that already barely had enough room to field a weekly starting lineup. I chose not to activate Jordan Reed. Was that tanking? I would argue it was not- like cutting Julio Jones to add Brian Hartline, sacrificing a roster spot for a small scoring bump would be a short-sighted move that would hurt my team in the long run, even absent of draft considerations.
In my mind, the draft considerations are the key. Draft considerations are rewarded to bad teams, incentivizing teams to be bad for its own sake. That's exactly what was happening in the basketball example you linked to- teams were trying to be bad for its own sake because of draft considerations. If it were not for the draft considerations, neither team would have behaved like that- they would have had no reason to. If draft picks were handed out alphabetically instead of by order of finish, Memphis and Minnesota would both be trying their best to win that game. However, even absent any draft considerations, I still would not have activated Jordan Reed- the primary consideration in that decision was the roster spot, not the rookie pick. That's a decision that stood on its own merits, and the improved draft position was a happy byproduct.
That's the test- if draft picks were awarded alphabetically, would you still make that move? If no, then it's tanking. If yes, then it's not.
FUBAR
Footballguy
Petitio principiiThe problem is that you cannot so narrowly define "trying to win" in dynasty. Trying to win what? A single game? This year's championship? All the championships ever?
As for tanking, while this is just one writer's opinion, it makes sense to me:
http://www.sbnation.com/2014/1/10/5266770/nba-draft-lottery-tanking-gm
Understand this was a tangent, but it's one worth discussing IMO.
Let's say you were in a league last year that had a positional maximum of 6 WRs, and you had Calvin, Julio, Harvin, and Crabtree. When Calvin's bye came around, what do you do? If you don't cut one of those four to add Brian Hartline, then you are demonstrating an "intent to do less than everything [you] can to win". By that definition, a refusal to cut Julio Jones for Brian Hartline is tanking.
Or a specific example that I dealt with last year. I had a team that was not going to make the playoffs. Jordan Reed was on my Taxi Squad, and he was outscoring the player I was starting in my flex (Tyler Eifert). The league's rules, though, stated that Taxi Squads were set before the season and once a player was removed he could never be added back. The league in question had shallow benches, and most of my bench was already devoted to carrying injured players and non-contributors (Julio, Harvin, Crabtree, Hunter, Eifert, Gronkowski, etc). I was faced with an option- activating Jordan Reed would improve my weekly scores, but it would also cost me one of my precious few roster spots on a team that already barely had enough room to field a weekly starting lineup. I chose not to activate Jordan Reed. Was that tanking? I would argue it was not- like cutting Julio Jones to add Brian Hartline, sacrificing a roster spot for a small scoring bump would be a short-sighted move that would hurt my team in the long run, even absent of draft considerations.
In my mind, the draft considerations are the key. Draft considerations are rewarded to bad teams, incentivizing teams to be bad for its own sake. That's exactly what was happening in the basketball example you linked to- teams were trying to be bad for its own sake because of draft considerations. If it were not for the draft considerations, neither team would have behaved like that- they would have had no reason to. If draft picks were handed out alphabetically instead of by order of finish, Memphis and Minnesota would both be trying their best to win that game. However, even absent any draft considerations, I still would not have activated Jordan Reed- the primary consideration in that decision was the roster spot, not the rookie pick. That's a decision that stood on its own merits, and the improved draft position was a happy byproduct.
That's the test- if draft picks were awarded alphabetically, would you still make that move? If no, then it's tanking. If yes, then it's not.
You assume the point you're trying to make, that draft position is what matters. But is that the only thing that matters?
I'm not going to argue that someone should be forced to manage his roster in any certain way, but that doesn't mean the decision to bench (or leave on your TS) Lacy/Reed/etc. isn't tanking. It just might be permissible tanking.
cstu
Footballguy
FUBAR
Footballguy
In other formats, I'd take Brown. But with superflex that mid 1st becomes a star WR or RB or a much needed QB. Robinson and Beckham are good prospects though I'm not huge on either guy.
This is a deal that could look incredible for Brown in a couple years. But it could do the other way too.
Overall, I'd call it fair.
thriftyrocker
Footballguy
That's a good point. This time next year people are trading Brown for a 2015 mid 1st just to get who's left of Mariota, Winston, Hundley, Gurley, Gordon, MDavis, Yeldon, Cooper. In non-QB-friendly it'd have to be top 4. But in superflex PPR, the mid 1st is a high rent prospect who will be worth Brown on their own.
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
12 team PPR 1/2/3/1/1 flex
Zach Ertz and Justin Blackmon
for
Mikel LeShoure, Stedman Bailey, Michael Rivera, David Ausberry, 2015 1st (late / favorite on paper)
Zach Ertz and Justin Blackmon
for
Mikel LeShoure, Stedman Bailey, Michael Rivera, David Ausberry, 2015 1st (late / favorite on paper)
