Effective Trades

[rue]

We don't trade very much in our FF league.  We average 1 blockbuster trade a year with 2 minor trades.  I cannot accurately reason the true percentage of trades which are rejected, but my feeling from talking to players for 3 years now is that it's 90% or higher.  Most of the time, I believe, the trade fails due to a difference opinion on future production from one or more players.  Player 1 thinks player X is a great trade for players Y and Z, but Player 2 thinks player X is cruising for an MCL tear.  Some of the time, the person proposing the trade has eyes bigger than his reasoning and has not accounted for a crucial need in a trade: both teams have to get better.

Let's start out simple by talking about effective trades that trade 1 player for 1 player.  When these trades involve two players of the same position, there is only one effective trade scenario possible:  the two owners trading have very different opinions about how the players' production will pan out over the rest of the season.  Specifically, these trades typically involve an owner who has secured a playoff position but is worried about a player whose real life team is either in cruise control to their own playoffs, or tanking their dismal season into the turf.   In the weeks proceeding say about 14, 15 or so, the value of that player to his owner is diminishing.  However, the value of that player is higher to an owner trying to make the stretch run to the playoffs.  Aha!  An unbalanced value of the same player between two owners.  This theme will be prevalent when we explore other reasons and scenarios for effective trades.  Note: Another good example of effective one for one trading is the breakout player putting up huge numbers but perceived as a fluke by his owner.  For example, two years ago I should have trusted my instincts and traded R. Grossman when he was the NFL MVP after 5 games. 

Going a little more complex: the 2 for 1 trade.  Two for one trades are not as simple as they appear.  A kindergarten-er might think that if you're going to get one piece of anything, you should only have to give 2 pieces that make up halves of that one.  Like if someone gave me a dollar I would be expected to give them two half dollars back.  This is not the case in FF.  Receiving the amount of production from one player and only offering his production in the form of two players is robbery.  You should always expect a to "spend" more production than the player you expect to receive if you're offering it in the form of two players.  How this would translate into monetary value is your own discretion, but for the sake of making an example, if you want a player who's worth $1, you should expect to "pay" with two players each worth $.75 making $1.50.  I have many times in trade discussions listened while someone explains to me that their offer of players Y and Z have equal production to my player X when their value is added.  I'm not interested in needing two roster spots to make up for the production I used to be able to make with one.  I would be interested in having even more production from two players than I used to have with the slots they occupy.  Huh?  Let's go to an example. 

Owner Chris has three RBs starting for him.  If we could magically associate a monetary value with his RBs, they would be worth $1.50, .$75, $.50.  Owner Obama wants to make a trade.  He offers Chris two RBs worth $.75 for his $1.50 RB.  If Chris accepts the trade, he now has 4 RBs worth $.75, $.75, $.75, $.50.  His production, while unpredictable, is estimated at $2.75 before the trade.  While Obama traded Chris equal value, he has reduced his production to $2.25, because Chris can only play his top 3.  Owner McCain, however; offers Chris two RBs worth $1.25 and $1.00 for his $1.50 RB.  If Chris accepts the trade, he now has 4 RBs worth $1.25, $1.00, $.75, $.75 and has increased his production by $.25.  Note that McCain gave away much more than what might be considered an "even" trade.   He gave up $2.25 worth of RBs for Chris' $1.50, but that was the only way to get the $1.50 RB off Chris' roster with Chris' team getting better.   But why did McCain offer away his two RBs so un-evenhandedly?  The only plausible reason is that McCain believes he has enough on his bench to replace his lost production.  For example, if McCain has RBs of $1.25, $1.25, $1.00, $1.00 for a production estimate of $3.50, he stands to gain from this trade by leaving it with $1.50, $1.25, $1.00 for $3.75.

The trade mechanics become even more complicated when you consider trades involving varying positions; like say 1 WR and 1 RB for 1 RB.  The examples and specific mechanics here become a little daunting but since we're dealing with inexact figures anyway (after all, we are trying to predict the future), I think that the above should at least provide a road map to how make sure you're offering a trade that benefits the person you're trading with while improving your own team. 

The mechanics follow the same model when you increase the number of trades with 2 for 2s mimicking 1 for 1s and 2 for 3s mimicking 1 for 2s. 

There are trivial cases I didn't cover like trading 1 RB for 1 WR because one team has an abundance of talent in a single position.  The only thing to keep in mind here is that RBs and WRs do not have equivalent values related to their production because there are 3 possibly 4 WR slots and 2 possibly 3 RB slots.  The same goes for other positions.

Above all else, remember two things: 
1) Your job is not to match up production values for the player you want.  You must equal his value to the other owner in terms of a much broader picture.
2) Barring absentmindedness, trades simply don't happen unless both teams benefit. 

[-Spectre-]

too long of a post to read.

The main thing why trades don't get done is because people ask other owners what they think about the trade. The other one is cause most times the first trade offered is used to test the waters. Second is people try to rip other people off. like for example let's use last year as a scenario:

Culpepper and Jerry Rice for Randy Moss......


K thx goodnight!

[mystic]

Culpepper and Jerry Rice for Randy Moss......
K thx goodnight!

LOL do I dare ask who tried that?

[-Spectre-]

Culpepper and Jerry Rice for Randy Moss......
K thx goodnight!

LOL do I dare ask who tried that?

No one ... just an example of how trade offers usually go around here

[rue]

too long of a post to read.

That's too bad.  Five minutes of your time could have saved us all the time we spend checking our email, seeing a trade offer, then going

"oh, it's from spec."


*delete*

[-Spectre-]

too long of a post to read.

That's too bad.  Five minutes of your time could have saved us all the time we spend checking our email, seeing a trade offer, then going

"oh, it's from spec."


*delete*

Don't think I've offered you any trades since most of my discussions are in IM.

K Thanks!

[-Spectre-]

BTW everything that you posted can be summed up by people just using trade value charts and going from there.

There will always be a risk on each party and it's not as simple as you explain.

Again in our league the main reason trades fail is this:

The main thing why trades don't get done is because people ask other owners what they think about the trade. The other one is cause most times the first trade offered is used to test the waters. Second is people try to rip other people off. like for example let's use last year as a scenario:

Culpepper and Jerry Rice for Randy Moss......

[Zeradul]

There's one key thing you left out DD.

Different positions have different relative values, based on number in the NFL, and number starting on a given fantasy league's lineup.

Real Quick:  Ratio of NFL to Fantasy starters:  (assuming W/R position is half RB and half WR)
QB: 32-12  Ratio = 2.67
RB: 32-30  Ratio = 1.06
WR: 64-42 Ratio = 1.52
TE: 32-12 Ratio = 2.67

Lets call those scarcity ratios.  Yes there are many teams with RB duo's, (and teams who use more than 2 WR's) but only one RB gets the start, and in almost all cases, there is one who gets the majority.  With that said, the remaining scorer is significantly reduced in value.

Scarcity Ratios play a bigger role in trades than almost any other factor.

If you don't believe me, here's proof:  In very competitive leagues, the first 10-15 picks are almost always RBs, and of the first 25 picks, 20 are likely RB's.  The only exception being the super successful QB from the previous year cracking into that top 10.  So lets be clear.  The 15th ranked RB is more valuable than the #1 WR, more valuable than the #2 QB. 

The first TE is usually drafted between pick 35 and 50, again, because of relative scarcity.  That means the 25th ranked RB, 15th ranked WR, and #4 ranked QB are all more valuable than the #1 TE.

----------

I could give a much more complex mathematical proof, but you'd all just whine about it.  

[-Spectre-]

I could give a much more complex mathematical proof, but you'd all just whine about it.  

Please do!

[Evict3d]

Ill trade you the two pieces of bread from my baloney sandwich and this picture below for your bouncy ball and a jaw breaker?

[Ruckus]

mmmm cheetos !!

[Mnementh]

too long of a post to read.

The main thing why trades don't get done is because people ask other owners what they think about the trade....Second is people try to rip other people off.

After a little judicious editing, I've got to call bullshit on these two points.  First of all, the function of the first action is to prevent the other action.  There is nothing wrong with asking other owners and, actually, not thinking it is a good thing almost implies that you're trying to rip people off.  If you've proposed a fair trade then it should stand up to the scrutiny of other owners.  Also, if those owners try to poo-poo the trade for their own selfish reasons, then that just shows bad judgement of character on the part of the person asking about the trade.

I enjoy getting feedback from other owners about trades proposed to me as it allows me to tap into people's knowledge that may be greater than mine.  And if you have nothing to hide, then there's no reason to be against it....imho.

Thanks for the post, Chris.  I found it to be very interesting and worthy of being read, especially since I'm taking part in the conversation.

[Zeradul]

There is nothing wrong with asking other owners

Agreed!

If you've proposed a fair trade then it should stand up to the scrutiny of other owners.

Also agreed, but there is one problem with this situation.

Other owners aren't always going to be impartial with their opinions or advice, especially in cases where they stand to gain by the trade in question not happening.  This is all to frequent, because any trade that benefits both teams, ultimately makes both teams more potent, and therefore more of a threat.

Now add in that the owner who is giving the advice WANTS the players involved in the trade, or much less, has already made failed trade proposals for those players.  Now all of a sudden, the "scrutiny of other owners" becomes even that much more biased.

--------------

And granted, there's one other big problem here that I think may be the fundamental reason trades are rare, and that is this.  We all have confidence in our players, right?  We DID draft them after all.  Arguably, we all got the "best" remaining player with each of our picks in the draft.  Apart from a mistake here or there, we all have players that we probably value higher than others will, which is why we drafted them in the first place.  Therefore if we all value our own players a bit higher than everyone else does, you get two sides of a trade constantly coming up short.

[-Spectre-]

too long of a post to read.

The main thing why trades don't get done is because people ask other owners what they think about the trade....Second is people try to rip other people off.

After a little judicious editing, I've got to call bullshit on these two points.  First of all, the function of the first action is to prevent the other action.  There is nothing wrong with asking other owners and, actually, not thinking it is a good thing almost implies that you're trying to rip people off.  If you've proposed a fair trade then it should stand up to the scrutiny of other owners.  Also, if those owners try to poo-poo the trade for their own selfish reasons, then that just shows bad judgement of character on the part of the person asking about the trade.

I enjoy getting feedback from other owners about trades proposed to me as it allows me to tap into people's knowledge that may be greater than mine.  And if you have nothing to hide, then there's no reason to be against it....imho.

Thanks for the post, Chris.  I found it to be very interesting and worthy of being read, especially since I'm taking part in the conversation.

Please refer to Zeras post. I also participate in asking advice but as Zera I think some people are not impartial in discussions.

[QB3RT]

---
bah forget it, i'll trade for witten, winslow, gates, only.  maybe i'll go for a 2 RB for 1 next week after we see how my RB's do this coming week.
no i won't trade parker or jacobs ever

---

and spec, NO i won't trade romo, parker, jacobs, for your kicker

[-Spectre-]

---
bah forget it, i'll trade for witten, winslow, gates, only.  maybe i'll go for a 2 RB for 1 next week after we see how my RB's do this coming week.
no i won't trade parker or jacobs ever

---

and spec, NO i won't trade romo, parker, jacobs, for your kicker

Who the hell said I wanted to trade my kicker ?! He is so money!!!