Why some owners never trade

[Thews40]

I don't get teams with consistent strength on their bench. If you're sitting a great player every week at one position and your holes at other positions are spewing water through the dam, you aren't making good decisions. The team you throw out every week is the team, and depth is just an insurance policy you hope to never cash in. So why are some owners unwilling to deal?

 

Observations:

 

1) A past burn. We've all been burned at some point in a trade where it went the other way, but the times it didn't go the other way outweigh the time it did. You have to actually be willing to deal a big name to even fathom how much it hurts to watch your former team do extremely well.

 

2) No stones. I can't stand to offer up a player, say a mid WR and mid RB for a high RB/WR, only to get a counter that they want my best player instead. Why would I do this? What sense does it make to my team? Bottom line... no stones.. there, I said it. To succeed requires the risk be taken, and countering with a no-sense impossible retort, why not think about what really makes sense?

 

3) Big names are impossible to trade. I totally agree with this, and it would take an incredibly lopsided offer to part ways with two players I have on multiple teams.

 

4) SMACK is dead. Ok, it's off topic, but before we all became too hypersensitive and politically correct, SMACK was one of the fun parts of Fantasy Football. If you don't know what I'm talking about .

 

5) There's too much information on the web people take as fact. If the consensus "expert opinion" dictates a commonality, if you go against it, there will be 20 hindsight experts to tell you how wrong you were. The time you buck and win, they'll claim you got lucky. Trades work this way, because sometimes you have to roll on a hunch.

 

/climbsoffsoapbox

[markgugs]

3) Big names are impossible to trade. I totally agree with this, and it would take an incredibly lopsided offer to part ways with two players I have on multiple teams.

they are?

 

I just completed a trade where I sent Aaron Rodgers, Felix Jones & Kendall Hunter over for Ray Rice & Jimmy Graham.

 

somewhat big names

[The 13ers]

I just traded Ryan, Witten and Steve Smith for Rodgers, Pettigrew and Holmes.

 

I always figured the guys in my league are too scared to screw up by making a bad trade. Sometime you gotta take a chance.

[markgugs]

I think Thews meant, "in general" cuz it certainly happens. In dynasty this year, I acquired Aaron Rodgers. In re-draft, I traded away Rodgers, traded away MJD, acquired Forte, and acquired Calvin... so it certainly can happen if you're persistent enough.

sure, no doubt. but I think GOOD FFB owners realize you gotta give quality to get quality. it's just a matter of drafting smart (or playing the waiver wire smart) and having depth at a position that enables you to target another owner with depth at a position you don't have depth at. jeez that was a confusing sentence, lol

[Thews40]

they are?

 

I just completed a trade where I sent Aaron Rodgers, Felix Jones & Kendall Hunter over for Ray Rice & Jimmy Graham.

 

somewhat big names

This was a good trade. I have Aaron Rodgers on two teams along with Jimmy Graham on all three. You gave up Rodgers, the #1 scoring player in FF right now, and got Rice and Graham in return. This not only takes stones on your part, but on the other owner as well... a good deal for both. I say... BRAVO! to you both and wish you many happy

 

JMHO - You made a wise choice. .. Jimmy Graham is so money, he doesn't even know how money he is.

Edited October 14, 2011 by Thews40

[bostonsoxandy]

Trading makes fantasy football 100X more fun. Talking trades with other owners may be one of the most entertaining parts of it. It would be so boring if the team you drafted was the team you finished with (even if you won)--I just like to see new faces once in a while

[markgugs]

This was a good trade. I have Aaron Rodgers on two teams along with Jimmy Graham on all three. You gave up Rodgers, the #1 scoring player in FF right now, and got Rice and Graham in return. This not only takes stones on your part, but on the other owner as well... a good deal for both. I say... BRAVO! to you both and wish you many happy

 

JMHO - You made a wise choice. .. Jimmy Graham is so money, he doesn't even know how money he is.

I should note...I had Stafford "wasting" on my bench (and he had Gore, thus the Hunter handcuff). I've got Witten too, and we can start a TE at FLEX...I think it was a money trade too, thanks

 

(I have to take just a SECOND here to love on my team now: Stafford, V.Jackson, Maclin, McFadden, R.Rice, Witten, J.Graham) hello!

[ebartender]

I offered McFadden for Calvin Johnson & Beanie Wells. I have Peterson but my WRs are mediocre at best. Julio Jones, Brandon Lloyd, Mike Williams (TB). The Calvin owner has Wes Welker, Mike Wallace, Maclin, and Garcon. His RBs are Wells, Reggie Bush, and Tomlinson. He said he wouldn't consider the trade. I thought it was fair considering he would upgrade his RB and still have Welker, Wallace, and Maclin to start with Garcon as depth.

[markgugs]

I offered McFadden for Calvin Johnson & Beanie Wells. I have Peterson but my WRs are mediocre at best. Julio Jones, Brandon Lloyd, Mike Williams (TB). The Calvin owner has Wes Welker, Mike Wallace, Maclin, and Garcon. His RBs are Wells, Reggie Bush, and Tomlinson. He said he wouldn't consider the trade. I thought it was fair considering he would upgrade his RB and still have Welker, Wallace, and Maclin to start with Garcon as depth.

I honestly wouldn't have taken that trade either. As awesome as RunDMC is, Megatron is a monster, and Beanie has more than held his own (dude's got 6 TD's). You would need to offer McFadden and at least a WR3 for this trade to be reasonable

[ebartender]

I honestly wouldn't have taken that trade either. As awesome as RunDMC is, Megatron is a monster, and Beanie has more than held his own (dude's got 6 TD's). You would need to offer McFadden and at least a WR3 for this trade to be reasonable

 

I look at it this way, if I offered a WR3 he would be the 5th WR on his roster, even after trading Calvin. Beanie has had a nice start but I can't see him keeping up this pace. I do think McFadden will wind up outscoring Beanie by a lot. Just my opinion though. I also told him I would trade Peterson instead of McFadden. I understand that Calvin is a beast, but it's not like he has junk for WRs after that. He still has 4 WRs in the top 8 in our scoring system.

[hardway]

I honestly wouldn't have taken that trade either. As awesome as RunDMC is, Megatron is a monster, and Beanie has more than held his own (dude's got 6 TD's). You would need to offer McFadden and at least a WR3 for this trade to be reasonable

 

 

I agree, no deal if that was me.

[stevegrab]

Great thread, great posts.

 

Some owners in my league just don't trade, been the same 12 guys for years now, and some for the whole 15+ years. I just traded with somebody I hadn't before. Over the yearas I trade with the same 4-5 owners for the most part.

[markgugs]

I look at it this way, if I offered a WR3 he would be the 5th WR on his roster, even after trading Calvin. Beanie has had a nice start but I can't see him keeping up this pace. I do think McFadden will wind up outscoring Beanie by a lot. Just my opinion though. I also told him I would trade Peterson instead of McFadden. I understand that Calvin is a beast, but it's not like he has junk for WRs after that. He still has 4 WRs in the top 8 in our scoring system.

I'm not disputing that (McFadden vastly outperforming Wells), but I think you may be missing the point. The offer is really McFadden (beast RB1) for Johnson (beast WR1, and the clear-cut best WR in football right now). You're asking him to throw in Wells as an afterthought, and how he performs from here on out is irrelevant. The fact is that he's performed at a much higher level than a throw-in thus far.

 

Who are your other RB's? Maybe you can offer McFadden and a lesser RB for Johnson & Wells?

[yilduz]

I've played with people that pretty much refused to trade anything at all. Obviously if something way in their favor was offered, they'd probably accept - but their reasoning for not trading was because they didn't want to make their opponents better.

[ebartender]

I'm not disputing that (McFadden vastly outperforming Wells), but I think you may be missing the point. The offer is really McFadden (beast RB1) for Johnson (beast WR1, and the clear-cut best WR in football right now). You're asking him to throw in Wells as an afterthought, and how he performs from here on out is irrelevant. The fact is that he's performed at a much higher level than a throw-in thus far.

 

Who are your other RB's? Maybe you can offer McFadden and a lesser RB for Johnson & Wells?

 

I don't want this to turn into a "who do I trade" thread. My other RBs are Ryan Grant and Daniel Thomas which obviously are not RB2 material now. And I disagree that it is "irrelevant how he performs from here on out." When making a trade it is all about how you think the players will do in the future, not what they did in the past.

[i_am_the_swammi]

Some very interesting comments.

 

I have some tremendous depth at RB in one of my leagues, and my WRS are good but not great. However, the upgrade I could achieve at WR would not be worth the opportunity cost of putting the RB points that currently sit on my bench into someone else's lineup. The very last thing I need is to upgrade a couple points a week at WR, while a rival who I may face in the playoffs upgrades 7-8 points a week at RB.

[Brentastic]

outstanding post and thread!

 

frankly, I think trades are required to have consistent success. Trades are just as important as drafting, WW/FA pickups and game day rosters.

 

Here's the thing that many owners, who don't trade, don't seem to realize... trading is a skill, like drafting, but there aren't mock-trades like mock drafts. You have to jump in the deep end and tread until you get some experience and skill. You win some, you lose some, but you suck until you start trying.

+infinity. Great thread btw and I agree

[Matty Ice]

For some reason I always feel bad when I win big on a trade. Like I ripped the dude off and ruined his season. Stupid logic but I just feel better not trading.

[byron2112]

I think alotta people are just afraid to make a mistake and thus, don't make trades.

 

I've tried to have an attitude that I'm willing to put any trade failure aside and in the past the moment I accept or propose... of course I make sure I'm comfortable with the level of risk involved when I pull the trigger, but I liken it to going to the casino and only gambling money you're prepared to lose.

 

So, no regrets.

[historymike]

OK, I'll take the contrarian position and add another facet to the reasons why some owners do not trade (or rarely trade):

 

1. I like to stock up on RBs for depth, and I only trade them if my team starts out slow. In one league I am 4-1 with two RB studs and three tier two and three RBs. I am strong at every position, and trading only makes my competitors stronger.

 

2. I rarely trade after week six or so, barring an incredibly horrid start on my part (say, being 1-5 and getting desperate). No way am I interested in bolstering someone else's playoff chances.

 

3. Too frequently other owners put together insulting or lopsided trades that sour me. In one league this year a guy tried to get me to trade him FJax and Matt Forte for Brandon Jacobs and Josh Freeman, and when I declined witn a terse "this is borderline insulting," he countered with asking me for Megatron and Jahvid Best to get his Marshawn Lynch and Brandon Lloyd. Uh, dude? Go fark yourself.

 

4. Some owners have inflated senses of the value of their players. In one league an owner wound up with Tom Brady and Drew Brees after a weird trade, thinking he had the ultimate trade bait, and then got mad because he couldn't get a top-three RB for Brees. I offered him Forte and Nate Washington for Brees and Kendall Hunter (I have WR depth, and I needed at least a warm body at RB), and he got all huffy, demanding TWO top-10 RBs for Brees. While Brees is very good, no way am I giving up FJax and Forte for one QB.

 

Anyway: lots of reasons why trades can be rare, and not all owners have fear as a reason for not trading.

 

Oh, one more point: the waiver wire can be just as effective a means at improving a team, especially if you watch for juicy matchups with under-the-radar players.

 

Oh, and yet one more point: joining the Huddle was the smartest fantasy decision I ever made: the best Huddlers are always a week or two ahead of the mainstream fantasy "gurus." Why trade with a stubborn owner when you can get quality information about emerging players on the waiver wire?

Edited October 14, 2011 by historymike

[Delicious_bass]

The impression I get from reading many of the posts in this thread is many of you try to trade pretty much just for the sake of trading. Just for the fun of it or to get some new players to look at. Just to roll the dice and see what happens. How does that make any more strategic sense than sitting on your team as it stands now?

 

As Swammi said, I would rather sit on depth at a position rather than trade it away only to have it benefit the other owner(s) more than me. Contrary to what Thews would have us believe, depth is HUGH because injuries ARE going to happen to your team. Its been my experience in fantasy sports that about the time you start feeling haughty about your depth at a position is about the same time the fantasy gods backhand you across the face with a couple injuries to those players, too. So depth can be short-lived.

 

If you can leverage an area of strength to make your team more competitive over the course of the season, go ahead and do it. Trading (just to trade) makes no sense to me.

Edited October 14, 2011 by Delicious_bass

[MnLefty]

I've posted this before in other discussions, but I'll do it again. Trades are very rare in our league, but mostly due to our league setup. We use a very flex heavy roster...

 

1QB 1RB 1WR 1TE 3flex

 

It's my long-time local league and is great fun, but it bugs me just a little because it takes some of the strategy out of play in trying to build a "complete" team. Most of the trades in our league (maybe 1-2/year) involve QB's, when 1 guy lands 2 studs and somebody else ends up with duds or an injury. 2 years ago I landed Drew Brees from a guy who also had Schaub when they both started really hot. That might have been the last significant trade in our league. With the flex heavy lineup we just don't end up being "weak" at a position because depth isn't a factor.

 

Most of our guys are semi-saavy owners and nobody trades just to trade. Personally the only reason I'll ever make a trade is to boost the overall starting lineup with playoffs in mind. I have the worst skill/luck/timing when it comes to playing matchups, so I'll do whatever I can to stack as many must-start guys into my lineup and take thought out of the equation.

[kevinkris]

Like others have pointed out it really helps to have depth at positions as injuries happen all the time, so trading away bench players isn't always a good idea.

 

The main reason I think trades rarely happen in some leagues is people over value their own players, while at the same time under value every other teams players. This is a good example of what I am talking about:

 

4. Some owners have inflated senses of the value of their players. In one league an owner wound up with Tom Brady and Drew Brees after a weird trade, thinking he had the ultimate trade bait, and then got mad because he couldn't get a top-three RB for Brees. I offered him Forte and Nate Washington for Brees and Kendall Hunter (I have WR depth, and I needed at least a warm body at RB), and he got all huffy, demanding TWO top-10 RBs for Brees. While Brees is very good, no way am I giving up FJax and Forte for one QB.

 

In my local league, the one I care about the most personally (everyone has known each other for a while), I had all my rbs with week 5 byes. (hillis, felix jones, rice) We only start two rbs, and with also having starks I have good depth at the rb position. I wanted to trade jones/hillis for someone who had a different bye who was around the same level. I first tried either jones/hiillis for blount after week 3, and they were all doing around the same. The owner wouldn't hear of it, saying blount was way better and would only do rice for blount.

 

After week 4 I tried jones for greene. Greene had been sucking it up and was on his bench behind fred jackson/Benson. He was like are you crazy greene is way better than jones.

 

With blount getting injured and tampa not looking great, the jets not looking as good as last year I am glad they rejected the trades in hindsight.

 

My wr's are in shambles but no one will make any reasonable trade so I have to keep going to the ww to try and improve

 

I guess my point is like historymike said people tend to over value their own players, and under value other so it makes trading hard unless people are more open minded.

[SeductiveNun]

Lots of good points made in this thread. Last season I turned down about 6 trades simply because I was sitting pretty with RB depth and solid WRs and didn't need to make any changes. Not my fault if another team is lacking somewhere and I'm sure not going to trade away depth just to help someone out.

 

On the other hand, this year I lost Jamaal Charles and had no dpeth at RB behind him (poor drafting on my part) but I had 2 excellent WRs in Calvin Johnson and Mike Wallace. In my local there are a handful of guys I know who will entertain trade offers, whereas most others will just say "no" outright to anything you propose. I offered him Wallace for Fred Jackson straight up - he had good RB depth but was glaringly shallow at WR - you could say we were opposite sides of the same coin for drafting this year. He accepted and it's worked out great for both of us so far.

 

Bottom line is, if I don't need to improve my team, I won't trade. If I have roster issues and need help, I always entertain and/or make offers, but I make sure I'm giving talent to get talent. And sometimes I won't offer a trade because I simply don't have the talent on my roster to offer up to improve my team.

[i_am_the_swammi]

I'd suggest that reasons #1 and 2 are fear based. See, you're afraid of making ONE other team better, but the thing is, trading is supposed to make your team better. If it makes your team better (and one other team better), then it makes the rest of the league, relatively speaking, worse.

 

That's a very superficial way of looking at it. And that is assuming you only make one trade with one team. if you make 5 trades with five different teams, are you making five different teams better?

 

Assuming you are the team with lots of depth, try looking at it this way:

 

Suppose on a scale of 1-10, your team is currently an "8". The team you are trading with is currently a "6". You make a deal to improve your team, moving you from an "8" to a "8.5". However, the team you trade with moves from a "6" to a "7". While you have made your team better, you have also made the other team better, and the delta between you and your competitor has decreased....which increases the liklihood that he could potentially upset you if you were to face off in the playoffs. Correlate that to an NFL team: I'd much rather be favored to win by 7 points, than favored to win by 3.

 

Like I said, if you can get value for value, by all means make the trade. But on the other hand, it makes no sense to trade, say, and RB on your bench that will improve a competitor's starting lineup by 6-7 points per week, when all you are getting back is a WR that will improve your starting lineup by 3-4 points per week.