Why some owners never trade

[flemingd]

I am strong at every position, and trading only makes my competitors stronger.

 

No way am I interested in bolstering someone else's playoff chances.

This thinking is way off base and adds unnecessary difficulty to getting trades done. Of course you're making the other guy stronger - so what? You're also making yourself stronger. That's the purpose of the trade. If you're not trading because you're not getting as much out of it as he is, ok, but not doing it just because you don't want to make the other guy better is dumb. Look at it this way - you get better, he gets better, 10 others stay flat. You just picked up an edge on 10 of your 11 competitors. By not "bolstering his playoff chances" you just bolstered someone else's - it's not like fewer people make the playoffs, but now you're facing the entire league without that upgraded QB you could have had.

[stevegrab]

Lots more good points. A few comments

 

@Historyofmike,

I don't think many people are saying they trade just to trade, to shake up their roster or for the fun of it.

 

Agree on the point about lopsided or nearly insulting offers. Then there's also the one owner who just doesn't understand NO and keeps making offers, Mr Annoying Trade Offer guy. Even after I say "Nope not interested in trading Calvin Johnson he'll fire back a bunch of different offers. I've just stopped trying to deal with that guy.

 

 

@Mnlefty,

Yep, I can see with all those flex spots that RB/WR/TE depth can be used to fill those slots, so fewer trades for sure. We used to have 1 flex (QB, 2RB, 2WR, TE, FLEX, K, D) but then changed that flex to a 3rd WR. The other way was nice as it allowed more flexibilty.

 

 

@ several posters concerned about not improving other teams

I understand about not wanting to make other teams better, but if that's a big concern you'll just never trade, or only do it when you can fleece the other owner. Depth is good, but if I have 2 top 10 QBs in a 12 team leauge and others are struggling (Payton out, byes, injuries, underperforms) and I have a weakness somewhere else, I'm going to try to trade to improve my overall regular starting lineup. No use sitting on that #10 QB just waiting for my #5 QB to get hurt so I can use him.

[SecondString]

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.

 

 

There's a lot of truth to this, and owners who don't follow the info as closely who get offers from owners who do are going to be leery about making a trade...seen this over and over.

[i_am_the_swammi]

I understand about not wanting to make other teams better, but if that's a big concern you'll just never trade, or only do it when you can fleece the other owner. Depth is good, but if I have 2 top 10 QBs in a 12 team leauge and others are struggling (Payton out, byes, injuries, underperforms) and I have a weakness somewhere else, I'm going to try to trade to improve my overall regular starting lineup. No use sitting on that #10 QB just waiting for my #5 QB to get hurt so I can use him.

 

You missed his point a little bit.

 

No one is saying don't trade. if you have a weakness, and someone else does to, and you can bolster both lineups while getting an edge on the rest of the field, its a no-brainer.

 

What he was iterating (as was I) is that , if I am already moderate-to-good at a position, and trading my depth only makes me a tad better while bolstering my trade partner significantly, it might be better strategy to stay put and not increase the chances that you've just added another potential team to the list of those that have a shot at the title. Its much easier to outperform 2 teams instead of 3, 3 teams instead of 4, etc.

[Brentastic]

Unless you're in a dynasty or keeper league, I see no reason to have quality depth on your bench. If you have a starter that's sitting on your bench because you're strong at that position - I gotta assume you're weak at another position. The smartest thing to do is trade your depth so you can strengthen your weakness. This is all jmho of course. But in a re-draft, I see no reason to have starters on your bench if you have weaknesses at other positions. I also think it's a bad idea to worry about other teams and how they may or may not benefit from a trade with you. You can't control what happens with other teams. You should only be concerned with making your team better. Any thought outside of the direct benefit to your own team is wasted thoughts because a lot can happen in an NFL season.

[historymike]

Re: "dumb":

 

Here is the roster for this team; yes, I could upgrade at QB, but between Romo and Fitz I am bound to have a strong matchup each week. My only roster weak spot is team defense, but I rotate each week based on interesting matchups, and this strategy has worked reasonably well so far. My core RBs of FJax-Forte-Mathews have been deadly so far, and Best is no slouch as a RB (these RBs are #1, #4, #6, and #8 in total points YTD in this league). Perhaps I could use a better WR3 (Nate Washington is a mere 23rd in total points as my WR3), but this team is performing otherworldly, and my only loss was a two-point defeat in Week Four going up against the Rodgers owner (54 points in a Yahoo! format).

 

Start: QB-WR-WR-WR-RB-RB-TE-K-DEF-Flex

 

QB Tony Romo (6th ranked QB)

WR Calvin Johnson (2nd ranked WR)

WR A.J. Green (10th ranked WR)

WR Lance Moore

RB Matt Forte

RB Fred Jackson

TE Jason Witten (3rd ranked TE)

RB Jahvid Best

QB Ryan Fitzpatrick

TE Jermaine Gresham (4th ranked TE)

RB Ryan Mathews

WR Nate Washington

WR Titus Young

RB Stevan Ridley

RB Kendall Hunter

K Sebastian Janikowski (1st ranked kicker)

DEF Oakland

 

Again: trading my depth stands to benefit only my opponents. The upside in getting Brees for this team as QB is about 6 PPG, but losing a Forte or FJax is a larger dropoff in that position. Factor in a healthier Romo, and that spread may even shrink.

[Delicious_bass]

Unless you're in a dynasty or keeper league, I see no reason to have quality depth on your bench. If you have a starter that's sitting on your bench because you're strong at that position - I gotta assume you're weak at another position. The smartest thing to do is trade your depth so you can strengthen your weakness. This is all jmho of course. But in a re-draft, I see no reason to have starters on your bench if you have weaknesses at other positions. I also think it's a bad idea to worry about other teams and how they may or may not benefit from a trade with you. You can't control what happens with other teams. You should only be concerned with making your team better. Any thought outside of the direct benefit to your own team is wasted thoughts because a lot can happen in an NFL season.

And its people like you who fill this forum up with posts praying/cursing/ranting when some no name player you have to start in place of your injured stud starters craps the bed and leaves you hangin.

[i_am_the_swammi]

I also think it's a bad idea to worry about other teams and how they may or may not benefit from a trade with you. You can't control what happens with other teams. You should only be concerned with making your team better.

 

By definition, deciding whether or not to trade with another team absolutely affects what happens with other teams.

[historymike]

By definition, deciding whether or not to trade with another team absolutely affects what happens with other teams.

 

+1 to this.

[wiegie]

+1 to this.

exactly--I was looking over rosters a few days ago in my local and found a potential trade that would make my team marginally better, but would make my counter-party more than marginally better. Since my counter-party is in my division, I decided not to offer the trade since it would hurt my playoff chances.

[i_am_the_swammi]

exactly--I was looking over rosters a few days ago in my local and found a potential trade that would make my team marginally better, but would make my counter-party more than marginally better. Since my counter-party is in my division, I decided not to offer the trade since it would hurt my playoff chances.

 

Seems so simple when you boil it down to this, doesn't it?

[MnLefty]

Re: "dumb":

 

Here is the roster for this team; yes, I could upgrade at QB, but between Romo and Fitz I am bound to have a strong matchup each week. My only roster weak spot is team defense, but I rotate each week based on interesting matchups, and this strategy has worked reasonably well so far. My core RBs of FJax-Forte-Mathews have been deadly so far, and Best is no slouch as a RB (these RBs are #1, #4, #6, and #8 in total points YTD in this league). Perhaps I could use a better WR3 (Nate Washington is a mere 23rd in total points as my WR3), but this team is performing otherworldly, and my only loss was a two-point defeat in Week Four going up against the Rodgers owner (54 points in a Yahoo! format).

 

Start: QB-WR-WR-WR-RB-RB-TE-K-DEF-Flex

 

QB Tony Romo (6th ranked QB)

WR Calvin Johnson (2nd ranked WR)

WR A.J. Green (10th ranked WR)

WR Lance Moore

RB Matt Forte

RB Fred Jackson

TE Jason Witten (3rd ranked TE)

RB Jahvid Best

QB Ryan Fitzpatrick

TE Jermaine Gresham (4th ranked TE)

RB Ryan Mathews

WR Nate Washington

WR Titus Young

RB Stevan Ridley

RB Kendall Hunter

K Sebastian Janikowski (1st ranked kicker)

DEF Oakland

 

Again: trading my depth stands to benefit only my opponents. The upside in getting Brees for this team as QB is about 6 PPG, but losing a Forte or FJax is a larger dropoff in that position. Factor in a healthier Romo, and that spread may even shrink.

 

I tend to look at things a little different... If that were my roster 1) I'd be thrilled , and 2) I'd probably be trying to move Best, maybe with Washington or Moore for a top 10 receiver trying to stack the roster. If you had the right trade partner that type of combo could possibly land a Fitz, Jennings, Nicks, SSmith, Wallace? Like I said though, I'm always trying to put together the best starting lineup I can.

[delusions of grandeur]

I'm undoubtedly a purely need-based trader, and generally like to be the offerer to figure out what might work for both teams. It doesn't matter if it's a perceived need on my team, his team, or both, I'm looking for the need that is enough incentive to where the trade is likely to be accepted. Of course by using this strategy you're limiting your opportunities (sometimes all you gotta do is ask to land the player you want), but I don't like the "testing the waters" offers. If anyone watched the League last night, "it's like you at the bar trolling for handies; Eventually someone's gonna say yes", but as some have mentioned, you also risk offending the trade partner, and if you pull off that "lopsided" trade might cause the league to not to trade with you, either through fear, animosity or simply not wanting to make you even better.

 

I've had plenty of success looking through rosters to see who has the WR I need, who needs the extra QB I have, etc., and in many cases will straight up tell them, "Let me know if you're thinking something different, but this looks like the best offer I can give, and it helps us both". Assuming that they can see it as clearly as I can (because I really don't seek to rip off people in trades for the reasons mentioned above), then it's usually an easy sell; But what becomes annoying is that people will also use that best offer to try to counter thinking they can get more now that you're interested, which sucks, because it makes me take pause and not always initially offer what I need to to get it done.

 

It's a vicious cycle, but fortunately one that you can rise above with a few savvy offers if you got the ammo to do it.

[stethant]

Trades are very rare in our league, but mostly due to our league setup.

Trading, for the most part, requires depth. In my main league with start 1QB 2RB 3WR 1TE 1Flex it's very difficult to accumulate the "extra" players necessary to make good trades. Trades do happen in leagues with larger starting rosters, but most often IMO they end up being a wash - someone gets slightly better at one position and slightly weaker at another. Smaller active rosters make trading much more likely.

 

The point of a trade is to make my team stronger. The other team may/should improve, but the goal is to have the greatest improvement be on my team. I can live with that.

[stevegrab]

Trading, for the most part, requires depth. In my main league with start 1QB 2RB 3WR 1TE 1Flex it's very difficult to accumulate the "extra" players necessary to make good trades. Trades do happen in leagues with larger starting rosters, but most often IMO they end up being a wash - someone gets slightly better at one position and slightly weaker at another. Smaller active rosters make trading much more likely.

 

The point of a trade is to make my team stronger. The other team may/should improve, but the goal is to have the greatest improvement be on my team. I can live with that.

 

 

It also has a lot to do with how big your bench is. We start 9 (QB, 2RB, 3WR, TE, K, D) and have 9 bench slots, which leaves room for lots of depth. However if you play in a league that starts 8 and has only 2 bench spots (seen this a few times recently, includig SecondStrings do over thread) there isn't much room for depth, and the waivers also have lots of tallent.

[Phat Rugby]

I have been in my league for 9 years and have made only 4 trades. The trades ended up working very well for me and not so good for the other owner. Now, I cannot get anyone to trade unless it is lopsided in thier favor. Hopefully, with a few new members next year, I can start trading again as it is a great way to upgrade your team if you can look at players potential for the rest of the season.

[markgugs]

If you have a starter that's sitting on your bench because you're strong at that position - I gotta assume you're weak at another position. The smartest thing to do is trade your depth so you can strengthen your weakness. This is all jmho of course. But in a re-draft, I see no reason to have starters on your bench if you have weaknesses at other positions. I also think it's a bad idea to worry about other teams and how they may or may not benefit from a trade with you. You can't control what happens with other teams. You should only be concerned with making your team better. Any thought outside of the direct benefit to your own team is wasted thoughts because a lot can happen in an NFL season.

Exactly

 

in my example, why wouldn't I trade Rodgers (and "throw-in" Felix Jones+Kendall Hunter) for Ray Rice & Jimmy Graham? Especially when I 1) had Stafford on my bench doing nothing, 2) upgraded my 2ND RB from Felix to Ray Rice, and added Graham as my FLEX (with Witten as my TE)?

Edited October 14, 2011 by markgugs

[Papajohn]

Just my two cent:

 

When you trade, it increases the probability of you beating everybody else maybe except the gut you traded with, but it ALSO increases the probability that the team you traded with beats everybody else, making your way to the playoff easier.

 

And if you fear that the guy you traded with will beat you in the playoff, then well....that's just too far out in the future to really worry about.

[Bier Meister]

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.

 

 

You missed his point a little bit.

 

No one is saying don't trade. if you have a weakness, and someone else does to, and you can bolster both lineups while getting an edge on the rest of the field, its a no-brainer.

 

What he was iterating (as was I) is that , if I am already moderate-to-good at a position, and trading my depth only makes me a tad better while bolstering my trade partner significantly, it might be better strategy to stay put and not increase the chances that you've just added another potential team to the list of those that have a shot at the title. Its much easier to outperform 2 teams instead of 3, 3 teams instead of 4, etc.

 

 

I'm undoubtedly a purely need-based trader, and generally like to be the offerer to figure out what might work for both teams. It doesn't matter if it's a perceived need on my team, his team, or both, I'm looking for the need that is enough incentive to where the trade is likely to be accepted. Of course by using this strategy you're limiting your opportunities (sometimes all you gotta do is ask to land the player you want), but I don't like the "testing the waters" offers. If anyone watched the League last night, "it's like you at the bar trolling for handies; Eventually someone's gonna say yes", but as some have mentioned, you also risk offending the trade partner, and if you pull off that "lopsided" trade might cause the league to not to trade with you, either through fear, animosity or simply not wanting to make you even better.

 

I've had plenty of success looking through rosters to see who has the WR I need, who needs the extra QB I have, etc., and in many cases will straight up tell them, "Let me know if you're thinking something different, but this looks like the best offer I can give, and it helps us both". Assuming that they can see it as clearly as I can (because I really don't seek to rip off people in trades for the reasons mentioned above), then it's usually an easy sell; But what becomes annoying is that people will also use that best offer to try to counter thinking they can get more now that you're interested, which sucks, because it makes me take pause and not always initially offer what I need to to get it done.

 

It's a vicious cycle, but fortunately one that you can rise above with a few savvy offers if you got the ammo to do it.

 

 

these

[Thews40]

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.

I agree that trading for the sake of trading doesn't make sense, but I'll disagree with your logic behind making another team better in a trade is justification for keeping too much depth. Poker aint free, and you have to give up something to get something in return. If your team is better, the person you traded with should feel the same way about the trade, or they shouldn't have done it. That one team will also play other opponents besides you, so making them better may benefit you in the end.

 

There really isn't any glory between 5th and 6th place. In most leagues, you either win the SuperBowl or you don't. The objective is to place in the top two to be in the Superbowl. Riding depth for too long "just in case" when your other positions are suffering isn't a good idea. The extra strength you could have had when the playoffs start and you can't trade with an eliminated team will amount to wasted opportunity. IMO, if you are deep at RB and weak at WR, letting your top RB (#1 or #2) go for an excellent WR/TE is covered by your depth.

 

And speaking of TE's, if you're in a mandatory TE PPR league, trading up for a top 6 TE is a very difficult thing to do. That TE slot goes out every week to represent at least 10% of your points, and there are 4 teams starting the 8-12 TE's that have a great chance of catching two balls for 20 yards most weeks. Conversely, trading a top 4 TE could net you a nice player, mainly because there's incentive for other teams to upgrade the position and make their team better.

 

It's all about depth for depth, and it has to make sense for both teams to make it work... poker aint free.

Edited October 14, 2011 by Thews40

[tazinib1]

trading drunk = bad.

 

[tazinib1]

ya know, every time you post drunk, I immediately go to the rosters in the leagues we're in to see if there's a trade possible.

 

Then I listen to you rant about your "submit line up of shame"

 

you and everybody else

 

Not sure what "submit lineup of shame" means though.

[tazinib1]

it's like the "walk of shame" the next morning after you banged that goat.

 

[CurlyDumps]

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.

 

Borderline insulting? That's putting it gently.

 

This is a problem for me, too. Owners in my league refuse to give anything up in a trade. I haven't been offered a single trade that I thought was fair. Such as:

 

-Reggie Wayne for Roddy White

-Tim Hightower for Vincent Jackson (after Torain's big game)

-Ryan Mathews for Aaron Rodgers

 

On the flip side, I have Rodgers and Stafford. Another owner has McCoy and McFadden and is hurting at QB. I have a hole at RB2. He emails me, "I want Stafford. McCoy and McFadden are off limits. Don't even think about it." Great way to open negotiations. I used my #1 waiver spot on Tebow this week, mostly for trade bait, but partly cause I just know it ticked him off.

Edited October 14, 2011 by CurlyDumps

[Trots]

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.

I need to take this advice and not trade my RB depth for a modest gain at WR. WRs are too hit or miss to upgrade another team substantially at RB.