PVP Martavis Bryant

[Adrian_Charlie]

I acquired Martavis Bryant and conditional 2nd (If I place outside Top 4) for 1.12 and 2018 1st (will be 1.10-1.12). I feel great about this trade. I don't place a ton of value on 1.12 and late 2018 1st in my position. My team is built to win now, first team in sig.

[jeffster]

I acquired Martavis Bryant and conditional 2nd (If I place outside Top 4) for 1.12 and 2018 1st (will be 1.10-1.12). I feel great about this trade. I don't place a ton of value on 1.12 and late 2018 1st in my position. My team is built to win now, first team in sig.

I feel like you paid a lot, but I like it. I just acquired him for a likely mid but possibly late 2018 1st last night, after I waited to see what Pittsburgh did in round 1. The hit rate of late-1st picks is not particularly high, and with Bryant's upside, I think he's worth the risk now.

And for those who were saying that the only time to buy him was right after his suspension, I think they're falling for hindsight bias. If you were acquiring him way back then, you were factoring in the risk that he might never play football again, which was a very definite possibility. Just because we know he's made it to reinstatement now doesn't mean the odds of him being reinstated were 100% back then.

That risk seems greatly mitigated now - he's reinstated, the reports on him are good, and Pittsburgh didn't do anything aggressive at the WR position. I basically wrote an article about this regarding Gordon, which is linked in my sig (the one with "risk aversion" in the title).

[CK_]

I picked up Bryant for free off waivers last year after his owner presumably got fed up and dropped him.

I quickly snatched him up. No intention to own him by the start of the season; I'm waiting for hype to build around his reinstatement and then sell him. Or if I could get a 1st now - he is gone easily.

However, I agree he is one of those limbo players where is only worth a hold.

Same for me. He has no negatives for me in the terms of me paying for him. I will hold him until someone wants him sell for 1st or an equivalent upside WR or ride him at no cost. Not a loss at all and I'm perfectly fine with that for a free player.

[onetwothree]

And for those who were saying that the only time to buy him was right after his suspension, I think they're falling for hindsight bias. If you were acquiring him way back then, you were factoring in the risk that he might never play football again, which was a very definite possibility. Just because we know he's made it to reinstatement now doesn't mean the odds of him being reinstated were 100% back then.

I think what most people meant was getting him for a 2nd or lower at the time versus paying a 1st now.

[jeffster]

And for those who were saying that the only time to buy him was right after his suspension, I think they're falling for hindsight bias. If you were acquiring him way back then, you were factoring in the risk that he might never play football again, which was a very definite possibility. Just because we know he's made it to reinstatement now doesn't mean the odds of him being reinstated were 100% back then.

I think what most people meant was getting him for a 2nd or lower at the time versus paying a 1st now.

My point was that those two aren't directly comparable. If you bought in for a 2nd months ago, then you took on a lot of risk. It's perfectly reasonable for one person to think he was worth a 2nd months ago, to wish you had paid a 2nd for him months ago, and to pay a late 1st for him now.

What doesn't make sense is to say you won't pay a late 1st for him now because he was worth a 2nd months ago. He's clearly in a less risky position, although the risk is obviously still present.

[skip]

When did the risk with Bryant change? Because he is reinstated? We've known that was going to happen since a year ago. Nothing has changed. He is still extremely high risk and I think I just read that not one but two people have paid multiple firsts to get him.

I feel like I'm serving one if my guests warning them that the soup bowl is extremely hot and they touch it just to figure out what I mean by "extremely".

[jeffster]

When did the risk with Bryant change? Because he is reinstated? We've known that was going to happen since a year ago. Nothing has changed. He is still extremely high risk and I think I just read that not one but two people have paid multiple firsts to get him.

I feel like I'm serving one if my guests warning them that the soup bowl is extremely hot and they touch it just to figure out what I mean by "extremely".

Congrats on knowing he was going to be reinstated a year ago. That precognition must be great!

He doesn't come without risk; he comes with less risk than a year ago.

[Adrian_Charlie]

This is my point as well. He's less risk than a year ago when we had no idea if he would even be back. Would he battle back? Would the NFL reinstate him? Fast forward to present time, he is back, he wants to be back, and we also know that Wheaton/Coates/DHB/Rogers are not the replacement for Martavis. This time last year all of us were determined Wheaton or Coates would slide into the Martavis role, but they didn't. The Steelers are making a push, Martavis will be the 2nd or 3rd option (AB, LB) in an elite offense. He's in a position to succeed, we don't know if he will, but I love taking the chance. Think he's medium risk, high reward.

[Kramer]

Is Ertz, Hooper, Woods too much to pay for Bryant in a 10 team 0.5 ppr superflex league?

[onetwothree]

Congrats on knowing he was going to be reinstated a year ago. That precognition must be great!

He doesn't come without risk; he comes with less risk than a year ago.

Imagine paying a 1st for Gordon when he was "reinstated". Bet those owners felt there was less risk.

[jeffster]

Congrats on knowing he was going to be reinstated a year ago. That precognition must be great!

He doesn't come without risk; he comes with less risk than a year ago.

Imagine paying a 1st for Gordon when he was "reinstated". Bet those owners felt there was less risk.

Yes, there was less risk. Less risk isn't a guarantee of success.

Again, hindsight bias.

[onetwothree]

Yes, there was less risk. Less risk isn't a guarantee of success.

Again, hindsight bias.

Risk is still the same until he actually plays. Uh, confirmation bias. And probably recency bias.

Probably something about opportunity cost too but I'm now wondering in my head how Juju affects Martavis and what it says about how the Steelers feel about him.

[jeffster]

Yes, there was less risk. Less risk isn't a guarantee of success.

Again, hindsight bias.

Risk is still the same until he actually plays. Uh, confirmation bias. And probably recency bias.

Probably something about opportunity cost too but I'm now wondering in my head how Juju affects Martavis and what it says about how the Steelers feel about him.

I don't actually see how any of the things you mentioned are relevant...

Well, except for the Juju pick. I'll definitely be reading up on what people say about Juju to Pittsburgh here, when it comes to valuing Martavis. It certainly isn't good, but just how bad is it?

[onetwothree]

I don't actually see how any of the things you mentioned are relevant...

Well, except for the Juju pick. I'll definitely be reading up on what people say about Juju to Pittsburgh here, when it comes to valuing Martavis. It certainly isn't good, but just how bad is it?

Says the guy who throws out "hindsight bias".

Can be argued that the risk is higher now that the cost to obtain is higher.

Juju means Hunter/Coates/Hamilton fighting for maybe 1 roster spot and Rogers might not be guaranteed a starting role in slot. Plus a hedge against Martavis.

[CK_]

Risk will always be there with Martavis, how you value that risk is what is important and that is completely subjective. My ideal go is that he has a WR1 Season in 2017 and then I can sell him for a player I would prefer, say Jarvis Landry? Or a Early 2018 pick.