What constitutes a fair first offer?

[James McGhee]

Why are trade calculators so widely disdained? Isn't it just using current ADP to measure both sides of the deal for comparison? DynastyFFtools, for instance. I realize ADP is only one resource but it seems like a helpful one.

Someone school this noob.

[Mephistopheles]

Why are trade calculators so widely disdained? Isn't it just using current ADP to measure both sides of the deal for comparison? DynastyFFtools, for instance. I realize ADP is only one resource but it seems like a helpful one.

Someone school this noob.

Lot of reasons.
First, Most of the trade calcs are out of date and are not frequently updated for up to the minute changes. One popular calc still has Robert Woods as being on Buffalo even though he signed with the Chargers two months ago.
Second, the trade calcs are easily prejudiced on multiple assets for 1 offers. For example, one popular calc suggests that Pierre Garcon, Brandon LaFell, Eli Rogers, and Quincy Enunwa for the 1.8 rookie pick is a "fair deal". Nobody in their right mind would make that deal.
Third, Most calc users take the calc's valuation as "gospel" and have no flexibility or willingness to move laterally or even to slightly sweeten a deal to close it - because the calc says they shouldn't. This is what breaks deals for me.

There are others, such as not factoring in team needs, league structure, player preferences and prejudices, etc. but I don't want to make this a TLDR post.

I don't care if someone else uses one, what I absolutely loathe is when they email me the screenshot and say "see, this is fair". Deal killer right there for me.

[lukkynumber13]

Why are trade calculators so widely disdained? Isn't it just using current ADP to measure both sides of the deal for comparison? DynastyFFtools, for instance. I realize ADP is only one resource but it seems like a helpful one.

Someone school this noob.

Trade calculators only know how to add up talent, whereas in actually building a winning roster, we are trying to CONSOLIDATE talent, not accumulate it. Trade calcs also don't account for the value of what an empty roster spot is worth. This will lead to offers of the "10 dimes for 1 dollar bill" variety.

Honestly I don't have a problem with someone consulting a trade calc in a 1 for 1 deal, at that point you are basically just looking at a rankings chart which is flawed but not ridiculous.

[Wolfepack28]

I always open up addressing what I think is a need of theirs. And not it's not offering a bunch of depth players for the one stud they have. Building trust from the opening offer and not severely low balling or refusing to give up any of your blue chips for one of theirs will certainly increase the chance of you maybe getting a little more than what you would have otherwise.

I think some people look at different trades in their league and wonder why they can't "win" a trade like the ones they see. I've settled a few times a took a little bit less because the negotiations were such a pleasure. I won't consistently do that but I think it sets you up to maybe get a little bit more in a trade the next time around.

There's give and take with everything. Showing that you're willing to give a little goes a long way.

[motherlode]

One popular calc still has Robert Woods as being on Buffalo even though he signed with the Chargers two months ago.

Yeah but you still have him listed as being on the Chargers when he signed with the Rams like 2 months ago.

WHO AM I SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE?!?!?!?

[Missile]

This has been mentioned but I always make sure I'm offering a need to the other team. I want deals to be fair and help the other team as well. I hate getting offered Andrew luck when I already have Rodgers and Winston. That to me shows you're not interested or paying attention to my needs and that is a "turn-off" right of the bat.

[TheChicken]

Just imagine their roster is your roster, temper your individual valuations a touch and imagine your response if that offer dropped into your inbox. Would you just dismiss? Would you research it and could you fashion a counter offer?

[onetwothree]

Make an offer you'd be willing to accept yourself if the roles were reversed.

If you have to "sell" your offer with long paragraphs convincing the other owner how great it is, it's probably not a good offer. Save the negging for the bar and the haggling for the swap meet!

[Mephistopheles]

Make an offer you'd be willing to accept yourself if the roles were reversed.

If you have to "sell" your offer with long paragraphs convincing the other owner how great it is, it's probably not a good offer. Save the negging for the bar and the haggling for the swap meet!

Great way of putting it. I dislike dealing with other owners who have to dicker over and nickel-and-dime every aspect of a deal. If that last inch of position is so important to them, I'd rather just walk away.

[Mephistopheles]

One popular calc still has Robert Woods as being on Buffalo even though he signed with the Chargers two months ago.

Yeah but you still have him listed as being on the Chargers when he signed with the Rams like 2 months ago.

WHO AM I SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE?!?!?!?

Oops. Typo. Had the right city, though.

[prinefan]

I assume most people on here use one of the many trade calculators available or something similar based on your own rankings and calculations. So should a trade be within 20%, 10%, 5% of value? I imagine we are all trying to "win" the trade, whether it be based on calculated value, or projecting one guy as being worth more than the rest of owners in a league. Just looking to see what people on here expect to see, or what you typically send to start negotiations.

ALWAYS send as balanced an offer as you can. And I hope you are joking about using a trade calculator.

Nailed it.

[Tsunami]

I use a trade calculator, and everyone makes fun of me for it. But I understand cognitive biases; the human mind isn't capable of consistency regarding what a fair offer is. For example, most people value a player they own a little higher just because they own them, which defies logic. I use a calc that is simply math (designed for draft picks) and then I use the player's ranking/ADP as the pick number as if every deal is done before a startup draft. It makes it easy for me to send an opening offer in a situation where others might not be sure what to do, and it protects me from those people who want to keep continually adding something extra to the deal -- I know exactly where to draw the line, because the calc tells me when enough is enough. Thinking that the small pieces don't matter in a deal with a stud is another cognitive bias.

This doesn't mean I have to accept every offer that the calc thinks is favorable; if it leaves me with four QBs and no RBs then it obviously doesn't improve my team's production even if it improves the trade value of my team. That's a win now-rebuild judgment call, the calc is for tactics not strategy.

Also, it wouldn't be hard to make the calc take an open roster spot's value into consideration. Either just assign that spot to the value of the highest available free agent, or use a little math to make it scale by the number of empty spots you have. Obviously having 5 empty spots makes them worth less than having only one. In leagues with small benches this can be very important, and in keeper league trades before the draft it can be the most important thing of all. But I tend to play in leagues with large rosters which makes this mostly negligible, and I tend to ignore it.

But back on the original topic, I agree with the people who say I try to send a decent first offer. However, there are certain owners who will never accept an offer without adding something to it so they can "win". (These are the worst ones for the cognitive biases mentioned above.) So I will lowball these owners because they will reject whatever I send anyways.

[maxhyde]

Make an offer you'd be willing to accept yourself if the roles were reversed.

If you have to "sell" your offer with long paragraphs convincing the other owner how great it is, it's probably not a good offer. Save the negging for the bar and the haggling for the swap meet!

Great way of putting it. I dislike dealing with other owners who have to dicker over and nickel-and-dime every aspect of a deal. If that last inch of position is so important to them, I'd rather just walk away.

Obviously important to you as well if you walk away rather than cede...deals I initiate I cede to them if it is of little consequence.
I feel every now and then losing a deal isn't the worst thing.
I do very little back and forth though...ever. I just have more interest in making a deal than the process of coming to a deal through a lengthy negotiation like others do. I understand why they get a a rush from it but not for me...

[Goddard]

Just tried this for shits and giggles, but according to a trade calculator:

OBJ (just went with the top dynasty asset) = 58.2

Crabtree, Moncrief, Parker, Pryor, Crowder = 60.8

This to me is the exact definition of 4 (in this case 5) quarters not equaling a dollar. Maybe based on pure value it's even, but find me an OBJ owner that would take this deal.

[Tsunami]

Just tried this for shits and giggles, but according to a trade calculator:

OBJ (just went with the top dynasty asset) = 58.2

Crabtree, Moncrief, Parker, Pryor, Crowder = 60.8

This to me is the exact definition of 4 (in this case 5) quarters not equaling a dollar. Maybe based on pure value it's even, but find me an OBJ owner that would take this deal.

Imagine you've just taken over a team in a large league and OBJ is your only good player. This isn't a bad trade at all. This is the equivalent of 5 future 1sts in a 12 team league. I would do this deal if I wasn't in a position to win.