Is it getting harder to trade these days?

[Mephistopheles]

I used to be one of the more active traders in all my leagues. Best part for me is always getting a win/win deal where both sides get some benefit and are happy, which is what trading should be.

Over the last couple of years, though, I've noticed two trends that have arisen:
First, a lot of guys only care about screwing somebody over. They have to win every deal, and by a wide margin. I don't mind losing a deal on value if I see a productive reason to do it, but some of this stuff is beyond ridiculous.

Second, a lot of guys, especially newer players, only want to trade for stud players and they will not give anywhere near reasonable value for them. They won't take any risks on lesser name players with potential, which is where the money is made in this game.

When I ran my own professional service firm, I had a policy. Clients who consistently negotiated and battled over everything or who did not want to give fair value for what was given to them, were shown the door, told to find another professional. I pared 4-8 clients per year, and picked up a similar number of new ones who were less of a headache. We became a boutique firm which saved my sanity in a high burnout rate profession and made us more attractive for merger with a larger firm.

Applying that same principle, in most of my leagues, I've changed my methodology to "pick my spots" and have become more of a "boutique" trader. If I have a contending team and there is a team with some vets that probably won't contend, I'll send him a smaller deal in the offseason where he wins by a little...knowing that he'll remember that, later, when I come calling for picking up one of his vets for a future 3rd or 4th when he drops from contention, he'll be more inclined to listen. It's kind of like a "preferred vendor" program in a business.

Conversely, if a franchise that throws out ridiculousness every time he comes at me or rejects reasonable trade approaches sends something, I'll just reject, not counter, and not send him any offers. I know guys who send out offers of Fozzy Whittaker for Julio Jones and hide behind the excuse that they "want to get talks started". Doesn't work with me. Stuff like that gets a reject with no counter and I'll stay far, far away from those guys.

So I send out probably about 90% less trades than what I used to, and I think my trading efforts have become more productive and efficient for doing so.

So, OP, yes, it is more difficult because of these two factors. I'm not saying applying my strategy is "perfect" for everyone, but it has worked well for me. Best of luck to you.

[onetwothree]

If I have a contending team and there is a team with some vets that probably won't contend, I'll send him a smaller deal in the offseason where he wins by a little...

Always feel like once they win one deal, they want to win another deal and become more difficult to deal with.

It's kinda like when you make a deal you know is good but the other owners think you got fleeced so they think it's open season on your team and you get a ton of crappy offers right after that.

[btv802]

Trading just to be active isn't necessarily benefitting though. Ultimately what makes for a successful dynasty experience is winning...not just trading.

Completely fair statement. I'm certainly not winning anything this year. My point is that in a league full of competent, experienced and competitive dudes who are focused on nothing but "winning", it makes sense that it's harder for them to package their crap for Julio or Lev Bell type pieces in the offseason that they all desperately want. These guys I play with are doing it in other leagues, I hear about it all the time in our GroupMe chat...but nobody is getting anything done trade wise in this league. So while they sit on their butts and fold their arms across their chests and wait for week 1, I'm using it as an opportunity to acquire the things that are a little bit easier to buy. That may not help me win now, but these assets will carry good trade value for when some of these "contenders" finish 2017 with a 5-8 record and realize their "contending" roster isn't actually that good.

No doubt that there is a good chance if I don't play this right that what I'm doing is going to make me non-competitive for many years...just sharing my thoughts and experiences about finding ways to get trades done in a league full of guys who aren't dummies.

[DJB]

Its tougher to make deals for the simple reason that most dynasty are more informed, more knowledgeable, use sights like this and are aware of rankings and such. The gap has been narrowed on perceived value on players in the NFL.

I typically have the easiest time trading with someone whos team is going in opposite direction from my own. One of us a contender the other rebuilding. Each owner covets something the other owner is willing to move to improve their team.

[Stevens61310]

No matter what which fantasy football forum I happen to visit--it feels like a half dozen threads pop up every year on this--or a similarly themed idea. I have read the entire thread and some really good points were made--and even some that I hadn't considered. I agree that trades aren't as bountiful as they were when I started dynasty leagues some 10 years ago. I can't speak of the declined trades in any of my leagues--for I have never seen them. But I can speak of the trades I have declined.

1. Obviously lopsided. I know this should be self-explanatory and someone will undoubtedly come out and say well that's all about each person's player evaluation. Fair enough. But what I am talking about is a trade that offers Tim Tebow for Aaron Rodgers--is there one single person in this forum that thinks this isn't lopsided?? I have been in this one league for 5 (?) years and there is an owner who's offers are so wildly lopsided that as soon as I see his name my finger is itching to hit the decline button--even before I have reviewed the offer.

2. Lateral move. If it's what I consider a lateral move there's a 99% chance I will decline it. What I mean by a lateral move is an Rb for an RB that are essentially the same level. Or WR for WR. Or an RB and WR for an RB and WR. It's a pointless trade and I am puzzled why it's even made.

3. Weak position. So many offers I receive don't often take in what i consider my weakness. And worse a significant amount of those not only don't take in consideration my weakness they will almost certainly weaken my strengths--

4. Perception. I will admit I haven't heard anyone mention this one. But I sometimes decline a trade. Even if it appears to benefit me. Because I wonder--what does he know that I don't know?? How will this bite me in the bleep later on down the road?? I realize this comes down to player evaluation and is a bit illogical--but there it is.

5. Bench. I have received some offers that are offering essentially 4 of their players for 2 of mine. It looks nice on paper. But I often have to look at my bench and try to figure out who to drop. And admittedly more often than not I prefer the guys on my bench over some of the guys being offered.

Other notes I would like to make. I am sorry if I disagree with some on this point--But if aren't "winning" your deal then you should decline. Both parties have to believe they are "winning" (benefitting) or it shouldn't be a completed deal. If I receive an offer and it doesn't look like I will benefit from it--I decline. Now I'm not saying the deal should be Le'Veon Bell for Kadeem Carey. But the deal should benefit each owner.

From Day 1 I have always offered balanced deals. And yet 80% of those get turned down. Again--yes player evaluations are different. But that is the reason i have slowed down with my trade offers.

That is my 2 cents. Take it for what it's worth---

[Goddard]

I actually have an easier time trading with the more experienced owners because we're better able to come to an agreement on player values. A lot of the not as experienced owners become very gun-shy and have a harder time pulling the trigger, even if it's fairly even or makes sense for their team. The key is to never get upset or offended when someone doesn't want to trade, regardless of whether or not it's fair.

[dawgs4life]

I did not read thru all the posts. So I don't know if I am duplicating but..... I have noticed the same thing. I think it is 1 of 2 reasons or both.

1- the growth of Dynasty League sites and social media has more and more people informed. it becomes almost robotic as trade values completely hinge on ADP

2- there is kinda a big turn over coming that we see every several years. We enjoyed quite a few years for the Big 5 or 6 WR that are now starting to point down. and Especially with RBs as that 2008 draft class is now dwindling. This makes everyone pause when executing a trade as they don't want to trade away the next Tyreek or another bust out player. And with so many changes on how offenses are deployed, you never know who will be the next "out of now where" Ty or Snead or Tyrell Williams...so on and so forth.

[DJB]

No matter what which fantasy football forum I happen to visit--it feels like a half dozen threads pop up every year on this--or a similarly themed idea. I have read the entire thread and some really good points were made--and even some that I hadn't considered. I agree that trades aren't as bountiful as they were when I started dynasty leagues some 10 years ago. I can't speak of the declined trades in any of my leagues--for I have never seen them. But I can speak of the trades I have declined.

1. Obviously lopsided. I know this should be self-explanatory and someone will undoubtedly come out and say well that's all about each person's player evaluation. Fair enough. But what I am talking about is a trade that offers Tim Tebow for Aaron Rodgers--is there one single person in this forum that thinks this isn't lopsided?? I have been in this one league for 5 (?) years and there is an owner who's offers are so wildly lopsided that as soon as I see his name my finger is itching to hit the decline button--even before I have reviewed the offer.

2. Lateral move. If it's what I consider a lateral move there's a 99% chance I will decline it. What I mean by a lateral move is an Rb for an RB that are essentially the same level. Or WR for WR. Or an RB and WR for an RB and WR. It's a pointless trade and I am puzzled why it's even made.

3. Weak position. So many offers I receive don't often take in what i consider my weakness. And worse a significant amount of those not only don't take in consideration my weakness they will almost certainly weaken my strengths--

4. Perception. I will admit I haven't heard anyone mention this one. But I sometimes decline a trade. Even if it appears to benefit me. Because I wonder--what does he know that I don't know?? How will this bite me in the bleep later on down the road?? I realize this comes down to player evaluation and is a bit illogical--but there it is.

5. Bench. I have received some offers that are offering essentially 4 of their players for 2 of mine. It looks nice on paper. But I often have to look at my bench and try to figure out who to drop. And admittedly more often than not I prefer the guys on my bench over some of the guys being offered.

Other notes I would like to make. I am sorry if I disagree with some on this point--But if aren't "winning" your deal then you should decline. Both parties have to believe they are "winning" (benefitting) or it shouldn't be a completed deal. If I receive an offer and it doesn't look like I will benefit from it--I decline. Now I'm not saying the deal should be Le'Veon Bell for Kadeem Carey. But the deal should benefit each owner.

From Day 1 I have always offered balanced deals. And yet 80% of those get turned down. Again--yes player evaluations are different. But that is the reason i have slowed down with my trade offers.

That is my 2 cents. Take it for what it's worth---

The one I will disagree is the lateral move. Unless its one of those duplicate leagues no two players should be valued fhe same. Sure the two players in the offer might be in the same tier but I always even rank guys within my tiers. If i value someone even slightly more by a hair i will pull the trigger.

[slacker]

My league is on Yahoo which locks teams during the offseason and fires back up right around the NFL draft. Most guys in our league want a break so it works out, but about a month before the league re-activates we all start thinking about moves we want to make. The net result is a flurry of trades for the first 3 or 4 weeks then not much after that. We have retooled the way we want and its just a matter of waiting til the fall to take the new team out for a spin. I think another thing (especially here in Michigan) is that it's summer time. Warm weather for us is a precious commodity and we don't want to waste it sitting in front of a computer. I am less up on players and what is happening in the camps so I don't want to pull the trigger on something that may be ripping me off because I didn't have a piece of current information. Speaking of which, I have to go mow the lawn.

[DLF3000]

The most practical answer has already been given a few times. For the most part, no one wants to make a "fair" deal. Someone always wants to rip the other person's head off, and if they can't, then the offer is "not close".

The truth is, fleecing via trade is the fastest and easiest way to dynasty dominance.

There's one team in my league, I don't know how he does it, but he destroys everyone in the trade. Destroys. (Except me: we've traded 0 times in 10 years of play - zero!)

All I can do is complain publicly on the boards about the one-sided stupidity of these trades (and GMs who really are just making themselves farm teams and should be removed from the league), or move on.

The problem is, you feel pressure to join them in the fleecing arms race because you simply cannot compete with a series of lopsided trades otherwise. Drafting and waiver wire pick ups only go so far - a few trades where you fleece the other guy each year and you're a powerhouse without much effort.

That's why I proposed the idea of a Zero-Trade Dynasty league a few weeks ago, just to see what a league without "stupid trades" would look like. The path to dominance would definitely be more difficult and longer without stupid, swingy trades.

[Chris_R]

No matter what which fantasy football forum I happen to visit--it feels like a half dozen threads pop up every year on this--or a similarly themed idea. I have read the entire thread and some really good points were made--and even some that I hadn't considered. I agree that trades aren't as bountiful as they were when I started dynasty leagues some 10 years ago. I can't speak of the declined trades in any of my leagues--for I have never seen them. But I can speak of the trades I have declined.

1. Obviously lopsided. I know this should be self-explanatory and someone will undoubtedly come out and say well that's all about each person's player evaluation. Fair enough. But what I am talking about is a trade that offers Tim Tebow for Aaron Rodgers--is there one single person in this forum that thinks this isn't lopsided?? I have been in this one league for 5 (?) years and there is an owner who's offers are so wildly lopsided that as soon as I see his name my finger is itching to hit the decline button--even before I have reviewed the offer.

2. Lateral move. If it's what I consider a lateral move there's a 99% chance I will decline it. What I mean by a lateral move is an Rb for an RB that are essentially the same level. Or WR for WR. Or an RB and WR for an RB and WR. It's a pointless trade and I am puzzled why it's even made.

3. Weak position. So many offers I receive don't often take in what i consider my weakness. And worse a significant amount of those not only don't take in consideration my weakness they will almost certainly weaken my strengths--

4. Perception. I will admit I haven't heard anyone mention this one. But I sometimes decline a trade. Even if it appears to benefit me. Because I wonder--what does he know that I don't know?? How will this bite me in the bleep later on down the road?? I realize this comes down to player evaluation and is a bit illogical--but there it is.

5. Bench. I have received some offers that are offering essentially 4 of their players for 2 of mine. It looks nice on paper. But I often have to look at my bench and try to figure out who to drop. And admittedly more often than not I prefer the guys on my bench over some of the guys being offered.

Other notes I would like to make. I am sorry if I disagree with some on this point--But if aren't "winning" your deal then you should decline. Both parties have to believe they are "winning" (benefitting) or it shouldn't be a completed deal. If I receive an offer and it doesn't look like I will benefit from it--I decline. Now I'm not saying the deal should be Le'Veon Bell for Kadeem Carey. But the deal should benefit each owner.

From Day 1 I have always offered balanced deals. And yet 80% of those get turned down. Again--yes player evaluations are different. But that is the reason i have slowed down with my trade offers.

That is my 2 cents. Take it for what it's worth---

Reg: 2, How do you expect another owner to know that? So hes supposed to read your mind and know you have those RB/WR exactly lateral and even and that he shouldnt send it? Come on man. Thats just a ridiculous reason. If they are that even it means the trade was fair. Nobody is a mind reader and the expectation that people will know exactly what you want in a deal before talking to you is outlandish.

[Mephistopheles]

No matter what which fantasy football forum I happen to visit--it feels like a half dozen threads pop up every year on this--or a similarly themed idea. I have read the entire thread and some really good points were made--and even some that I hadn't considered. I agree that trades aren't as bountiful as they were when I started dynasty leagues some 10 years ago. I can't speak of the declined trades in any of my leagues--for I have never seen them. But I can speak of the trades I have declined.

1. Obviously lopsided. I know this should be self-explanatory and someone will undoubtedly come out and say well that's all about each person's player evaluation. Fair enough. But what I am talking about is a trade that offers Tim Tebow for Aaron Rodgers--is there one single person in this forum that thinks this isn't lopsided?? I have been in this one league for 5 (?) years and there is an owner who's offers are so wildly lopsided that as soon as I see his name my finger is itching to hit the decline button--even before I have reviewed the offer.

2. Lateral move. If it's what I consider a lateral move there's a 99% chance I will decline it. What I mean by a lateral move is an Rb for an RB that are essentially the same level. Or WR for WR. Or an RB and WR for an RB and WR. It's a pointless trade and I am puzzled why it's even made.

3. Weak position. So many offers I receive don't often take in what i consider my weakness. And worse a significant amount of those not only don't take in consideration my weakness they will almost certainly weaken my strengths--

4. Perception. I will admit I haven't heard anyone mention this one. But I sometimes decline a trade. Even if it appears to benefit me. Because I wonder--what does he know that I don't know?? How will this bite me in the bleep later on down the road?? I realize this comes down to player evaluation and is a bit illogical--but there it is.

5. Bench. I have received some offers that are offering essentially 4 of their players for 2 of mine. It looks nice on paper. But I often have to look at my bench and try to figure out who to drop. And admittedly more often than not I prefer the guys on my bench over some of the guys being offered.

Other notes I would like to make. I am sorry if I disagree with some on this point--But if aren't "winning" your deal then you should decline. Both parties have to believe they are "winning" (benefitting) or it shouldn't be a completed deal. If I receive an offer and it doesn't look like I will benefit from it--I decline. Now I'm not saying the deal should be Le'Veon Bell for Kadeem Carey. But the deal should benefit each owner.

From Day 1 I have always offered balanced deals. And yet 80% of those get turned down. Again--yes player evaluations are different. But that is the reason i have slowed down with my trade offers.

That is my 2 cents. Take it for what it's worth---

Reg: 2, How do you expect another owner to know that? So hes supposed to read your mind and know you have those RB/WR exactly lateral and even and that he shouldnt send it? Come on man. Thats just a ridiculous reason. If they are that even it means the trade was fair. Nobody is a mind reader and the expectation that people will know exactly what you want in a deal before talking to you is outlandish.

I don't think that what he is saying is ridiculous at all. He's giving solid reasoning for rejecting trades in a discussion about the decline in completed trade volume in a lot of leagues.

I actually agree with him on this one. Not every "fair" trade gets accepted and not every trade that gets accepted is "fair". I've turned down a lot of trades in my lifetime that most would say are "fair" trades for various reasons.

Give you a live example. I have a guy who wants to trade me LeVeon Bell for David Johnson straight up. Looking at ADP (#3 vs. #7), trade calcs, their age is the same, their past and future projected production are similar, whatever. Most would agree it is a very "fair" trade.

But I rejected it. I didn't reject it because it is not "fair" or even or whatever. I rejected it because of exactly what Stevens said in his #2 point for which you castigated him. It's a lateral move at best production-wise, I look at it as...what is the point of that deal? Trading for the sake of trading? That's not worth it.

On top of it, I am taking on significantly higher inherent risk with Bell facing an indefinite suspension the next time he decides to smoke some of that nasty Pennsylvania skunkweed.

I've seen the exact same thing with AB vs. Julio (#4 vs. #5) with Julio's higher injury propensity.

Again, there's "fair" trades and trades that will go through. In both cases, had the counterparty added a minor (5-7%) premium or in the case of the Bell trade, some insurance against Bell's risk, they probably would have gone through, but neither party was willing to do so. Is that "fair"? We can debate that for the rest of our lives and never reach a consensus.

I see this a lot more over the past couple years, guys saying "#3 vs. #7 is close enough" or "fair" enough, but it's not good enough to get the deal closed.

[Goirish374]

https://dynastyleaguefootball.com/2017/ ... y-trading/