Using your rookie picks vs. trading them for proven players

[CK_]

I would happily trade my 1.01 this year if I owned one for any high caliber player which seems possible right now. I would happily eat up an overhyped player because you should potentionally get Barkley for cheaper after the season starts vs. before. It feels like 1.01 in a lot of leagues is valued way more than it should and you have the potentional to get that player for cheaper than the prevaluation. See Gurley, Todd and Fournette, Leonard.

[briank]

Since we are into the season of studying rookies, and building rookie hype, I thought it would be fun to discuss the different team building philosophies of using your rookie picks vs. trading them for proven assets.

I am sure everyone is aware by this time that rookie picks have a fairly high bust rate, I believe approx 50% (on avg.) even in the first round. It obviously gets worse from there. While that sounds grim, if you hit on say a David Johnson or an Alvin Kamara in the 2nd round that is a huge value boost for your team, and acquiring a building block player for your team at a very low cost (as opposed to what you would have to pay later to acquire this type of player) is huge.

This subject covers risk tolerance, team building philosophy, your belief in yourself as a talent evaluator, along with many other topics. Where do people fall in terms of their philosophy on this subject?

I think it depends on your goals and your team, but my general philosophy is to try to trade my picks for players at a good value. If I can't get that, then I will use the pick. For the 2nd team in my sig, I had some extra picks. I earned the 1.01, but I also ended up with the 1.02, and 2.03 from earlier trades. I want a share of Barkley, so I wont trade that pick unless I get one of these crazy offers. Because I plan on keeping and using the 1.01, I decided to shop the 1.02. The first trade I made with these picks was my 1.02, 2.03, and 3.01 for Diggs, 1.05, and 3.05. Then, I traded the 1.05, Westbrook, Abdullah, and Dalton for 1.03 and Trubisky. Last, I traded the 1.03 for Kelce and the 3.08. My original goal was to get a top receiver with the 1.02. I was able to get a receiver I like, a top TE, and a young QB with upside for my extra picks and some players I'm not high on. Looking at it on the whole, I think I got very good value for these picks.

Gave: 1.02, 2.03, 3.01, Westbrook, Abdullah, Dalton
Received: Diggs, Kelce, Trubisky, 3.05, 3.08

[Dynasty DeLorean]

Just from 2016 WRs, the "vets" who you expected production based on past production, whose value has fallen off the cliff...Jeremy Maclin, Brandon Marshall, Jordan Matthews, Allen Hurns, Michael Floyd, Randall Cobb, John Brown, Eric Decker. There are a lot of "projection" vets/rookies whose value also has fallen...Moncrief, Treadwell, White, Perriman, DGB, Lockett, Carroo to an extent, but to act like the veteran producer is "risk-free", as I so often see, is irresponsible.

All of those guys listed were getting drafted in the top 100 for startups in August of '16, and as of this January have fallen at least 50 spots in ADP.

Good point. There are plenty of success stories on both sides. There are just way too many variables to say "I only do this" or "I only do that". It depends on your team, the league, the draft class, which picks or players are to be traded, your scouting abilities/resources (are you good at drafting?) and your temperament as an owner (are you patient enough to let rookies develop or will you trade them away for peanuts if they don't produce year 1).

[Vcize]

I've got some fun data here

top 3 pick has a 29% bust rate, 42% "stud" rate
4-6 37% bust, 21% stud
7-9 50% bust, 8% stud
10-12 63% bust, 4% stud
second round is almost 80% flop, and only 2% chance of hitting a stud (this will change as it got skewed mightily after this year by Hunt and Kamara going 2nd round in many leagues) so there's gonna be about 2 guys in there you want. How much do you trust your drafting skill?

The thing people always overlook in this discussion is the bust rate of the vets you could reasonably be trading these picks for, which in many cases is just as bad if not worse.

I ran some larger numbers on this in another thread about this topic months ago, and I don't really have time to dig them up right now so you'll have to take my word for now. But basically, to see what kind of vets you could bring back for each particular pick I went through dynasty startup ADP info and compared the vets being drafted in startups in the same range as each rookie. For instance the 6th rookie (IE 1.06 rookie pick) had an APD of 4.8 in 12-team startup drafts last offseason, so I looked at which vets were drafted in the 4.5 - 4.11 range to see what their bust/stud rate was. In most cases, it was just as risky as the rookies, if not sometimes moreso.

Startup ADP isn't a perfect solution, as values fluctuate a bit in established leagues, but it's a general way to approximate the type of vets you could get for each rookie pick.

Just as an example, you might say "oh I shouldn't have picked with 1.09 last year, too risky, I bet I could have traded it for a nice player". Well the 9th rookie had an ADP of 6.11 last year in startup drafts. Here is a list of the vets that were picked in the same range, just to give an idea of what veteran players had similar value to the 1.09 rookie at the time.

Randall Cobb
Tevin Coleman
Greg Olsen
Jordan Mathews
Jameis Winston
CJ Anderson
Doug Martin
Marshawn Lynch

So while it's nice to think that moving the rookie pick for an "established" vet is safer, in many cases it really may not be. In this case really only Tevin Coleman retained wasn't a complete bust this year, and only he and maybe Olsen have retained any real value going forward.

The reality of dynasty leagues is that, outside of the top 20-25 players each year (and even within them to some extent), it is a minefield out there whether you're talking about vets or rookies. As an exercise just go back and look at old startup drafts from past years beyond the 2nd round, especially as you move further down into the range of the 5th and beyond. It is not pretty.

I don't think there's a right or wrong pure approach to it. Too many cases where using the pick worked better, and too many cases where trading it would have worked better. Like so many things in dynasty I think it comes down to each individual player. Evaluate the players involved, how high you are on that particular rookie you might draft and what vets you might be able to get for them, and pick your favorite. But don't get stuck thinking you have to make the pick or have to trade it because one is demonstrably better than the other. It's not.

[Phaded]

I will put it this way - it depends.

I often trade away my 1st rounders.
In my Superflex; I actually still have my 1st - for now.
Last year I only had one pick - my 4th; which I turned into Dede Westbrook. (still wait and see obviously, but I'm a Dede fanboy)

It will all depend if I can get a player I am high on for the pick. If I cannot - sometimes scouting and then being able to draft is more exciting. Never drafting can get boring I have found out the hard way. But by trading my picks; I currently have one of the best rosters in both of my leagues.

For example - right now I have 1.09 which I am open to moving; but everyone has been giving me completely undesirable offers. Heat might pick up and maybe I'll ship the pick; if not, I'm happy to keep it.

I don't buy into the percentages and odds because every single draft class is so different. Some years are chalk full of studs, some years have a couple, some years have none. Same with the busts. Then there's a bunch of dart throws. Sometimes there is more excitement to a dart throw than the boring WR 3/4 type you can get. I play to have fun - and sometimes that means trading, sometimes that means drafting.

[Cameron Giles]

It varies, but rookie picks tend to be overvalued. Go back and look at past rookie drafts and see where those players are now. New toy syndrome never stops and we'll only focus on the absolute best case scenario for a prospect.

Most picks will lose value after during their rookie season for a variety of reasons. It doesn't necessarily mean they'll suck, but it means you can buy for cheaper than their rookie value later in their careers. Corey Davis isn't worth the 1.01 anymore. John Ross can be had for a 2nd-3rd rounder. Mike Williams can be had for a ham sandwich. Christian McCaffery isn't worth the 1.03 anymore. OJ Howard isn't worth a Top 5-6 pick. Despite the Kamara's and Hunt's of this season, you can go on and on.

[Dynasty DeLorean]

Ham sandwich sounds pretty good. Where is the option for that on MFL?

[Cameron Giles]

Ham sandwich sounds pretty good. Where is the option for that on MFL?

It should be added after the Super Bowl. I'd probably need Mike Williams++ for ham sandwich.

[Dynasty DeLorean]

Ham sandwich sounds pretty good. Where is the option for that on MFL?

It should be added after the Super Bowl. I'd probably need Mike Williams++ for ham sandwich.

Only if you add to the sandwich. Fries and a pickle.

[maxhyde]

This is a depends on my team question. I mean there is no one size fits all for this and if there is you should probably re-evaluate either your scouting process or your love of draft picks.
I mean trading it makes alot of sense at the draft for a player that helps more now if you get a deal you like
There are always some solid players in the draft and depending on the types of leagues you play in it is almost always worth having a few draft picks on your team...obviously contract leagues/salary cap maybe not.

[CK_]

Still seems cheaper and better in most cases to sell your 1.01 and then buy that player after he doesn't live up to the new owners expectations for less the next year or so. Hi Todd Gurley

[CK_]

Comparing the 1.09 or whatever rookie pick to the ADP is nice in theory but people want the picks and will pay more than what the ADP would suggest. Especially in more top heavy drafts like last year. What if someone really needed and wanted a new shiny TE in OJ Howard? They are going to pay more than what that ADP states when rookie fever hits.

[Vcize]

Still seems cheaper and better in most cases to sell your 1.01 and then buy that player after he doesn't live up to the new owners expectations for less the next year or so. Hi Todd Gurley

As always, depends how they perform. How cheap was Zeke after his rookie year? Not so much.

Even Richardson who had a pretty mediocre rookie season was the 1.1 overall pick in dynasty startups the following year.

Gurley is a bit of an edge case because he had a REALLY bad year followed by a big turnaround. Usually the guys that have REALLY bad years don't bounce back like that.

[Vcize]

Comparing the 1.09 or whatever rookie pick to the ADP is nice in theory but people want the picks and will pay more than what the ADP would suggest. Especially in more top heavy drafts like last year. What if someone really needed and wanted a new shiny TE in OJ Howard? They are going to pay more than what that ADP states when rookie fever hits.

Probably a fair point, and like I said it's not perfect, just the best estimation we can do reasonably.

Regardless, even if you bumped it up a few rounds for the vets the dynasty landscape is still such a minefield people just don't realize how risky the vets are too.

For instance let's take the 1.09 (ADP in the 7th round) and compare it all the way up to the 5th round of vets in 2016, which if anything is probably too large a bump.

Eric Decker
Thomas Rawls
Devin Funchess
Allen Hurns
CJ Anderson
Jamaal Charles
Julian Edelman
Travis Kelce
Tyler Eifert
Dion Lewis

It worked out great if you traded 1.09 for Travis Kelce. Not so much if you traded it for Decker (who at the time was coming off an 80-1100-12 season) or Thomas Rawls or Tyler Eifert or a bunch of other guys.

There is just a huge bust rate in dynasty, not just for rookies, but vets included. People really overlook that when talking about the bust rate of rookies. It's probably slightly better for vets, but you're giving up a lot of upside with the vets. People mistakenly view it as giving up that upside for a sure-thing though, which is far, far from the case.

[CK_]

Definitely makes sense. Luck seems like a good basis of whatever you do. Just have to trust in your own process and lower the gamble anyway you can. I personally love the rookie fever and potentionally hitting on a guy you believe in.