Evans or Picks?

[ChuckCecil26]

I'm the guy who offered the trade for Evans, but I pulled it off the table. Felt it was a little too much value, although Evans is a beast, I don't really NEED him (everyone could always use a Mike Evans). This is for team 2 in sig. and my WR are already stacked. It was a pretty fair offer I thought considering our team make ups and value wise in a vacuum it probably favors the picks and Parker imo. Hey Nate F you too.

Dang!

This was a nice trade. Market value for Evans. Freakin loved that you weren't dicking around with a lowball offer. You made a bold play.

Hilarious that once again with regard to a trade question, we have the "Player Y easily" and "it's not even close" type posts and here the Trader Himself revoked his offer for Evans because he felt he would be overpaying -- my theory still holds that many of the persistent "Trade Naysayers" are in fact owners who don't make very many trades.

[crip7300]

My thought was, Mike Evans is at his peak value, the combination of his production, situation and age will never be better to cash out on and I was willing to pay a peak value price, which I knew and thought it was more than fair, offering essentially value wise 5 picks, rarely do you see or hear about trades where more than 3 or 4 picks are involved for ANY player. I agree not all picks are created equal but this year the 1.1 - 1.6 look pretty equal to me, this will be a get "your" guy draft, its not like last year where the 1.1 was miles ahead of any other pick value wise. Also I knew the other owner loves Mike Evans and has him in both our dynasties so I knew a lowball offer wouldn't work and would shut down talks immediately, so I threw the kitchen sink at him picks wise. I see both sides of the argument for the trade but to say its Evans by a mile, is crazy. If one of those 2 picks hit this year, and that player becomes worth multiple 1sts, than you can argue, Evans went for 6 or 7 1sts. Because the 2018 1st will stay stagnant in value for awhile and rarely do players lose value after the 1st year they are drafted. Plus it is so hard to find trade partners that have the ammo or situation to get the value you are looking for, not everyone has 2 top 6 picks in a strong draft class, plus multiple future 1sts, and a good young prospect like Parker to offer. We can all say "Player X" is worth this many picks and this type of pick, but good luck finding that value with a trade partner. Every dynasty league forms its own unique value and trade market, and you have to adjust for that when talking blanket value for each player, especially in forums and twitter polls. Imo that was a more than fair trade offer.

[jnappy]

This was a nice trade. Market value for Evans. Freakin loved that you weren't dicking around with a lowball offer. You made a bold play.

Hilarious that once again with regard to a trade question, we have the "Player Y easily" and "it's not even close" type posts and here the Trader Himself revoked his offer for Evans because he felt he would be overpaying -- my theory still holds that many of the persistent "Trade Naysayers" are in fact owners who don't make very many trades.

No, it's just that I'd rather have Evans than 5 picks that *MIGHT* turn into 1/2 the player/asset Evans is. Sure, maybe the "values" all added up, but are you telling me you'd rather have Doctson, Treadwell, Boyd, Henry, and Parker than Evans? I sure wouldn't. Any trade calculator you put that trade into will say the side with five guys wins by a landslide, but I'd rather have Evans every time. Four rookie picks and Parker does not equal a top two dynasty asset in Evans, no matter how much depth you need.

[crip7300]

I love how ppl use certain players when trying to prove a point (Treadwell, Doctson, Boyd) about picks being a risk (still don't know their outcome), of course they are, the reason you are getting 4 picks for a stud is because it is a risk. You are using players from one of the worse draft classes in the last decade, I think we can all agree 2017 is much better class, although maybe not as strong as ppl once thought. That would be like me using the argument the 1.4 and 1.6 this year could be like 2014 and he will get OBJ and ARob. If thats the case then I don't need to add those other 3 pieces because it is a massive overpay. Plus everyone acts like as soon as you draft a player you are stuck with them no matter what, good or bad. Its such a joke. Most 1sts round selections still carrying their value past the 1st year. You can still get a 1st for Doctson and Henry, and probably 2nds for Tread and Boyd still (which is where they should have went in the draft). But what if you hit on an OBJ, ARob, D. Johnson, L. Bell, Hopkins, suddenly you have a player possibly close in value to the player you just traded away, plus you gained multiple pieces. I understand the reason you get these first is to hopefully hit on a Mike Evans, but also they only way you are going to get multiple asset similar to Mike Evans is to take risks by acquiring tons of assets. I have done this philosophy for both of my teams and it has worked out very well.
Honestly the only reason I was trying to package up for Evans is because we have small rosters for a dynasty league, 14 keepers and 3 taxi. So after awhile when I have stockpiled tons of assets, you can't keep them all, so eventually you have to package up, and I don't like small package up deals because eventually you lose too much value. Go for the gold when you package up.

[DinoDynasty]

This was a nice trade. Market value for Evans. Freakin loved that you weren't dicking around with a lowball offer. You made a bold play.

Hilarious that once again with regard to a trade question, we have the "Player Y easily" and "it's not even close" type posts and here the Trader Himself revoked his offer for Evans because he felt he would be overpaying -- my theory still holds that many of the persistent "Trade Naysayers" are in fact owners who don't make very many trades.

No, it's just that I'd rather have Evans than 5 picks that *MIGHT* turn into 1/2 the player/asset Evans is. Sure, maybe the "values" all added up, but are you telling me you'd rather have Doctson, Treadwell, Boyd, Henry, and Parker than Evans? I sure wouldn't. Any trade calculator you put that trade into will say the side with five guys wins by a landslide, but I'd rather have Evans every time. Four rookie picks and Parker does not equal a top two dynasty asset in Evans, no matter how much depth you need.

You are analyzing this with no foresight. You are assuming all of these players values will be held equal, while one is at his peak and others have a lot of room to grow. Yes there are chances involved, that risk is built into the fact that you would be getting 5 players back for one. Whats not built into many trades like this however, is the regression or risk of the top asset in question. Mike Evans *might* suffer a career ending injury or *might* (likely) regress in terms of production now that the offense looks to become more balance adding another talented WR and most likely a high end running back.

The original offer has a ton of value. If you are a Parker believer, and he continues to progress this year with a 85/1100/8 stat line, he will be a projected top 15WR. Then add in all the picks, you could make out very well.

This trade is fair and I think it helps both teams, as I don't believe the team moving Evans will be as competitive this year given his current team make up. As an Evans owner I would take this if I wanted to rebuild.

[jnappy]

I love how ppl use certain players when trying to prove a point (Treadwell, Doctson, Boyd) about picks being a risk (still don't know their outcome), of course they are, the reason you are getting 4 picks for a stud is because it is a risk. You are using players from one of the worse draft classes in the last decade, I think we can all agree 2017 is much better class, although maybe not as strong as ppl once thought. That would be like me using the argument the 1.4 and 1.6 this year could be like 2014 and he will get OBJ and ARob. If thats the case then I don't need to add those other 3 pieces because it is a massive overpay. Plus everyone acts like as soon as you draft a player you are stuck with them no matter what, good or bad. Its such a joke. Most 1sts round selections still carrying their value past the 1st year. You can still get a 1st for Doctson and Henry, and probably 2nds for Tread and Boyd still (which is where they should have went in the draft). But what if you hit on an OBJ, ARob, D. Johnson, L. Bell, Hopkins, suddenly you have a player possibly close in value to the player you just traded away, plus you gained multiple pieces. I understand the reason you get these first is to hopefully hit on a Mike Evans, but also they only way you are going to get multiple asset similar to Mike Evans is to take risks by acquiring tons of assets. I have done this philosophy for both of my teams and it has worked out very well.

The odds of all the picks turning into the players you named are significantly less than the odds of them turning into the players I named. Also, you're arguing for it when you're the one that offered the trade right? Of course you're going to want to convince everyone that it was a good offer. AJG and a 1st would be a much better offer that I would consider. Bell and a 1st I would consider, Hopkins and two late 1st's I would consider. Those are real offers. Four picks and Parker is not.

[jnappy]

And let me clarify by saying, I can see why someone would take the offer in a rebuild. I just wouldn't do it, and it doesn't look like a majority of the readers of this post would either. I don't like to trade dollar bills for a bunch of change like a previous poster said.

[thomasscheeks]

I'm the guy who offered the trade for Evans, but I pulled it off the table. Felt it was a little too much value, although Evans is a beast, I don't really NEED him (everyone could always use a Mike Evans). This is for team 2 in sig. and my WR are already stacked. It was a pretty fair offer I thought considering our team make ups and value wise in a vacuum it probably favors the picks and Parker imo. Hey Nate F you too.

You're gonna have to give a stud to get a stud, especially when that stud is Evans. Cooper and 1.04 is a much better offer, just for example.

[crip7300]

Actually I took the trade off the table, because I thought I was given up too much value. I was more addressing the overall sentiment of this forum. That when an offer like this comes up for a player like an Evans, over half the ppl are like Evans easy, Evans in a landslide. But there are so many factors and levels to these trades, so I guess that just bothers me. I get everyone gets to have their opinion, I guess I wish the overall perspective would shift a bit.

[thomasscheeks]

Actually I took the trade off the table, because I thought I was given up too much value. I was more addressing the overall sentiment of this forum. That when an offer like this comes up for a player like an Evans, over half the ppl are like Evans easy, Evans in a landslide. But there are so many factors and levels to these trades, so I guess that just bothers me. I get everyone gets to have their opinion, I guess I wish the overall perspective would shift a bit.

To me, it is easily Evans. You're trying to give up a bunch of "maybes" for a "sure thing". The value isn't there

[jnappy]

I'm the guy who offered the trade for Evans, but I pulled it off the table. Felt it was a little too much value, although Evans is a beast, I don't really NEED him (everyone could always use a Mike Evans). This is for team 2 in sig. and my WR are already stacked. It was a pretty fair offer I thought considering our team make ups and value wise in a vacuum it probably favors the picks and Parker imo. Hey Nate F you too.

You're gonna have to give a stud to get a stud, especially when that stud is Evans. Cooper and 1.04 is a much better offer, just for example.

Agree with this 100%, I didn't even check your sig to come up with a better offer. Holy crap your team is stacked! It looks like you've made some more trades like this...I can't believe anyone will still trade with you haha.

[ChuckCecil26]

Actually I took the trade off the table, because I thought I was given up too much value. I was more addressing the overall sentiment of this forum. That when an offer like this comes up for a player like an Evans, over half the ppl are like Evans easy, Evans in a landslide. But there are so many factors and levels to these trades, so I guess that just bothers me. I get everyone gets to have their opinion, I guess I wish the overall perspective would shift a bit.

To me, it is easily Evans. You're trying to give up a bunch of "maybes" for a "sure thing". The value isn't there

Mike Evans was once a "maybe."

[thomasscheeks]

Actually I took the trade off the table, because I thought I was given up too much value. I was more addressing the overall sentiment of this forum. That when an offer like this comes up for a player like an Evans, over half the ppl are like Evans easy, Evans in a landslide. But there are so many factors and levels to these trades, so I guess that just bothers me. I get everyone gets to have their opinion, I guess I wish the overall perspective would shift a bit.

To me, it is easily Evans. You're trying to give up a bunch of "maybes" for a "sure thing". The value isn't there

Mike Evans was once a "maybe."

Yeah and so was OBJ. That doesn't mean you're gonna trade him off for a bunch of rookie picks in hopes of getting him again. You already have him, why take more risks?

[crip7300]

I'm the guy who offered the trade for Evans, but I pulled it off the table. Felt it was a little too much value, although Evans is a beast, I don't really NEED him (everyone could always use a Mike Evans). This is for team 2 in sig. and my WR are already stacked. It was a pretty fair offer I thought considering our team make ups and value wise in a vacuum it probably favors the picks and Parker imo. Hey Nate F you too.

You're gonna have to give a stud to get a stud, especially when that stud is Evans. Cooper and 1.04 is a much better offer, just for example.

Agree with this 100%, I didn't even check your sig to come up with a better offer. Holy crap your team is stacked! It looks like you've made some more trades like this...I can't believe anyone will still trade with you haha.

Some of them don't lol, but actually I built these teams off of getting as many maybes as possible. I turn and burn through trades and players and look for value and picking up an extra piece here and there. Most of these players I acquired either in the draft or before they broke out. Its honestly the only way I know that you can build a "stacked" team like that.

[ChuckCecil26]

I love how ppl use certain players when trying to prove a point (Treadwell, Doctson, Boyd) about picks being a risk (still don't know their outcome), of course they are, the reason you are getting 4 picks for a stud is because it is a risk. You are using players from one of the worse draft classes in the last decade, I think we can all agree 2017 is much better class, although maybe not as strong as ppl once thought. That would be like me using the argument the 1.4 and 1.6 this year could be like 2014 and he will get OBJ and ARob. If thats the case then I don't need to add those other 3 pieces because it is a massive overpay. Plus everyone acts like as soon as you draft a player you are stuck with them no matter what, good or bad. Its such a joke. Most 1sts round selections still carrying their value past the 1st year. You can still get a 1st for Doctson and Henry, and probably 2nds for Tread and Boyd still (which is where they should have went in the draft). But what if you hit on an OBJ, ARob, D. Johnson, L. Bell, Hopkins, suddenly you have a player possibly close in value to the player you just traded away, plus you gained multiple pieces. I understand the reason you get these first is to hopefully hit on a Mike Evans, but also they only way you are going to get multiple asset similar to Mike Evans is to take risks by acquiring tons of assets. I have done this philosophy for both of my teams and it has worked out very well.
Honestly the only reason I was trying to package up for Evans is because we have small rosters for a dynasty league, 14 keepers and 3 taxi. So after awhile when I have stockpiled tons of assets, you can't keep them all, so eventually you have to package up, and I don't like small package up deals because eventually you lose too much value. Go for the gold when you package up.

Great stuff in this post. Points about the picks holding their value is spot on. It's easy to identify the experienced traders in the forum. Risk averse players want guarantees. The gamblers/traders understand that there are no guarantees.