negotiating trades

[Rag3aholik]

Just hardballed a guy right to the deadline. He wanted to receive spiller or Richardson in a deal for Chris Johnson, while I refused to move either. Settled on the last day of trading at Chris Johnson for Finley, Chris Ivory and a first.

[Pullo Vision]

Ya from my personal experience I like to send emails or text to people and give them rough trade ideas first. I will send and email and say I am considering offering Player A + a pick for Player B,C,D. What do you think?

I do this from time to time. Sometimes, I don't like the trade idea cause I'll basically be throwing in the towel for the season. Sometimes, I'll be addressing one roster weakness but creating another. Sometimes, I don't like trading too much depth for a star or two, sometimes I don't like dealing an older star (like Andre Johnson from a year or 2 ago) for some needed depth. Whatever the circumstances, I can sometimes turn myself in knots debating a trade.

Rather than turning myself in knots debating a deal, asking them if it's something they'd even be interested in can save me time. At worst, if they say no, I just saved some time debating with myself. At best, it opens a dialogue and we do a trade we both like. A 3rd possibility is that, after debating it, I decide I don't like it, regardless of whether they like it or not.

[kafromet]

IMO you shouldn't even contact the other owner with a proposed deal unless you're willing to go through with it. You're basically fishing for the most value possible and that's lame.

Yeah... when I'm trading I'm not interested in making sure you feel good about it, or taking care that everyone wins. I AM trying to get the most value possible, by whatever means (within the rules) I can get that done. I don't care if you enjoy the process, I just care that my team gets better.

[jlasaf2007]

IMO you shouldn't even contact the other owner with a proposed deal unless you're willing to go through with it. You're basically fishing for the most value possible and that's lame.

Yeah... when I'm trading I'm not interested in making sure you feel good about it, or taking care that everyone wins. I AM trying to get the most value possible, by whatever means (within the rules) I can get that done. I don't care if you enjoy the process, I just care that my team gets better.

X2

[eNdblu]

IMO you shouldn't even contact the other owner with a proposed deal unless you're willing to go through with it. You're basically fishing for the most value possible and that's lame.

Yeah... when I'm trading I'm not interested in making sure you feel good about it, or taking care that everyone wins. I AM trying to get the most value possible, by whatever means (within the rules) I can get that done. I don't care if you enjoy the process, I just care that my team gets better.

You obviously feel good enough about it because you'd be approaching ME, not the other way around, with a proposal. Why all of a sudden balk at YOUR proposal after I said it sounded like a great idea?

Why even open channels with another owner about a proposed deal if you don't have the intention on proceeding with what YOU originally proposed?

[whatadai]

And his finishing move if you are lucky enough to come to an agreement with him is after hours of negotiating once you finally reach a deal he sends you an offer with another player(not the one you were asking for in the first place) and says "oh, thats who i thought we were talking about".

I would immediately quit any league where the commissioner is that shady.

[TheOracle]

IMO you shouldn't even contact the other owner with a proposed deal unless you're willing to go through with it. You're basically fishing for the most value possible and that's lame.

Yeah... when I'm trading I'm not interested in making sure you feel good about it, or taking care that everyone wins. I AM trying to get the most value possible, by whatever means (within the rules) I can get that done. I don't care if you enjoy the process, I just care that my team gets better.

You're grossly missing the point. Doing this is just like the guy who sends out outrageous lowball offers. You're not confident in your player evaluation and you're worried about not winning the trade, so you compensate. Some do it by starting with a crazy lowball offer, some do it by only texting people ideas but then backing out if the other guy is enthusiastic. Either way it discourages people from dealing with you.

To the OP, the solution is simple: don't snap accept a non-formal trade offer. If I know the owner is one of these types, then I won't even sound enthusiastic when he asks, even if it's a great deal. I know that these guys don't have confidence in their own ability, so if I accept they assume they're getting screwed and pull out. I'll be non-committal and ask for a formal offer, and then consider making a deal.

[jlasaf2007]

IMO you shouldn't even contact the other owner with a proposed deal unless you're willing to go through with it. You're basically fishing for the most value possible and that's lame.

Yeah... when I'm trading I'm not interested in making sure you feel good about it, or taking care that everyone wins. I AM trying to get the most value possible, by whatever means (within the rules) I can get that done. I don't care if you enjoy the process, I just care that my team gets better.

You're grossly missing the point. Doing this is just like the guy who sends out outrageous lowball offers. You're not confident in your player evaluation and you're worried about not winning the trade, so you compensate. Some do it by starting with a crazy lowball offer, some do it by only texting people ideas but then backing out if the other guy is enthusiastic. Either way it discourages people from dealing with you.

To the OP, the solution is simple: don't snap accept a non-formal trade offer. If I know the owner is one of these types, then I won't even sound enthusiastic when he asks, even if it's a great deal. I know that these guys don't have confidence in their own ability, so if I accept they assume they're getting screwed and pull out. I'll be non-committal and ask for a formal offer, and then consider making a deal.

I don't think he missed the point nor that it has to do anything with player evaluations.

There's a lot of different tactics that you can use in a negotiation - stonewalling, talking down a player or bringing up a bad deal/offer the guy gave you before, adding things to the deal other than players - such as picks or blind bidding $, stalling, acting offended by an offer - and I don't think there is thing wrong with any of them.

Some people hate bartering. The only real tactic they use is "stonewalling," and you have to try and get them to budge or you will either drive yourself crazy or way overpay just to get the deal done. In a negation, ideally you would start low and work your way up. But there are situations when an owner never counterofffers, never shows interest, and only accepts offers if they are blatantly in his favor.

There's a joke... Ask someone, "Would suck a toe for $100?" If they say no, keep adding a "0" to the end until they say yes. Once they do, you say "Well, now that we know you're a toe-sucker, we just have to work on the price." That's obviously the P.C. version...you can figure it out.

But the point is that sometimes when someone says "I don't want to trade that guy," they might actually be willing to, but are just trying to get you to raise your offer. I don't see anything wrong with trying to see if the guy is just playing a game or actually doesn't want to trade his player.

There's a guy in my work league who never counters and very rarely shows any emotions about a trade offer (unless it's a horrible one). He doesn't say "I don't want to trade that guy".... he doesn't such much of anything. I sent him multiple offers that I thought were pretty even...some even tilted to his favor. No counters, no emotion, no hint if I was even close or not. I almost sent an offer that would've hosed my team, just because I was so frustrated and wanted to get a deal done. I caught myself, and realized he might just be playing the bartering game. So, I sent him an email asking him if he would be willing to do some trade that was great for him and God-awful for me. He insta-replied that he would. I never replied back, and I never formally sent the offer in our league (he didn't send the formal offer or another email about it either).

Fast forward 3 weeks, and I get a trade offer from him that isn't great for me, but better than the God-awful one I sent to prove a point. We bartered back and forth a little bit, and eventaully came to a deal that worked for both of us. This guy has never made a trade offer to anyone else EVER, let alone made an actual trade. Seriously, I've been in a redraft league with him for 5 years plus our dynasty league (1st year). No offers, no trades, to anyone, that entire time.

I figured out his tactic, and I proved a point that I was willing to trade with him, but not at the outrageous terms he was hoping for. He may have been mad at me, but apparently he got over it since we were able to get a deal done.

[TheOracle]

I agree with what you said, but that's not what the guy was talking about. All of the ideas you brought up are fine tactics and I think we all use one or two of them.

The guy is talking about the guy who offers a trade informally, and if the other owner says yes then he takes it back. It's almost always for one of two reasons- either they have no confidence in their own evaluation so they fear getting screwed, or their mindset is to treat it like trade-raping the CPU in a Madden franchise, as if the other owner doesn't realize what you're doing. This isn't about a guy saying "Hey, I was thinking about structuring a trade around David Wilson for Justin Blackmon" and then asking for a little more than Blackmon to complete the deal. This is about the guy in your league who says "Hey, would you do Blackmon for Wilson straight up?" and when you say yes, he says "Oh, well I'll give you Isaiah Pead for Blackmon?"

Obviously owners have the right to do whatever they want with their teams, but in my experience this doesn't benefit anybody. No experienced owner is going to take a worse deal than the one you proposed to him, and it hurts your ability to negotiate long term because you create a stigma that can be hard to shake.

[jlasaf2007]

I agree with what you said, but that's not what the guy was talking about. All of the ideas you brought up are fine tactics and I think we all use one or two of them.

The guy is talking about the guy who offers a trade informally, and if the other owner says yes then he takes it back. It's almost always for one of two reasons- either they have no confidence in their own evaluation so they fear getting screwed, or their mindset is to treat it like trade-raping the CPU in a Madden franchise, as if the other owner doesn't realize what you're doing. This isn't about a guy saying "Hey, I was thinking about structuring a trade around David Wilson for Justin Blackmon" and then asking for a little more than Blackmon to complete the deal. This is about the guy in your league who says "Hey, would you do Blackmon for Wilson straight up?" and when you say yes, he says "Oh, well I'll give you Isaiah Pead for Blackmon?"

Obviously owners have the right to do whatever they want with their teams, but in my experience this doesn't benefit anybody. No experienced owner is going to take a worse deal than the one you proposed to him, and it hurts your ability to negotiate long term because you create a stigma that can be hard to shake.

I can understand that point...especially if the initial offer is fairly close.

But, if someone insta-accepts an offer, it makes you think you probably could've gotten the deal done for cheaper. Like if you're buying a car from someone and they make me an offer. The max you'd be willing to pay is $12,000, but you throw out an offer of $10,000. If the guy instantly accepts it, you'll be happy about it initially...but later on, when you're driving home, you'll think "Man, I bet I could've gotten it cheaper." But, if he counteroffers, and you settle on $10,500, you'll feel like you got a really good deal. You'll actually be happier, even though you spent more, because you had to fight for it and believe you got the best deal possible. In both cases, it doesn't matter than you actually would've been willing to pay $12,000.

A gentleman by the name of Karrass did a lot of research on this. Even in deals where there is a clear winner and a clear loser, each side views the value of the deal based on their satisfaction level.

Even when someone offers me a trade that I think is a homerun, I always counter with something, even if it's trivial. I don't really care if I get the additional piece, I just want him to work for it.

About Week 3 or 4, I made a little bit of a low offer for David Wilson. He counter for Daryl Richardson straight up. I countered with Wilson + a 3rd for D Rich. I thought I was already getting the better of the deal, and didn't care about the 3rd, but the guy accepted.

Another guy I'd been working on for Spiller since the start of the season. Around week 6-7, he said he was interested in a Spiller for Ridley trade, but "didn't know about doing it straight-up." So I offered him Ridley +3rd for Spiller +2nd. He countered with trading them straight up. He told me later that he was happy with the trade at the time, but later thought I got the better deal, and really I should've given him a pick (I agree on both accounts), but that my quasi-counter offer threw him off.

I do agree...it's a lot easier and more effective to start low and work up than start high then come down.

[hamburglar]

I like to open trade negotiations by telling the other owner what players of his that I'm interested in and asking how he feels about them. I also ask him to let me know what players on my team he is interested in... from there it's easier to put together a reasonable offer from both sides.

[knuckles50]

The strangest part for me in all of this is that I usually just look at the other teams needs and post an offer. More often than not my offers get accepted. I am even willing to "overpay" at any given moment in time in order to secure a trade that I want or need. It sounds like many of you side with the offering owner in that you are interested in squeezing the absolute max value out of every deal you are making. I get that philosophy when negotiating large purchases like homes and cars. I am just not sure that logic applies to fantasy football where player values change every second that the games are played.

[jlasaf2007]

The strangest part for me in all of this is that I usually just look at the other teams needs and post an offer. More often than not my offers get accepted. I am even willing to "overpay" at any given moment in time in order to secure a trade that I want or need. It sounds like many of you side with the offering owner in that you are interested in squeezing the absolute max value out of every deal you are making. I get that philosophy when negotiating large purchases like homes and cars. I am just not sure that logic applies to fantasy football where player values change every second that the games are played.

There's no stock market, index, or board of trade for fantasy football. I would argue that it's even harder to barter on cars and homes becomes because in both cases, there are readily available reference points (blue book and comps). In fantasy football, there's no reference point, so it's up to the owner's to determine the values. For this reason, every deal in fantasy football involves must involve bartering; some just enjoy it more than others.

[jbarth90]

The commish in my league is pretty active in trade talks. We are in year two, and him and I have had quite a few negotiations go back and forth, but only completed one trade. This year he has come at me plenty of times trying to get Wilson from me and most recently Spiller. His trade offers are not very close, but when I counter, he does not move closer to me much at all. When I feel like the talks aren't progressing, I say that I am not interested at that time. He then replies that he is glad I turned down his offer because he liked his players too much that it was a bad idea to offer them in the first place. I know that he is just using that as a tactic to try to make me think that I undervalued his guys, but I am glad that I am able to know what I would take for my players. Also, he has said on MANY occasions that he is willing to make a trade even if it hurts him in the end. I think he says that to make you think that he is making you an offer that is way better than it actually is. It is very frustrating for me. He will make me an offer and if I turn it down and explain why I do not like it, he instantly changes the offer but only slightly adjusts it and I get tired of seeing offers that are no where close to what I would take.

[smudga55]

The strangest part for me in all of this is that I usually just look at the other teams needs and post an offer. More often than not my offers get accepted. I am even willing to "overpay" at any given moment in time in order to secure a trade that I want or need. It sounds like many of you side with the offering owner in that you are interested in squeezing the absolute max value out of every deal you are making. I get that philosophy when negotiating large purchases like homes and cars. I am just not sure that logic applies to fantasy football where player values change every second that the games are played.

I couldn't have said it any better knuckles - was just gonna make the same point myself.
My issue is definately not about whether or not I enjoy the bartering process (which, on the occaisions I do do it I enjoy it) but it's completly about the fact that I trust my judgement very well and I'm confident in my ability to pick up any loss I take in the trade elsewhere. I'm often trying to trade for players when their value is low (as I'm sure most of do) but that in itslef means that you can't afford to mess about too long as I agree their value (or percieved) value can literally change week to week.
For me the improtant thing is to get what you believe will improve your team and quite frankly I'm not prepared to risk the other owner waking up and smelling the proverbial coffee by counetering for the sake of a rookie third (or some largely pointless throw in)
To give you two examples of what I prefer I recently made two very different trades in my keep 12, dynasty PPR;

1. I gave D Rich and Jon Baldwin for Reggie Bush and Kenny Britt

As the NFL trade deadline was approaching I shopped D Rich to a couple of owners on the basis of the Steven Jax rumours. Obviously it's looking like Jax will be moving on at the end of the season but a number of owners in our league felt it could be before. My own view was that a trade was unlikely (as they usually are) and that even if/when Jax leaves at season end Pead would get his opportunity to shine. Although D Rich had done well so far there is no guarantee he'll be maintaining his current value anyhow.
Baldwin was very similar with the talk about a Bowe trade and (at the time) liklely to move on at the season end, Cheifs new QB/coaching staff etc

I wanted to improve my RB 2 and was looking to use Bush to step up with another deal and Kenny Britt clearly has massive potential if all his ducks line up.
The original offer from the other owner was Bush and Little for D Rich and Baldwin but the point of posting this is that although I felt the perceived value of D Rich was significantly higher than his actual value, I was not in a rush to shift him unless I got something worthwhile back - I bigged up Rich and Baldwin and told him others were interested in Rich due to the likely Jax trade and that I needed Britt back instead to make it worth my while. He offered Bush and Britt and I accepted instantly. It was the day of the NFL dealine and I was reasonably confident that Jax wouldn't move.
The point here for me was that I was happy to accept the second offer as it gave me what I wanted, but I was also perfectly happy to hold off if it didn't come (as it wasn't an overwhelming offer and I felt at the time thagt D Rich's perceived value would hold for a little while).

2. I gave Ryan Mathews and R Bush for Jamaal Charles (just before Bush's complete trash game)

I felt I was overpaying on this as personaly I felt that Mathews and Charles were closely ranked. I offered over and above right from the start as I wanted to upgrade my RB 2 before Turner completely screwed Mathews or he tripped over his own shadow and was put on IR. I simply didn't trust Mathews or Bush on a week to week basis.
Yes I sold Mathews when his value was very low but I also picked up Charles when his value was very low. The point for me was I wasn't gonna mess about back and forth as I didn't trust the players I was giving to not completely screw up, and I also didn't trust the player I was getting (Charles) to not suddenly break out again.

Having typed these now I'm thinking they might not be the best examples of what I'm tyring to say, but for me there are definately times when you can string it out and negotiate for the little extras, but I'd much rather get what I beleive to be a very good deal in the first place while it's still there. I'm not necessarily saying that player values change from week to week, but their percieved value defianatly does.