Dynasty Leagues- Each league is different. Experiences

[npowellff]

Hello everybody,
I was thinking about something today, looking at my dynasty trades spreadsheets that covers the last 16 months or so. I've noticed a trend of leagues that I have made bad trades in and good trades in. So, I was wondering, we all have a decent volume of leagues, we all have good and bad trades in our leagues, in your experience, what do you take away from that? If you are really successful in one league with trades, do you consider that weaker competition? If you have had a few bad ones, do you consider that tougher competition? Or do you think there is a lot of luck involved on both sides of the spectrum? Also, in the leagues where you have been less successful with trades, does that make your less apt to make trades? And vice-versa with successful trades. Would love to hear your input. Let me know if you have any further questions.

Responses may be used for an article if I get enough responses

[Phaded]

I'm not going to delve into it a lot; but I think luck is a huge factor. As it is with any aspect of fantasy football. Sure, you can have have higher probabilities of landing certain players or of certain players peaking, but there is sometimes just as likely a player will flop. But look at those owners that acquired Demaryius Thomas before Manning got hurt in Indy and then Elway signed him in Denver. There is no way to foresee that and that was just luck for DT's value. That is just one of many examples; the point is - I believe trading is an art and I believe that there is also a large amount of luck involved with it. A huge aspect is also timing.

[Goirish374]

we all have good and bad trades in our leagues, in your experience, what do you take away from that?

I definitely don't take the success or failure of trades as a measure of the competitiveness of a league.

The thing I think we chronically lose track of is that each league is its own micro-economy, independent in many ways of what the larger fantasy community thinks. it just plain doesn't matter if everyone in a DLF forum thread agrees that X second round picks can be bundled for a first, or that QBs dont have value in 1 QB leagues, or that so-and-so should be easily had for such-and-such...when the rubber meets the road of actually interacting with the local economy of a given league, it will be at least affected and at most dominated, by personalies, histories and tendencies all its own.

I dont think that mix is luck, I think it's character, personality--and each league has its own.

[splendorlex]

I think a "good trade" can certainly indicate a bad owner in many cases. I know in my deep keeper I see my share of head scratchers. But of course trades are only one part of that, the draft shows it as well. It's no coincidence that the owners who make bad trades also often draft badly.

I think what you're getting here though, is that this forum naturally attracts people who are more invested in the game of dynasty, and in many cases are in more competitive or "serious" leagues. And I think in those situations, there are fewer blatantly bad trades and moves. It's one of the reasons that there was so much interest in a couple new leagues in the coming year specifically for forum members.

So I don't think individual bad moves mean anything, because as was said above, that can often be attributed to someone taking a shot at something and missing. But when the bad moves keep on coming, you can't ignore that there are many bad dynasty owners.

[Shoreline Steamers]

I do agree about luck/fate playing a big part in how a trade is ultimately viewed. If any of us were gifted with precognition we'd never lose. But trades that look like an absolute steal one day can be seen as a total fleecing a few short months later and visa-versa. It's the nature of the game. But I think if you're using sound valuation when negotiating your portfolio of trades you'll come out ahead eventually.

How that looks from league to league can differ greatly. For example let's say I was hell-bent on adding Antonio Brown in two leagues and could afford to pay (3) 1st round picks and a prospect. In one league we negotiate the prospect a bit and a deal is quickly finalized, but in the second league I'm told that my offer, "Isn't close, as Brown is his best player." He then sends me a snarky counter requesting my two best players and (2) 1st round picks for Brown with a note, "This is what a stud is worth, try harder!!!" Eventually it seems there's no middle ground so we end negotiations.

Fast forward a year or two to look back and see how all the moving pieces shook out and you can decide who "won and lost". What impact did it have for your team who added Brown, as well as the one that couldn't? That's the concrete stuff. But the other thing that resulted from the above scenario is that in the 1st league I built some trade rapport that helps in the future. In the 2nd league I've now got a feeling that future trade talks could be difficult.

Over time this kind of exchange has given me a feel for each of my league's character. These are long running so ownership rarely changes and that gives you a chance to make observations about how each team is run and act accordingly. I've identified the draft-pick hoarders, the rookie-lovers, the adult-care facility operators, the package dealers, and the "I consistently overvalue the players on my roster" guys I play with. And it's their personalities that help guide how I run my teams.

I can't really say there's a league I feel I'm more successful in trading over another, but that the targets and goals change from league to league based on the personality makeup of the participants. In my above example I was able to add Antonio Brown because I was dealing with a "rookie fever" owner in the first league. In the second, "I consistently overvalue players on my roster" guy made it clear we weren't getting a deal done unless it was a huge overpay. Which scenario ends up being a win or loss? I don't know, but for me sometimes it's a win just to get the other owner to hit the accept button.

[terryb24]

In my only league that is really serious I make a lot of trades. I have mostly been successful. Trading is risky because for the most part it is luck that can make a trade successful of not successful. The league I'm in values QBs very highly and i've had my fair share of trades with QBs involved. I traded the #2 overall pick (RG3) and in return I got 2 firsts, Jamaal Charles, Antonio Brown, and Torrey Smith. At the time Charles had torn his ACL and was iffy and Antonio Brown was honestly just another guy to me. Brown was an important piece on my championship team and it was lucky for me. I ended up trading Charles and Smith for Eli Manning and Hakeem Nicks thinking i would have a great connection and that Charles would never be a TD guy. I was completely off and it was one of my worst trades. So ultimately I think you study and scout the guys and make your decision but luck really plays a large part in any trade.

[npowellff]

Bump