Are these really that off or am I off?

[RB6]

Sour grapes. You didn't get the guy you wanted and someone else did.

[Vcize]

It annoys me that the owner wasn't willing to explore other options when it came to dealing with me but with other he was. It really sorta solidifies my belief of building this team through draft & FA.

So am I really that far off the reservation on this?

This statement makes no sense to me. You sent over a low-ball offer for Mixon that didn't deserve a counter but he sent one anyway. You rejected without counter so he sent another one. You again rejected without counter so he moved on, and you are somehow annoyed that he then moved on?

Your entire role in the process was sending over one poor low-ball offer and then you apparently thought that meant he was supposed to do all the legwork from there on out, and that he was beholden to you and not allowed to trade with another owner that was actually willing to give him some back and forth. And yes, his counters were better offers than your opener, but he was still willing to send over counters where you were not. You have nothing to be annoyed about.

So to answer your question. It's not him, it's you.

Thank you for your input even tho I never said he was "beholden to me and not allowed to trade with anyone else". If you read furthur in the thread it was me who pushed through this owners trade of Mixon. I didn't raise a stink or try and have it vetoed or just cancel it out altogether. This owner felt he got better "value" in the trade he made. That'll be seen in the next 2-3 years. My question was and still is if I'm that far off on Mixon's value (yes I knew a random late 18 first was light but felt it was an opener).

Sure you did. You said "It annoys me that the owner wasn't willing to explore other options when it came to dealing with me but with other he was" after a trade "discussion" where all of the effort was on his end and you did nothing to further the talks. It makes no sense for you to be annoyed that he wasn't willing to explore other options when he was already the one exploring all the other options and you were offering nothing in return.

The fact that you think "pushing through the trade" is some kind of noble thing just makes matters look worse, not better. As if not trying to veto a perfectly fair trade because you didn't get the guy you wanted (but weren't willing to put any effort into) took some restraint and is some great deed.

But to answer your question about Mixon, yes even as someone who has argued extensively AGAINST Mixon in the Mixon thread, your valuation of Mixon is just as far off as your understanding of how trade discussions work seems to be. A random (likely late, looking at your team) 1st isn't even a conversation starter for Mixon, though this guy was nice enough to still try and start one.

[djeternal2]

This statement makes no sense to me. You sent over a low-ball offer for Mixon that didn't deserve a counter but he sent one anyway. You rejected without counter so he sent another one. You again rejected without counter so he moved on, and you are somehow annoyed that he then moved on?

Your entire role in the process was sending over one poor low-ball offer and then you apparently thought that meant he was supposed to do all the legwork from there on out, and that he was beholden to you and not allowed to trade with another owner that was actually willing to give him some back and forth. And yes, his counters were better offers than your opener, but he was still willing to send over counters where you were not. You have nothing to be annoyed about.

So to answer your question. It's not him, it's you.

Thank you for your input even tho I never said he was "beholden to me and not allowed to trade with anyone else". If you read furthur in the thread it was me who pushed through this owners trade of Mixon. I didn't raise a stink or try and have it vetoed or just cancel it out altogether. This owner felt he got better "value" in the trade he made. That'll be seen in the next 2-3 years. My question was and still is if I'm that far off on Mixon's value (yes I knew a random late 18 first was light but felt it was an opener).

Sure you did. You said "It annoys me that the owner wasn't willing to explore other options when it came to dealing with me but with other he was" after a trade "discussion" where all of the effort was on his end and you did nothing to further the talks. It makes no sense for you to be annoyed that he wasn't willing to explore other options when he was already the one exploring all the other options and you were offering nothing in return.

The fact that you think "pushing through the trade" is some kind of noble thing just makes matters look worse, not better. As if not trying to veto a perfectly fair trade because you didn't get the guy you wanted (but weren't willing to put any effort into) took some restraint and is some great deed.

But to answer your question about Mixon, yes, your valuation of Mixon is just as far off as your understanding of how trade discussions work seems to be. A random (likely late, looking at your team) 1st isn't even a conversation starter for Mixon, though this guy was nice enough to still try and start one.

I'm glad you read the whole thread. But thank you for your input. No my "pushing the trade through" is not meant to show I was noble in any way. Instead the only reason I mention it is because I knew there would be ppl saying "oh you're just sour that someone else got the guy you wanted". Thing is (which I've mentioned multiple times if you actually read my posts in this thread) I'm not sour at all. I'm just trying to determine if I'm that far off on Mixon. But hey the sour grapes theory fits your narrative so don't stray from it now.

[Vcize]

Thank you for your input even tho I never said he was "beholden to me and not allowed to trade with anyone else". If you read furthur in the thread it was me who pushed through this owners trade of Mixon. I didn't raise a stink or try and have it vetoed or just cancel it out altogether. This owner felt he got better "value" in the trade he made. That'll be seen in the next 2-3 years. My question was and still is if I'm that far off on Mixon's value (yes I knew a random late 18 first was light but felt it was an opener).

Sure you did. You said "It annoys me that the owner wasn't willing to explore other options when it came to dealing with me but with other he was" after a trade "discussion" where all of the effort was on his end and you did nothing to further the talks. It makes no sense for you to be annoyed that he wasn't willing to explore other options when he was already the one exploring all the other options and you were offering nothing in return.

The fact that you think "pushing through the trade" is some kind of noble thing just makes matters look worse, not better. As if not trying to veto a perfectly fair trade because you didn't get the guy you wanted (but weren't willing to put any effort into) took some restraint and is some great deed.

But to answer your question about Mixon, yes, your valuation of Mixon is just as far off as your understanding of how trade discussions work seems to be. A random (likely late, looking at your team) 1st isn't even a conversation starter for Mixon, though this guy was nice enough to still try and start one.

I'm glad you read the whole thread. But thank you for your input. No my "pushing the trade through" is not meant to show I was noble in any way. Instead the only reason I mention it is because I knew there would be ppl saying "oh you're just sour that someone else got the guy you wanted". Thing is (which I've mentioned multiple times if you actually read my posts in this thread) I'm not sour at all. I'm just trying to determine if I'm that far off on Mixon. But hey the sour grapes theory fits your narrative so don't stray from it now.

Well you've gotten that answer, unanimously. And realistically you already knew the answer to that coming in. You didn't ramble on for paragraphs about the specifics of how the trade talks you went down and how annoyed you were about it and how you think you need to just quit trading and focus only on FA/drafting all because you were unsure of Mixon's value.

So now you have your answers, not just on Mixon but on how you need to (badly) manage your expectations and etiquette as a trader. Instead of taking any of the advice you went out and solicited, you have instead gotten defensive because the answers weren't the pats on the back you were hoping for.

I'm honestly not trying to disparage with this, I'm trying to help and to give you a wake-up call. Now it's up to you whether you want to heed any of that advice so that next time you might have a chance of working together with another owner and actually acquiring a player that you're interested in, or if you'd rather continue to miss out on the players that you like and be frustrated while giving up on trading altogether because everyone else but you is wrong and is unwilling to extend themselves to the unrealistic expectations you have created. It's no skin off my back either way, so I'll head on out now and leave you to decide.

[djeternal2]

Sure you did. You said "It annoys me that the owner wasn't willing to explore other options when it came to dealing with me but with other he was" after a trade "discussion" where all of the effort was on his end and you did nothing to further the talks. It makes no sense for you to be annoyed that he wasn't willing to explore other options when he was already the one exploring all the other options and you were offering nothing in return.

The fact that you think "pushing through the trade" is some kind of noble thing just makes matters look worse, not better. As if not trying to veto a perfectly fair trade because you didn't get the guy you wanted (but weren't willing to put any effort into) took some restraint and is some great deed.

But to answer your question about Mixon, yes, your valuation of Mixon is just as far off as your understanding of how trade discussions work seems to be. A random (likely late, looking at your team) 1st isn't even a conversation starter for Mixon, though this guy was nice enough to still try and start one.

I'm glad you read the whole thread. But thank you for your input. No my "pushing the trade through" is not meant to show I was noble in any way. Instead the only reason I mention it is because I knew there would be ppl saying "oh you're just sour that someone else got the guy you wanted". Thing is (which I've mentioned multiple times if you actually read my posts in this thread) I'm not sour at all. I'm just trying to determine if I'm that far off on Mixon. But hey the sour grapes theory fits your narrative so don't stray from it now.

Well you've gotten that answer, unanimously. And realistically you already knew the answer to that coming in. You didn't ramble on for paragraphs about the specifics of how the trade talks you went down and how annoyed you were about it and how you think you need to just quit trading and focus only on FA/drafting all because you were unsure of Mixon's value.

So now you have your answers, not just on Mixon but on how you need to (badly) manage your expectations and etiquette as a trader. Instead of taking any of the advice you went out and solicited, you have instead gotten defensive because the answers weren't the pats on the back you were hoping for.

I'm honestly not trying to disparage with this, I'm trying to help and to give you a wake-up call. Now it's up to you whether you want to heed any of that advice so that next time you might have a chance of working together with another owner and actually acquiring a player that you're interested in, or if you'd rather continue to miss out on the players that you like and be frustrated while giving up on trading altogether because everyone else but you is wrong and is unwilling to extend themselves to the unrealistic expectations you have created.

Thanks you've opened my eyes up. I'm glad you knew my mindset coming into this thread. I wish I knew myself as well as you know me. I guess I'll stick to reading threads on here instead of posting because I don't need ppl telling me what "I knew" before I opened a thread. I honestly was trying to see if I was that far off on Mixon. I guess I was so I have my answer. Thanks for that but in no way was I looking for a pat on the back or "knew" the answer. But hey whatever makes you feel better on running ppl away from posting here....

[sloth8u]

your valuation of mixon is off, whether he's the real deal or not. i havent looked at rankings or adp recently...but mixon is probably right around a top 30 give or take.....most do not value those guys worth something in the 80-100 range...which perhaps your suggesting. you knowingly sent a light offer.

the other owner even countered with what i see as an accept if your going strictly on value. i dont blame you for not accepting, but if you wanted mixon....i think the tate offer was a bit light, but tate is productive, he may have been willing to add a pick or something. he upped his counter with sammy if you were in to the value game.....and an accept imo if you wanted mixon.

to me, this looks like a case where an owner (the op) is looking to buy low. is there realistically anything that you would have added to get mixon? im not sure that i see anything on your squad, added to a 1st....that was likely to get the job done.

fwiw...i would have jumped on that sammy/mixon deal assuming that you wanted mixon and not just looking to buy on the cheap.

[WhatWouldDitkaDo]

My question was and still is if I'm that far off on Mixon's value (yes I knew a random late 18 first was light but felt it was an opener).

It sounds like you sort of believe in Mixon, but not fully, so you wanted to try to acquire him at a discount. I've made this mistake before and tried to throw out some sort of low ball trades where I kind of wanted a guy after reading a hype article or something but didn't truly believe in him, so any counter at fair value I rejected. I don't think either party is at fault here. You just valued your respective players differently and couldn't get a trade done. It happens.

[Dynasty DeLorean]

Sometimes I'm willing to sell a player and someone wants to buy but our teams are simply incompatible for trading. Might have been what happened here.

[jman3134]

DD, I think you hit it on the head with this thread. As someone who is not a Sammy truther, I feel the OP made some shrewd moves rejecting the two proposed offers. Maybe the deal should have been expanded (as that ended up being the ultimate outcome anyway), but I agree with the OP's logic with the exception of not looking for further counters.

The trade made makes little sense to me, but then again, Fuller and Cooks's respective values are all over the charts at this point. Highly variable in dynasty. So as DD pointed out, I just don't think the other player had the high end pieces to make a deal work. One thing I often do when trading is I ask what need a poster may have and then try to find undervalued targets around the league to them package in a more complex deal. Buy and sell.

One thing I don't understand is why offering a random 1st for Mixon is a nonstarter. While I agree that it is a lowball, do we even know how high or low the pick was? Secondly, we can have a solid understanding of dynasty values, but not everyone does or has the time to scout these guys. Mixon hasn't produced, so a low ball offer shouldn't halt all negotiations imo.

[Mephistopheles]

To answer your question...late 1st for Mixon is very very light and not something that will likely lead to a counter from 99.9% of Mixon owners. Here's why: if he is a contender/win now team - that trade does nothing to advance that objective and it hurts him. If he is a noncontender/rebuilder, Mixon is a prospective cornerstone in that rebuild which a late 1st may not be.
If I may be blunt, it's difficult to expect to start trade talks when you're giving the message that you want to buy way low on his player, there's much more incentive and value for him to hold his player rather than your pick, and you're not really giving him anything to work from.

Is the other team involved here a rebuilding team or a contender? How about you, looks to me like you should be a contender this year based on your sig team?

If he's a contender...based on his executed trade I suspect he is not...a better start may have been, as an example...McKinnon coming off a hot game with your first for Mixon. For a contender, that would have been a better start and show of faith. Not saying that would be accepted (I wouldn't accept it), but certainly a start where he could add a different piece and work with it.

IF he's a pretender/rebuilder...well, I see a message in his counters (how he plays his hand) that he wants WR's, top-level WR. If I were in your shoes, I would have countered offering him A-Rob for Watkins and Mixon (or Baldwin or Tate and Mixon though with Tate's injury that is less attractive) and see where that got me. That would achieve your objective of acquiring Mixon, and helped him pick up a top WR, albeit for next year.

I see where you're coming from, in that his accepted trade sure is a head-scratcher. I see it as a missed opportunity for you, though.

[j_thunda_]

2) his counters for Nuk don't deserve responses. They're terrible.

I disagree entirely on this. Even if you don't think they're "worthy" of a response, maybe the owner is doing the exact same thing he is doing...exploring possibilities. We all value players differently. It's worth a response something like, "I don't think the counters for Nuk are very close at all, but I might be willing to move him in a deal for Mixon if you added _____." Or tell him you're not interested in moving Nuk at this time. This is probably the thing that bothers me most in leagues. "That doesn't even deserve a response." Imagine if every terrible offer you've made in your fantasy career (we've all made them at some point) came with no response? It's much more productive for all parties involved to give feedback, so the other owner knows where you're coming from. If it's that ridiculous, ask them if they would make this deal. I've done that plenty of times and often the other owners end up saying, "well, now that I look at it, no I wouldn't" or "I see where you'e coming from". I apologize for the wordy response. I just think too often people look to win trades instead of making deals that work for both teams.

As far as the trade that went through...I'd much rather have the Mixon side of that one.

100% Agree with this.

[j_thunda_]

Thank you for your input even tho I never said he was "beholden to me and not allowed to trade with anyone else". If you read furthur in the thread it was me who pushed through this owners trade of Mixon. I didn't raise a stink or try and have it vetoed or just cancel it out altogether. This owner felt he got better "value" in the trade he made. That'll be seen in the next 2-3 years. My question was and still is if I'm that far off on Mixon's value (yes I knew a random late 18 first was light but felt it was an opener).

Sure you did. You said "It annoys me that the owner wasn't willing to explore other options when it came to dealing with me but with other he was" after a trade "discussion" where all of the effort was on his end and you did nothing to further the talks. It makes no sense for you to be annoyed that he wasn't willing to explore other options when he was already the one exploring all the other options and you were offering nothing in return.

The fact that you think "pushing through the trade" is some kind of noble thing just makes matters look worse, not better. As if not trying to veto a perfectly fair trade because you didn't get the guy you wanted (but weren't willing to put any effort into) took some restraint and is some great deed.

But to answer your question about Mixon, yes, your valuation of Mixon is just as far off as your understanding of how trade discussions work seems to be. A random (likely late, looking at your team) 1st isn't even a conversation starter for Mixon, though this guy was nice enough to still try and start one.

I'm glad you read the whole thread. But thank you for your input. No my "pushing the trade through" is not meant to show I was noble in any way. Instead the only reason I mention it is because I knew there would be ppl saying "oh you're just sour that someone else got the guy you wanted". Thing is (which I've mentioned multiple times if you actually read my posts in this thread) I'm not sour at all. I'm just trying to determine if I'm that far off on Mixon. But hey the sour grapes theory fits your narrative so don't stray from it now.

Some managers will defend their mistakes to the grave. I’m sorry but I agree with the outsiders perspective here. Your words almost certainly point to the fact that you are sour and weren’t a good trade parter. I run across mangers like this daily and it stunts productivity/growth for both teams. I’m sure you will continue to defend your thread, but maybe you will take the extra moment to self reflect on what you could have done vice place blame on the other end.

Side note I’ve offered Kelce, 1st and 2nd to a manager willing to trade Mixon and it’s been turned down multiple times after increasing the deal. Hope that answered your original question.

[j_thunda_]

I'm glad you read the whole thread. But thank you for your input. No my "pushing the trade through" is not meant to show I was noble in any way. Instead the only reason I mention it is because I knew there would be ppl saying "oh you're just sour that someone else got the guy you wanted". Thing is (which I've mentioned multiple times if you actually read my posts in this thread) I'm not sour at all. I'm just trying to determine if I'm that far off on Mixon. But hey the sour grapes theory fits your narrative so don't stray from it now.

Well you've gotten that answer, unanimously. And realistically you already knew the answer to that coming in. You didn't ramble on for paragraphs about the specifics of how the trade talks you went down and how annoyed you were about it and how you think you need to just quit trading and focus only on FA/drafting all because you were unsure of Mixon's value.

So now you have your answers, not just on Mixon but on how you need to (badly) manage your expectations and etiquette as a trader. Instead of taking any of the advice you went out and solicited, you have instead gotten defensive because the answers weren't the pats on the back you were hoping for.

I'm honestly not trying to disparage with this, I'm trying to help and to give you a wake-up call. Now it's up to you whether you want to heed any of that advice so that next time you might have a chance of working together with another owner and actually acquiring a player that you're interested in, or if you'd rather continue to miss out on the players that you like and be frustrated while giving up on trading altogether because everyone else but you is wrong and is unwilling to extend themselves to the unrealistic expectations you have created.

Thanks you've opened my eyes up. I'm glad you knew my mindset coming into this thread. I wish I knew myself as well as you know me. I guess I'll stick to reading threads on here instead of posting because I don't need ppl telling me what "I knew" before I opened a thread. I honestly was trying to see if I was that far off on Mixon. I guess I was so I have my answer. Thanks for that but in no way was I looking for a pat on the back or "knew" the answer. But hey whatever makes you feel better on running ppl away from posting here....

Wow. It’s too bad you join a forum to learn and get better but aren’t willing to listen to the advise you seek. Honestly, a lot of good mangers with some good insight here. I wish you luck in the future.

[pokerface40]

I have to agree your entire original post comes off as sour grapes. You don't need to respond to this. Just take it in and realize that negotiations are a two way street and you won't complete many trades using the strategy you described. And yes your evaluation on Mixon is off.