Cooper Kupp - Value Up?

[trc]

I think if you are making offers for the same positional players of similar age ie Kupp for Adams then you should be adding something to your side of the deal (this goes both ways). If the Adams owner wants Kupp he should be offering Adams + and vise versa if the Kupp owner is trying to acquire Adams.

By offering these 1 for 1 offers you are saying I value your guy higher right? Or else why would you be offering it then in the first place?

I don’t see many 1 for 1 deals for players of the same position and same age in any of my leagues. At least not for starting caliber players.

Context really matters.
If the Adams owner is contender then Kupp will most likely be the better play this year out. It is not like Kupp is a 1-year rental.
But if the Adams owner doesn't like Kupp for some reason, then it will be a tough sell.

In general if you talk value in a vacuum, I agree - the approacher should add something. But it is never in vacuum, perhaps off season is.

[Champ224]

I think if you are making offers for the same positional players of similar age ie Kupp for Adams then you should be adding something to your side of the deal (this goes both ways). If the Adams owner wants Kupp he should be offering Adams + and vise versa if the Kupp owner is trying to acquire Adams.

By offering these 1 for 1 offers you are saying I value your guy higher right? Or else why would you be offering it then in the first place?

I don’t see many 1 for 1 deals for players of the same position and same age in any of my leagues. At least not for starting caliber players.

Context really matters.
If the Adams owner is contender then Kupp will most likely be the better play this year out. It is not like Kupp is a 1-year rental.
But if the Adams owner doesn't like Kupp for some reason, then it will be a tough sell.

In general if you talk value in a vacuum, I agree - the approacher should add something. But it is never in vacuum, perhaps off season is.

I really don’t get how some don’t get very simple concepts. Put it this way;

If you are actively trying to sell your house on the market and reaching out to potential buyers and your offering up a similar value house (age, location etc) you generally need to add some sort of incentive/sweetener to close the deal. Your screaming to the other owner, I for whatever reason like/value your house more than mine and I want to trade.

On the other hand if you have a house and not actively shopping it (ie people are coming to you with offers) you should expect to get above market value for that house since that owner is not looking to move.

Thinking 1 for 1 positional trades for players of similar age/value actually work is part of the reason trading is so damm hard and frustrating with owners who share these beliefs.

[djeternal2]

I think if you are making offers for the same positional players of similar age ie Kupp for Adams then you should be adding something to your side of the deal (this goes both ways). If the Adams owner wants Kupp he should be offering Adams + and vise versa if the Kupp owner is trying to acquire Adams.

By offering these 1 for 1 offers you are saying I value your guy higher right? Or else why would you be offering it then in the first place?

I don’t see many 1 for 1 deals for players of the same position and same age in any of my leagues. At least not for starting caliber players.

Context really matters.
If the Adams owner is contender then Kupp will most likely be the better play this year out. It is not like Kupp is a 1-year rental.
But if the Adams owner doesn't like Kupp for some reason, then it will be a tough sell.

In general if you talk value in a vacuum, I agree - the approacher should add something. But it is never in vacuum, perhaps off season is.

I really don’t get how some don’t get very simple concepts. Put it this way;

If you are actively trying to sell your house on the market and reaching out to potential buyers and your offering up a similar value house (age, location etc) you generally need to add some sort of incentive/sweetener to close the deal. Your screaming to the other owner, I for whatever reason like/value your house more than mine and I want to trade.

On the other hand if you have a house and not actively shopping it (ie people are coming to you with offers) you should expect to get above market value for that house since that owner is not looking to move.

Thinking 1 for 1 positional trades for players of similar age/value actually work is part of the reason trading is so damm hard and frustrating with owners who share these beliefs.

I don't see how some people can't understand that other people have different opinions. Or can't read. Maybe both.

Also who in this day and age swaps houses? Is this a thing? Very odd way of trying to explain if someone comes to you offering Kupp for Adams or the reverse you want something on top. Not everyone feels this way. I've swapped players before without anything on top. I've also offered those trades up and they end up after discussions turning into larger trades. Just because you do something one way doesn't mean it's the only way.

[hoos89]

I really don’t get how some don’t get very simple concepts. Put it this way;

If you are actively trying to sell your house on the market and reaching out to potential buyers and your offering up a similar value house (age, location etc) you generally need to add some sort of incentive/sweetener to close the deal. Your screaming to the other owner, I for whatever reason like/value your house more than mine and I want to trade.

On the other hand if you have a house and not actively shopping it (ie people are coming to you with offers) you should expect to get above market value for that house since that owner is not looking to move.

Thinking 1 for 1 positional trades for players of similar age/value actually work is part of the reason trading is so damm hard and frustrating with owners who share these beliefs.

Pretty weird analogy considering that people typically buy/sell houses with money and not in kind, whereas fantasy trades are the other way around. Of course it would be weird if I went up to someone and asked them to trade houses....completely different context (not to mention switching costs).

Also I'm not in some sort of rush to sell Kupp. I'm just feeling out what his perceived value in the league is. It would be more comparable to being in a house where I'm comfortable staying, but seeing a valuation well above what I paid for it and deciding that I would be willing to sell at that price and shopping my house at that price. If I can get that price great, but if not that's fine too because I like it and am comfortable staying there.

I think there's a common misunderstanding that shopping a player means that you're necessarily low on that player or desperate to sell that player. For me it's often that I'm shopping players who are doing well and who I think can fetch a good price (particularly if I'm not contending that season in that league). I don't necessarily feel like I need to sell but I want to see what the market for that player looks like in my league. If I can get a price I like I'll sell, and if I can't I won't.

Also I've done 19 total trades in my 2 leagues this year so I don't want to hear about how my attitude makes it difficult to trade.

[thebeast]

I really don’t get how some don’t get very simple concepts. Put it this way;

If you are actively trying to sell your house on the market and reaching out to potential buyers and your offering up a similar value house (age, location etc) you generally need to add some sort of incentive/sweetener to close the deal. Your screaming to the other owner, I for whatever reason like/value your house more than mine and I want to trade.

On the other hand if you have a house and not actively shopping it (ie people are coming to you with offers) you should expect to get above market value for that house since that owner is not looking to move.

Thinking 1 for 1 positional trades for players of similar age/value actually work is part of the reason trading is so damm hard and frustrating with owners who share these beliefs.

Pretty weird analogy considering that people typically buy/sell houses with money and not in kind, whereas fantasy trades are the other way around. Of course it would be weird if I went up to someone and asked them to trade houses....completely different context (not to mention switching costs).

Also I'm not in some sort of rush to sell Kupp. I'm just feeling out what his perceived value in the league is. It would be more comparable to being in a house where I'm comfortable staying, but seeing a valuation well above what I paid for it and deciding that I would be willing to sell at that price and shopping my house at that price. If I can get that price great, but if not that's fine too because I like it and am comfortable staying there.

I think there's a common misunderstanding that shopping a player means that you're necessarily low on that player or desperate to sell that player. For me it's often that I'm shopping players who are doing well and who I think can fetch a good price (particularly if I'm not contending that season in that league). I don't necessarily feel like I need to sell but I want to see what the market for that player looks like in my league. If I can get a price I like I'll sell, and if I can't I won't.

Also I've done 19 total trades in my 2 leagues this year so I don't want to hear about how my attitude makes it difficult to trade.

[trc]

I think if you are making offers for the same positional players of similar age ie Kupp for Adams then you should be adding something to your side of the deal (this goes both ways). If the Adams owner wants Kupp he should be offering Adams + and vise versa if the Kupp owner is trying to acquire Adams.

By offering these 1 for 1 offers you are saying I value your guy higher right? Or else why would you be offering it then in the first place?

I don’t see many 1 for 1 deals for players of the same position and same age in any of my leagues. At least not for starting caliber players.

Context really matters.
If the Adams owner is contender then Kupp will most likely be the better play this year out. It is not like Kupp is a 1-year rental.
But if the Adams owner doesn't like Kupp for some reason, then it will be a tough sell.

In general if you talk value in a vacuum, I agree - the approacher should add something. But it is never in vacuum, perhaps off season is.

I really don’t get how some don’t get very simple concepts. Put it this way;

If you are actively trying to sell your house on the market and reaching out to potential buyers and your offering up a similar value house (age, location etc) you generally need to add some sort of incentive/sweetener to close the deal. Your screaming to the other owner, I for whatever reason like/value your house more than mine and I want to trade.

On the other hand if you have a house and not actively shopping it (ie people are coming to you with offers) you should expect to get above market value for that house since that owner is not looking to move.

Thinking 1 for 1 positional trades for players of similar age/value actually work is part of the reason trading is so damm hard and frustrating with owners who share these beliefs.

I think you miss the point of my post. Or perhaps just don't get the concept of subjective valuation on dynasty value, and how value for every single owner isn't always mainly tied to long term dynasty value.

[ckrumm24]

I think if you are making offers for the same positional players of similar age ie Kupp for Adams then you should be adding something to your side of the deal (this goes both ways). If the Adams owner wants Kupp he should be offering Adams + and vise versa if the Kupp owner is trying to acquire Adams.

By offering these 1 for 1 offers you are saying I value your guy higher right? Or else why would you be offering it then in the first place?

I don’t see many 1 for 1 deals for players of the same position and same age in any of my leagues. At least not for starting caliber players.

Context really matters.
If the Adams owner is contender then Kupp will most likely be the better play this year out. It is not like Kupp is a 1-year rental.
But if the Adams owner doesn't like Kupp for some reason, then it will be a tough sell.

In general if you talk value in a vacuum, I agree - the approacher should add something. But it is never in vacuum, perhaps off season is.

I really don’t get how some don’t get very simple concepts. Put it this way;

If you are actively trying to sell your house on the market and reaching out to potential buyers and your offering up a similar value house (age, location etc) you generally need to add some sort of incentive/sweetener to close the deal. Your screaming to the other owner, I for whatever reason like/value your house more than mine and I want to trade.

On the other hand if you have a house and not actively shopping it (ie people are coming to you with offers) you should expect to get above market value for that house since that owner is not looking to move.

Thinking 1 for 1 positional trades for players of similar age/value actually work is part of the reason trading is so damm hard and frustrating with owners who share these beliefs.

We are in kindergarten and the Teachers pass out snacks. Johnny has a cookie. Timmy has cake. Both Johnny and Timmy like each food to some degree but Johnny asks Timmy if he wants to trade and he accepts. Sure, Timmy COULD ask for a Nickle because he clearly knows Johnny wants that damn delicious chocolate forest cake, but he doesn’t because he likes the cookie more than the cake anyway. Even if he did counter, Johnny doesn’t need to accept with the sweetener and we are back to the original offer.

Ps I just rejected an OBJ offer straight up for my Kupp.

[AussieMate]

Context really matters.
If the Adams owner is contender then Kupp will most likely be the better play this year out. It is not like Kupp is a 1-year rental.
But if the Adams owner doesn't like Kupp for some reason, then it will be a tough sell.

In general if you talk value in a vacuum, I agree - the approacher should add something. But it is never in vacuum, perhaps off season is.

I really don’t get how some don’t get very simple concepts. Put it this way;

If you are actively trying to sell your house on the market and reaching out to potential buyers and your offering up a similar value house (age, location etc) you generally need to add some sort of incentive/sweetener to close the deal. Your screaming to the other owner, I for whatever reason like/value your house more than mine and I want to trade.

On the other hand if you have a house and not actively shopping it (ie people are coming to you with offers) you should expect to get above market value for that house since that owner is not looking to move.

Thinking 1 for 1 positional trades for players of similar age/value actually work is part of the reason trading is so damm hard and frustrating with owners who share these beliefs.

We are in kindergarten and the Teachers pass out snacks. Johnny has a cookie. Timmy has cake. Both Johnny and Timmy like each food to some degree but Johnny asks Timmy if he wants to trade and he accepts. Sure, Timmy COULD ask for a Nickle because he clearly knows Johnny wants that damn delicious chocolate forest cake, but he doesn’t because he likes the cookie more than the cake anyway. Even if he did counter, Johnny doesn’t need to accept with the sweetener and we are back to the original offer.

Ps I just rejected an OBJ offer straight up for my Kupp.

That is basically how I feel on it, it generally helps if you happen to know they like your player or aren't that enamoured with their own player.

[Jfever]

An owner offers me D.Freeman straight up for D.Singletary. I decline with a no thanks, not interested in Freeman. He Then offered me a 2021 1st along with a 2020 3rd for Singletary. I declined, he then offers me H.Reinfrow for D.Singletary, I decline politely and tell him I'll take a look at something that could be mutually beneficial. He is on the playoff bubble and needs rb help but has decent wr depth. Offered C.Davis, D.Singletary, 2020 1st, 2020 2nd, for C.Kupp and a 2020 4th. Declined, no counter. I gotta go for a walk and get some air.

[djeternal2]

An owner offers me D.Freeman straight up for D.Singletary. I decline with a no thanks, not interested in Freeman. He Then offered me a 2021 1st along with a 2020 3rd for Singletary. I declined, he then offers me H.Reinfrow for D.Singletary, I decline politely and tell him I'll take a look at something that could be mutually beneficial. He is on the playoff bubble and needs rb help but has decent wr depth. Offered C.Davis, D.Singletary, 2020 1st, 2020 2nd, for C.Kupp and a 2020 4th. Declined, no counter. I gotta go for a walk and get some air.

I would've declined that too for Kupp and I'm not as high on Kupp as most are. If I owned Singletary I would've accepted the 1st & 3rd in a heartbeat even with the 1st being 2 years out. To each their own I guess.

[hoos89]

The Freeman and 1st + 3rd offers weren't particularly bad...the Renfrow offer is terrible. Your counter was fine but not a must accept unless the 1st is on the early side.

[pvillebiker]

We are in kindergarten and the Teachers pass out snacks. Johnny has a cookie. Timmy has cake. Both Johnny and Timmy like each food to some degree but Johnny asks Timmy if he wants to trade and he accepts. Sure, Timmy COULD ask for a Nickle because he clearly knows Johnny wants that damn delicious chocolate forest cake, but he doesn’t because he likes the cookie more than the cake anyway. Even if he did counter, Johnny doesn’t need to accept with the sweetener and we are back to the original offer.

Ps I just rejected an OBJ offer straight up for my Kupp.

Rock on! Love it even though I hear OBJ is about to be force fed. LOL

[mild]

Awfully quiet in here today. Let's see some receipts!

Having said that, it's really tough to pass on Adams while his value is down. What to do, what to do...

Christ, pull the f-ing trigger! You Kupp-boys are outta your minds

I can see the offer and the hesitation but Adams is the better player; He is probably the very best route runner in the game today with a better QB.

At some point teams will shadow Kupp with their best DB and that could hurt his production. Adams already dominates against most teams best DB.

QFT.

Think it may have been a little early to call him a WR1

this didn't age very well.

he's been a wr1 since the opening game of his second season. and he will stay there for years and years.

Maybe, maybe not.

no db can hang with kupp. that's why he's open most of the time.

... but I'll gladly throw ice cold water on this one. Turns out if you put a good DB on him, he's just as mortal as anyone else.

[Mike from Canada]

He's a roster clogger, I'm releasing him.

[Phaded]

lol..
Of course this got bumped.