Give 1.02 + Hock for Bowers?

[mzkp54]

I think its a fine offer. I moved Laporta and 1.04 for Bowers towards the end of the season, which feels comparable. But Bowers is untouchable for some folks, so it takes more than fair.

[KING]

100%
YES

[tstafford]

Just wanted to circle back to this. I offered Hock, Waddle and the 1.09 for Bowers - got declined. Would you wait until the draft and FA season to offer the 1.02 and Hock for Bowers? I debate trying to tier up now or wait and see landing spots for RBs (which I could use the 1.02 on). I could also trade back from the 1.02 and add picks/players.

Am I understanding you correctly? You offered Hock, Waddle, + 1.09 and got declined with no counter.

So your next offer is less than that?

That's going to be a massive backfire, and I think you'd be burning a future trade bridge. Yeah, 1.02 should increase in value. If you want to wait until after the draft, you could make the same offer as before at least noting that you now see 1.02 as more valuable than before. I doubt that gets anywhere, but that shouldn't burn a bridge.

No way I'd make a lighter offer and expect anything other than some kind of mockery or scorn in response!

I'm not sure everyone would see his 2nd offer as lighter. It might be, but I think it's debatable. A lot folks are out on Waddle and the 1.02 is premium.

[Dude_Abides]

With your picks & probably drafting Jeanty/Tet at 1.01/1.02, I would take a chance on 1 of Warren or Colston at 1.09. You have Hock, which allows you to be patient on a rookie TE. I think 1 of those 2 rookies are going to be really good!

[Randomguess]

With your picks & probably drafting Jeanty/Tet at 1.01/1.02, I would take a chance on 1 of Warren or Colston at 1.09. You have Hock, which allows you to be patient on a rookie TE. I think 1 of those 2 rookies are going to be really good!

I appreciate the feedback and that is very reasonable. I thought about trading back from the 1.02 to the 1.05/1.06 range to get Warren if he has a good landing spot.

[Dude_Abides]

With your picks & probably drafting Jeanty/Tet at 1.01/1.02, I would take a chance on 1 of Warren or Colston at 1.09. You have Hock, which allows you to be patient on a rookie TE. I think 1 of those 2 rookies are going to be really good!

I appreciate the feedback and that is very reasonable. I thought about trading back from the 1.02 to the 1.05/1.06 range to get Warren if he has a good landing spot.

I like that idea! Would see if you can get 1.05/1.06 & also maybe a late 3rd/4th in return for 1.02. I like Tet, but you are already deep at WR, especially with only playing 2 WR & 1 flex. Can then take BPA at 1.09, if you end up getting Warren at 1.05/1.06.

[Pullo Vision]

With your picks & probably drafting Jeanty/Tet at 1.01/1.02, I would take a chance on 1 of Warren or Colston at 1.09. You have Hock, which allows you to be patient on a rookie TE. I think 1 of those 2 rookies are going to be really good!

I appreciate the feedback and that is very reasonable. I thought about trading back from the 1.02 to the 1.05/1.06 range to get Warren if he has a good landing spot.

I like that idea! Would see if you can get 1.05/1.06 & also maybe a late 3rd/4th in return for 1.02. I like Tet, but you are already deep at WR, especially with only playing 2 WR & 1 flex. Can then take BPA at 1.09, if you end up getting Warren at 1.05/1.06.

This thread started about one idea, but if you're brainstorming broader, you start 3 of Jefferson, Lamb, Puka, Nabers, MHJ each week. Benching two of them represents too much points/value, it's doing your team a disservice. I'd look at flipping one for Bowers. Which one would dictate what the deal looks like, but I could see selling a WR to plug the TE hole, then drafting Tet at 1.2 to fill that bench role.

[Randomguess]

I appreciate the feedback and that is very reasonable. I thought about trading back from the 1.02 to the 1.05/1.06 range to get Warren if he has a good landing spot.

I like that idea! Would see if you can get 1.05/1.06 & also maybe a late 3rd/4th in return for 1.02. I like Tet, but you are already deep at WR, especially with only playing 2 WR & 1 flex. Can then take BPA at 1.09, if you end up getting Warren at 1.05/1.06.

This thread started about one idea, but if you're brainstorming broader, you start 3 of Jefferson, Lamb, Puka, Nabers, MHJ each week. Benching two of them represents too much points/value, it's doing your team a disservice. I'd look at flipping one for Bowers. Which one would dictate what the deal looks like, but I could see selling a WR to plug the TE hole, then drafting Tet at 1.2 to fill that bench role.

Do you think offering MHJ straight up for Bowers is enough? If not, who/what would you add to the offer? MHJ + Hock for Bowers too much?

[Prison_Mike]

I like that idea! Would see if you can get 1.05/1.06 & also maybe a late 3rd/4th in return for 1.02. I like Tet, but you are already deep at WR, especially with only playing 2 WR & 1 flex. Can then take BPA at 1.09, if you end up getting Warren at 1.05/1.06.

This thread started about one idea, but if you're brainstorming broader, you start 3 of Jefferson, Lamb, Puka, Nabers, MHJ each week. Benching two of them represents too much points/value, it's doing your team a disservice. I'd look at flipping one for Bowers. Which one would dictate what the deal looks like, but I could see selling a WR to plug the TE hole, then drafting Tet at 1.2 to fill that bench role.

Do you think offering MHJ straight up for Bowers is enough? If not, who/what would you add to the offer? MHJ + Hock for Bowers too much?

I would decline if I had Bowers but it's a reasonable offer

[tstafford]

Do you think offering MHJ straight up for Bowers is enough? If not, who/what would you add to the offer? MHJ + Hock for Bowers too much?

Several issues with this:
MHJ - he's a buy not a sell. Stock is depressed but ready to climb
Bowers - he's at peak value (or very close). Bowers is going to be a late 1st in redraft. So we have a young dynasty asset who is also a coveted redraft pick. That's unobtanium.

Net/net - I think your offer of MHJ/Hock is solid but I'm not sure it gets accepted. I think you're better standing pat and waiting for MHJ to put up some good numbers (see JSN) and go from there.

[Randomguess]

Do you think offering MHJ straight up for Bowers is enough? If not, who/what would you add to the offer? MHJ + Hock for Bowers too much?

Several issues with this:
MHJ - he's a buy not a sell. Stock is depressed but ready to climb
Bowers - he's at peak value (or very close). Bowers is going to be a late 1st in redraft. So we have a young dynasty asset who is also a coveted redraft pick. That's unobtanium.

Net/net - I think your offer of MHJ/Hock is solid but I'm not sure it gets accepted. I think you're better standing pat and waiting for MHJ to put up some good numbers (see JSN) and go from there.

I agree with that. At this point I'd just like to leave this draft with one of Warren or Loveland and a RB in addition to Jeanty, which could be a veteran or pick at 1.02, 1.09 or other spot if I make a trade.

[wickerkat1212]

You'll need the 1.02 + Hock, maybe more. Bowers is special. And I'd be willing to pay that ESPECIALLY in this year's draft.

[Pullo Vision]

Do you think offering MHJ straight up for Bowers is enough? If not, who/what would you add to the offer? MHJ + Hock for Bowers too much?

Several issues with this:
MHJ - he's a buy not a sell. Stock is depressed but ready to climb
Bowers - he's at peak value (or very close). Bowers is going to be a late 1st in redraft. So we have a young dynasty asset who is also a coveted redraft pick. That's unobtanium.

Net/net - I think your offer of MHJ/Hock is solid but I'm not sure it gets accepted. I think you're better standing pat and waiting for MHJ to put up some good numbers (see JSN) and go from there.

I agree with that. At this point I'd just like to leave this draft with one of Warren or Loveland and a RB in addition to Jeanty, which could be a veteran or pick at 1.02, 1.09 or other spot if I make a trade.

There's an MHJ thread in Dynasty Discussion. Put simply, he needed to see too many things change from 2024 to see an upgrade on his production.
QB- same guy
Coach- same guy
Scheme- the only hope is he gets used as something other than a downfield guy AND somehow surpasses McBride as the #1

You know why he's called MHJ? Because his middle name is Hopium. I'm not gonna sit holding and hoping that he cashes in on his predraft expectations/hype, when there's such a big disconnect between his performance/production and his actual value. If he repeats his 2024, I see a value crash. I'm cashing out now.

Would I do MHJ+Hock for Bowers? Depends on the league. If it's 12 teams and rosters are around 22 deep, absolutely, and I could see adding to it. If it's 16x35, no. I'm betting it's closer to the first.

Regarding the original point, JJeff/CD/Puka/Nabers/MHJ is a nice core in a start 3, especially if it's a 12x21. I'd prefer to keep Jefferson, Lamb and Nabers- two are elite and I'm a big Nabers fan who sees reasons to think things'll improve for him. I'd look at trading one of Puka or Harrison to address the TE position. Who knows, the Bowers owner might value Harrison closer to where TStaff does than me.

Given this roster (and league size dependent), I could see myself being VERY aggressive to get Bowers or a similar top tier TE. Who knows what you could get with Nacua+Hock. Purely spitballing here, KTC says Puka+Hock for Bowers+2026 2nd is even. If you go after McBride instead of Bowers, I'd think you could get more than a 2nd tacked on.