Dynasty League Football Forum

Ok guys, here is the setup. League is a 12 team dyno, .5ppr, full idp, 1 SuperFlex spot. Had an 0-7 team go inactive and just brought in someone to replace the owner. The owner has made two trades rather quickly in an attempt to rebuild (which I have no problem with), but I wonder if the value is completely off here.

Rebuild team trades: Calvin and Sproles to...
7-0 team (first place in league) for: Davante Adams, Jerick McKinnon, 2015 1st and 3rd

Maybe it just looks worse than it is? Calvin has been hurt, which knocks his value slightly. Sproles is almost a non factor for me in this trade. Adams is worth an early 1st IMO, McKinnon I would probably put at a mid to late 1st, and the 2015 picks will both be late. I guess Calvin for roughly 3 1sts is ok, especially for a rebuild. I guess typin it out made be change my mind a bit and looks a little more even.

Still...opinions would be appreciated.

slaughterrt wrote: Maybe it just looks worse than it is? Calvin has been hurt, which knocks his value slightly. Sproles is almost a non factor for me in this trade. Adams is worth an early 1st IMO, McKinnon I would probably put at a mid to late 1st, and the 2015 picks will both be late. I guess Calvin for roughly 3 1sts is ok, especially for a rebuild. I guess typin it out made be change my mind a bit and looks a little more even.

Yeah, it's really not that bad. If the former Calvin owner likes Adams and McKinnon, this may be the best return he could've gotten.

I don't think it's vetoable. There's a lot that the calvin owner is getting.

I'll put behind the argument that you should never veto unless you suspect collusion or extreme incompetence aside for a moment (and in the case of incompetence, you better remove that owner from the league if you are going to veto their trade, because that's what you are saying when you veto it, that they aren't competent enough to be in the league). Not even close to veto-able trade here.

Obvious case of selling off some future for the opportunity to secure a championship. As you said, the team is 7-0. He can likely take a few losses if he has to to wait for Calvin to get back, assuming he was even using McKinnon and Adams to begin with (likely wasn't).

The concept of one in the hand is worth two in the bush applies here. I really believe in Adams, and I'm starting to buy into McKinnon more, but there's no guarantee either of those guys play out, and Calvin has proven to be one of the best fantasy receivers out there when healthy. As well, there's window of opportunity in Dynasty. Calvin might fit his window of opportunity, while Adams and McKinnon may be less so... how highly would you think of McKinnon if the Vikings drafted Gurley next year? You have to allow owners to make their own evaluations, because that's part of fantasy football. Winning on draft day and winning in trades is part of the game. Unless the trade is so bad that you 100% believe the owner who got the bad end should be removed from the league because of how incompetent they are, then don't veto.

If I'm rebuilding, I might rather have Adams, McKinnon, a 1st, and a 3rd than Calvin and Sproles. One could argue that Calvin should net more in return, but his trade value has dropped slighlty because of these injuries.

I wouldn't veto that deal.

Which side do you think is getting hosed in this deal?

While I don't know that I'd have accepted it (for the rebuilding team), it's not a bad trade IMHO... I love the upside of McKinnon... Calvin's getting older... he gets more draft picks... Sproles is approaching the end... I like what the 0-7 team got in return to be honest...

I've made McKinnon almost untouchable for me... I think that highly of him... If he pans out, this 0-7 guy will look like a genius in 2-3 years when Calvin is on IR and struggling to maintain WR2 numbers

The problem I think you are having with the trade is that you have to take the team records out of the equation and just look at it on paper.

I think that because the 7-0 team is getting over-the-top win-now weapons to (presumably) seal a championship in the 2nd half of the fantasy season, it appears that he is taking advantage of the other owner's rebuild situation. However, the 7-0 team is giving up sufficient future value to make this trade on paper to be relatively even. Ideally, I think most owners not involved with a trade want to see a successful team pay a bit of a premium if they are acquiring a stud. There really isn't much, if any, of a premium in this trade and although it is a relatively fair deal, I could see owners grousing about it just because it is a top team getting Calvin and pretty much claiming the season. Frustrating for other owners? Sure. Veto-able? No.

Thanks guys. Yeah, the more I look at it the better I feel. I was always the kind that wouldn't give up a stud without getting one back. Like I stated earlier, the trade looked a little better after typing it all out. It will pass. Thanks for putting my concern at ease.

Lotto4Life wrote:Which side do you think is getting hosed in this deal?

Why does it have to be that one side is getting "hosed"? I think perhaps that the 0-7 owner could have gotten more value for Calvin Johnson but I definitely feel like they gained a significant foundation on which to rebuild and as such I'd call it a slight "win" in value for the new Calvin owner (even though I dislike ascribing "winners" and "losers" in trading as it fosters a mentality of trying to "win" trades) but at the same time a trade that does a lot to help both sides in their ambitions.

failblazer wrote:

Lotto4Life wrote:Which side do you think is getting hosed in this deal?

Why does it have to be that one side is getting "hosed"?

If somebody is questioning whether or not it's vetoable, I'd assume it was because somebody was getting hosed.

I don't see an issue with that deal. Dude is 0-7 and is knowledgable enough to know he needs to go young with upside and accept dealing a major asset. The outcome of this won't be know for 2 years. He gets a potential WR1, RB1, and two hopeful value plays. Could he get more? Maybe, but you can only get what people will give, and that varies. Plus he has his own opinions on upside. I like the pieces.

Most importantly - this doesn't defy logic or point collusion based on the setup of his team and need for young upside. It doesn't smell of collusion, just value differentiation. I can't blame someone for taking the best offer and I like what he got.

In my league the last place team sold Calvin for Blackmon, Austin, Ebron, Dunlop, Vaccaro, 2nd for comparison. Intent was restocking. Better offer available? Possibly. But I still understood his intent, regardless of I dislike all the pieces.

He's trading older players for youth and draft picks. He's doing what he *needs* to do.

Yeah, I approved this several hours ago. I guess my initial "veto-able" debate was an overreaction. The more I look at the offer/value, the more fair it looks.