Trade thoughts in SP?

[The Orange Man]

I allow myself the following trades:

1) Can accept any trade initiated by the AI. In three seasons, I haven't accepted any. The AI loves to ask for one of my better players and offer a 3rd round pick in return.

2) I am allowed to trade draft picks with the AI, provided I give at least equal value as per the draft pick value chart. I am also allowed to trade and receive future year picks to allow more flexibility (of course, usually I want to trade up in the draft). Since the value of these picks is uncertain, future year picks are valued as though the AI has the 4th pick in the round and I have the 29th.

Any thoughts on the above and what about the following proposal?

Should I also be allowed to trade player for player, provided the players play the same exact position, with the proviso I must present/future rating of the player traded for must be lower than what I am giving up AND the player traded away must have less experience. Reason for ever wanting to do this would be to decrease salary.

[Abe Sargent]

I just made a trade in my FOF7 dynasty where I'm playing teh Jags, and even though I got something I was targeting, I think the AI team got the better of the deal.

I WAS targeting a high quality TE. Kansas City had a 30 year old 69/69 TE with a cap hit of 10 mill this year and 11 next.

HEre's teh trade:

I gave up:

3rd year MLB Melvin Robinson 50/50

To the Chiefs for:

8th year TE Travis Kelce
3rd rounder in 2022

Now why do I think this was a good trade?

1). Teh CHiefs had ILB as their #1 need and didn't have any on the roster at the beginning of FA
2) Robinson was better, by far, than the best ILB in FA (who was 41/41)
3). They were pushed up against the cap, tightly. Robinson was just a 1.2 mill play for them. They dropped a huge amount fo cap room
4). The Chiefs had drafted a stud TE in the top ten the previous year, givng them an extra player at the position, who wa s better and cheaper

So, this enabled them to clear out the superfluous older, expensive, lower quality TE for the #1 position of need and cap freedom, and I made them give me a 3rd to make it something resembling fairness.

First trade for a player I've made in my now-7 year dynasty, but I stand by it all day long as extremely fair for the Chiefs.

[The Orange Man]

Seems like a reasonable enough trade.

In my case, I feel as though I have to set some exact rules where there is no room for interpretation on what is allowed.

I have played four seasons in one career and now three in my current one - after a dispersal draft I won championships the first two seasons and just got knocked out in the divisional round.

On one hand, I want to win the championship every season but on the other, I think I am going to have to limit myself a bit more and make it more challenging by restricting what I am allowed to do with regard to free agency.

[aston217]

I don't know, you got a premier player who is an offensive weapon -- AND a sweet draft pick -- while giving up a LB who sure, may be young, but could be a lot more forgettable, and not all that much better than the FA (scout error, bars distribution notwithstanding). Although part of that is on the AI for drafting a top 10 TE when they already had a stud, but AIs will do things like this because they don't have the planning and long-term management foresight of a human owner.

They definitely got backed into a corner where the trade kinda seems to make sense for them, especially if they had cap issues, but for a human team to reap the benefits here is kind of kicking them when they're down.

But, you also want to be able to make some trades while you're playing, right? Anyway, one idea I tossed around before was accepting every trade the AI offered, since they only do so when they want to fleece you. But that's kinda no fun either. Bye, all my good young players!

[aston217]

An 8th 69/69 TE like that -- I'd say you should give up a 1st, especially if it's going to be a late 1st. Or two 2nds. With no draft picks back in return. Then the LB, keep or cut him.

[garion333]

Originally Posted by aston217

An 8th 69/69 TE like that -- I'd say you should give up a 1st, especially if it's going to be a late 1st. Or two 2nds. With no draft picks back in return. Then the LB, keep or cut him.

In his 8th year? I'd say no higher than a 2nd.

Then again, I don't really ever want to trade high picks for older players. Just isn't worth it most of the time.

[NoxMortem]

Originally Posted by garion333

In his 8th year? I'd say no higher than a 2nd.

Then again, I don't really ever want to trade high picks for older players. Just isn't worth it most of the time.

Could you explain why?

[stevew]

A rookie contract guy is 3-4 years of cheap value whereas a veteran of more than 7 or so years is a crapshoot and can fade fast.

Also not that it's like the NFL but player for pico trades can really be a stinker, especially if it's higher than a 4th.

[WebEwbank]

They key here seems to be context. The human needed the TE and the AI needed a LB. Generally trading youth for age is a losing game, but in this case it makes sense.

[aston217]

I don't consider age to be that important anymore. I mean aside from the handful of cornerstones, you really can't keep too many players around their entire careers. For the "Other 50", if you are getting a solid three years, that's good value. Of course, with an older player you might not get it -- but there's an element of risk there.

I mean, in 2k7 also, you could wreck it with any draft if you knew what you were doing. Now, what's the expected return on say, a late 1st or late 2nd? Maybe 25% of the time you hit paydirt, 50% of the time you get a useful player for 4 years, and the rest you just get a bust, for the 1st rounder. They're nice, but to get a near surefire, top-level asset, you should probably have to pay up.

Though it does hurt him that he's only a TE, and of course, it depends on where his skills are (particularly as a receiver. I'm not sure I see any TE, even the studs, make very much blocking impact...)

[redfox000]

Originally Posted by WebEwbank

They key here seems to be context. The human needed the TE and the AI needed a LB. Generally trading youth for age is a losing game, but in this case it makes sense.

If I trade youth for age and it nets me a SB win, I gage that as a success...even if it also means I suck for a couple years after that whereas with the youth I could stay good for longer but probably not win a SB.

[garion333]

Originally Posted by aston217

I don't consider age to be that important anymore. I mean aside from the handful of cornerstones, you really can't keep too many players around their entire careers. For the "Other 50", if you are getting a solid three years, that's good value. Of course, with an older player you might not get it -- but there's an element of risk there.

I mean, in 2k7 also, you could wreck it with any draft if you knew what you were doing. Now, what's the expected return on say, a late 1st or late 2nd? Maybe 25% of the time you hit paydirt, 50% of the time you get a useful player for 4 years, and the rest you just get a bust, for the 1st rounder. They're nice, but to get a near surefire, top-level asset, you should probably have to pay up.

Though it does hurt him that he's only a TE, and of course, it depends on where his skills are (particularly as a receiver. I'm not sure I see any TE, even the studs, make very much blocking impact...)

I still prefer younger players for two reasons:

(1) Cheaper contracts, generally, which may allow for a reasonable extension of a year or two at a good price.

(2) Cohesion. If you can keep them for 5 years that's better than the 3 you may get with an older player.

Of course, I also like to think that younger players have a chance of blowing up at any minute, but they really don't, usually.