Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Sean Mooney

Trade Offers- The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly

Recommended Posts

It's that time of the year where people panic and they start offering trades. Let's make this a warehouse for- not necessarily trade advice- but rather the trades that you are being offered.

So my 1 league (where I will start 1-0), starts 2 RB and 3 WR.

Someone has offered me Adam Thielen and Saquon Barkley for Brandon Aiyuk and Dalvin Cook. First off- I'm giving up the best player in the trade and wide receivers are easier to find on the waiver wire because of the passing numbers. I mean the top 5 receivers available on the WW are Sterling Shepard, Zach Pascal, Marvin Jones Jr, and Jaylen Waddle. The top RBs available are Eli Mitchell, Mark Ingram, and Kenneth Gainwell. Plus I have Landry and Boyd on my bench with my other 2 starters being Cooper Kupp and Stefon Diggs.

No need to panic on Aiyuk and certainly not at the cost of giving up Cook.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sean Mooney said:

No need to panic on Aiyuk

I dunno if trading Aiyuk for a known top 10 WR is really "panicking."

As for the RB trade... pick a knee, any knee...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's nothing wrong with Thielen, he's always solid.

Dalvin Cook and Barkley, I think that's a wash, when both are healthy.

Dalvin Cook certainly isn't a poster child for durability, but I think he's much better off than Barkley.

I wouldn't be surprised if Barkley never really gets going more than about 50% or so this season. Or if they were to shut him down if he has any sort of setback.

I guess the flipside is, he has chance of being as good a fantasy RB as there is, but I just don't see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, AxeElf said:

I dunno if trading Aiyuk for a known top 10 WR is really "panicking."

As for the RB trade... pick a knee, any knee...

 

The person offering the trade is clearly hoping I'm going to see Aiyuk getting nothing yesterday and just say "I want out." That's the panic part. 

For me- the league has a premium on running backs because there are 2 you start and tons of bench spots so guys stash running backs. I have Cook, Montgomery, Sermon, Drake, and Ty'Son Williams, with Mattison as my handcuff for Cook. To me if I trade Cook I'm getting a weaker top tier running back (and one I think is really down because of how bad that offensive line is in New York) and then it is Montgomery and trying to mix and match guys. As I'm at right now I have Cook and Montgomery as my starters and can mix in Drake and Williams as needed.

The trade numbers I ran have me losing 36 points over the course of the season if I make the trade. I'm not in for a week 1 trade like that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm out of the loop, but I think this trade is pretty close if you think Barkley comes on in the 2nd half. I'd personally stand pat, but I'd be tempted to check late/post season schedules if you're feeling frisky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sean Mooney said:

The person offering the trade is clearly hoping I'm going to see Aiyuk getting nothing yesterday and just say "I want out." That's the panic part. 

Yeah, but wanting out and accepting an upgrade are two different things.  One is panicking, the other is responsible management.

2 hours ago, Sean Mooney said:

The trade numbers I ran have me losing 36 points over the course of the season if I make the trade.

lol

Ok.

 

...but you realize the trade evaluator works from the same database as the draft evaluator, right?  (Just so you know it's worthless.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sean Mooney said:

It's that time of the year where people panic and they start offering trades. Let's make this a warehouse for- not necessarily trade advice- but rather the trades that you are being offered.

So my 1 league (where I will start 1-0), starts 2 RB and 3 WR.

Someone has offered me Adam Thielen and Saquon Barkley for Brandon Aiyuk and Dalvin Cook. First off- I'm giving up the best player in the trade and wide receivers are easier to find on the waiver wire because of the passing numbers. I mean the top 5 receivers available on the WW are Sterling Shepard, Zach Pascal, Marvin Jones Jr, and Jaylen Waddle. The top RBs available are Eli Mitchell, Mark Ingram, and Kenneth Gainwell. Plus I have Landry and Boyd on my bench with my other 2 starters being Cooper Kupp and Stefon Diggs.

No need to panic on Aiyuk and certainly not at the cost of giving up Cook.

This is not a bad offer.

if this is a keeper/dynasty its a pretty good offer.

Redraft not quite as good, but certainly  not an unreasonable offer.

I suspect Cook has more immediate value as he is currently 100% healthy.

in a keeper league, Barkley has more long term value.

I like Aiyuk a lot, but if you think Aiyuk is worth more than Thielen you dont make this deal.   In a keeper league Id have taken this deal.   Redraft league I may have made a counter to see if I could get him to sweeten it a bit.   but its definitely not a terrible offer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just offered Ridley for Jamaal Williams in one of my smaller leagues. Trade accepted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, DrG said:

I was just offered Ridley for Jamaal Williams in one of my smaller leagues. Trade accepted.

lol  Nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it’s a pretty good deal OP. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, DrG said:

I was just offered Ridley for Jamaal Williams in one of my smaller leagues. Trade accepted.

Holy fock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Sean Mooney said:

It's that time of the year where people panic and they start offering trades. Let's make this a warehouse for- not necessarily trade advice- but rather the trades that you are being offered.

So my 1 league (where I will start 1-0), starts 2 RB and 3 WR.

Someone has offered me Adam Thielen and Saquon Barkley for Brandon Aiyuk and Dalvin Cook. First off- I'm giving up the best player in the trade and wide receivers are easier to find on the waiver wire because of the passing numbers. I mean the top 5 receivers available on the WW are Sterling Shepard, Zach Pascal, Marvin Jones Jr, and Jaylen Waddle. The top RBs available are Eli Mitchell, Mark Ingram, and Kenneth Gainwell. Plus I have Landry and Boyd on my bench with my other 2 starters being Cooper Kupp and Stefon Diggs.

No need to panic on Aiyuk and certainly not at the cost of giving up Cook.

That's actually an offer I'd consider.  Thielen is better than Aiyuk.  I'm not so sure Cook is better than Barkley.  I would be hesitant to pull the trigger on this at this point, but after next week, I could definitely do this deal if I was a little more confident in Barkley's health.  I don't see why this would be a panic move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ray_T said:

This is not a bad offer.

if this is a keeper/dynasty its a pretty good offer.

Redraft not quite as good, but certainly  not an unreasonable offer.

I suspect Cook has more immediate value as he is currently 100% healthy.

in a keeper league, Barkley has more long term value.

I like Aiyuk a lot, but if you think Aiyuk is worth more than Thielen you dont make this deal.   In a keeper league Id have taken this deal.   Redraft league I may have made a counter to see if I could get him to sweeten it a bit.   but its definitely not a terrible offer.

It's a redraft. I didn't respond yet, but I'm kind of indifferent because I think Barkley's value is going to be lower this year and I'm comfortable with my options on my bench and the WW if I need to move on from Aiyuk.

To me the downgrade from Cook to Barkley is bigger than the upgrade from Aiyuk to Thielen. I could be totally wrong in a few weeks but I think the Aiyuk stuff was a bit of an aberration. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

That's actually an offer I'd consider.  Thielen is better than Aiyuk.  I'm not so sure Cook is better than Barkley.  I would be hesitant to pull the trigger on this at this point, but after next week, I could definitely do this deal if I was a little more confident in Barkley's health.  I don't see why this would be a panic move.

 

I'm saying panic in that I think my receivers on my bench in Landry and Boyd are fine subs if Aiyuk continues and I think the waiver wire is going to be filled with receivers because guys in this league tend to carry more RB's than WR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, AxeElf said:

Yeah, but wanting out and accepting an upgrade are two different things.  One is panicking, the other is responsible management.

lol

Ok.

 

...but you realize the trade evaluator works from the same database as the draft evaluator, right?  (Just so you know it's worthless.)

 

I have my own trade value/calculator tool I put together that I use. It's a compendium of data points and it's certainly not worthless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

 

I'm saying panic in that I think my receivers on my bench in Landry and Boyd are fine subs if Aiyuk continues and I think the waiver wire is going to be filled with receivers because guys in this league tend to carry more RB's than WR.

I don't see it that way.  Sure, guys like Landry and Boyd are "fine", but those guys (and Aiyuk), are mid-WR2's with a limited ceiling where as Thielen is a WR1.  I don't know that Cook is truly an upgrade over Barkley.  The only thing that's making Cook an upgrade at this very point in time, is that I'm not entirely sure Barkley is healthy.  If Barkley is healthy, I call the RB's a push.  So, give me the WR1 over the WR2 and I'll take the push at RB.  The worst case scenario is obviously that Barkley is never healthy and you're screwed, and I get that, but it's a clear upgrade at the WR position.  From the WR standpoint, there's no downside in this trade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

I don't see it that way.  Sure, guys like Landry and Boyd are "fine", but those guys (and Aiyuk), are mid-WR2's with a limited ceiling where as Thielen is a WR1.  I don't know that Cook is truly an upgrade over Barkley.  The only thing that's making Cook an upgrade at this very point in time, is that I'm not entirely sure Barkley is healthy.  If Barkley is healthy, I call the RB's a push.  So, give me the WR1 over the WR2 and I'll take the push at RB.  The worst case scenario is obviously that Barkley is never healthy and you're screwed, and I get that, but it's a clear upgrade at the WR position.  From the WR standpoint, there's no downside in this trade.

 

I can see that. Like I said- I'm far more down on Barkley than others I believe. Also, the Giants offensive line is junk. And again- some of it is cost of what I know is out there. We start 2 RB and 3 WR and there are 9 bench spots. Dudes tend to stash RB's more than WR's because the RB position is not nearly as deep. Last year I had Barkley and when he went down I was trying to mix and match all year long and chasing dudes off the waiver wire all year long. I think if they are both healthy the difference between the two is negligible. I think Thielen probably had his best game points wise of the season this past Sunday so I think is value is trending towards "Trading when the value is highest." 

Also, right now Barkley isn't healthy and I'd have him like a low end RB 2 right now. I'd be giving up an RB1 for a huge downgrade to get a receiver upgrade that I think I can manage in other ways. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

 

I can see that. Like I said- I'm far more down on Barkley than others I believe. Also, the Giants offensive line is junk. And again- some of it is cost of what I know is out there. We start 2 RB and 3 WR and there are 9 bench spots. Dudes tend to stash RB's more than WR's because the RB position is not nearly as deep. Last year I had Barkley and when he went down I was trying to mix and match all year long and chasing dudes off the waiver wire all year long. I think if they are both healthy the difference between the two is negligible. I think Thielen probably had his best game points wise of the season this past Sunday so I think is value is trending towards "Trading when the value is highest." 

Also, right now Barkley isn't healthy and I'd have him like a low end RB 2 right now. I'd be giving up an RB1 for a huge downgrade to get a receiver upgrade that I think I can manage in other ways. 

That's fine.  I guess the disagreement is on wording.  I don't see this as a "panic move", but more so a disagreement of value.  To me, a "panic move" would be trading Aiyuk for Melvin Gordon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

That's fine.  I guess the disagreement is on wording.  I don't see this as a "panic move", but more so a disagreement of value.  To me, a "panic move" would be trading Aiyuk for Melvin Gordon.

 

That would be catastrophic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

I think Thielen probably had his best game points wise of the season this past Sunday

If last year is any blueprint, he has 3 more 2-TD games and 2 more 30-point weeks coming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AxeElf said:

If last year is any blueprint, he has 3 more 2-TD games and 2 more 30-point weeks coming.

And if you go by 2019 he had his best game. New year, new you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, DrG said:

I was just offered Ridley for Jamaal Williams in one of my smaller leagues. Trade accepted.

😮

I guess there's no veto on trades?

I know Matt Ryan isn't what he used to be, but I don't think he's fallen quite that far, to where their top WR should be traded for the Lions back up RB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

And if you go by 2019 he had his best game. New year, new you. 

2020 would be a more relevant blueprint, since the major players are all the same from last year (Diggs was the other WR in 2019), and Thielen only played 10 games in 2019.

New information, new education.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sean Mooney said:

Also, the Giants offensive line is junk.

for the record, I dont disagree.  the line has been bad.

but when healthy, Barkley has produced behind this line since he got into the league.   they have made some offseason moves that I felt would help the line, but probably wouldnt yield results until partway through the season.  That being said, to me the only issue has been the health of Barkley.

coming back from ACL surgery.  Most RBs when they first come back the first thing that returns is the straightline speed.   the last thing to return is the ability to make a good, sharp cut.   When the Backs Confidence returns can vary.

they say it takes at least a year to come back from the injury, enter the lineup, and play.

its generally a year and a half to two years before you are as good as you were before (assuming no setbacks)

There are cases (ADP) where it has happened sooner, but that is the exception and not the rule.

we still dont know if you are in a redraft or a keeper league.   Like I said before.  in a keeper league I think Barkley holds a bit more long term value than Cook.(assuming good health) but in a redraft you want Cook as he is fully healthy today.

That being said, discounting for the injury, the upgrade from Aiyuk to Theilen makes up for the loss in value from Cook to Barkley (discounted for injury)

in a redraft you are only looking at immediate value, so the difference between Cook and Barkley (discounted for injury) is larger.   To that end, it becomes more a matter of preference because I think the offer is reasonable.

I'd probably keep the players I have in a redraft format or ask him to sweeten the offer a bit.

In a Keeper league, I'd still give consideration to taking the deal.   but from your perspective, the key point to focus on is how much risk you are willing to take.   I dont think the risk is as bad as you think because Cook does seem to get hurt nearly every year and misses games.  so hes not without injury risk either.

food for your thoughts.

either way, by the title of the thread I was expecting to see some wayyyy unreasonable offers.   While this may not be an offer you would accept, its not unreasonable.  I'd argue its fair market value. I dont know that you could do much better by shopping around.    

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ray_T said:

While this may not be an offer you would accept, its not unreasonable.

Yeah, this trade is more a matter of personal preference.  The stupid trade offers I get are more like Mooney+Michel+Darnold for CeeDee Lamb or something.  Yeah, like I want to cut two more players for the privilege of downgrading from Lamb to Mooney.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, AxeElf said:

Yeah, this trade is more a matter of personal preference.  The stupid trade offers I get are more like Mooney+Michel+Darnold for CeeDee Lamb or something.  Yeah, like I want to cut two more players for the privilege of downgrading from Lamb to Mooney.

That is the big mistake that is sometimes made in fantasy football.

When you do a 2 for 1 or 3 for 1 or 3 for 2 deal, its not actually what it appears.

if you acquire 3 players and only have to give up one, it is misleading.   because to make room for player 2 and 3, you need to dump 2 players from your active roster to make it work due to roster limits.

granted you are dumping (presumably) the 2 crappiest players you have, but you need to factor that in to the deal you are making.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, polecatt said:

😮

I guess there's no veto on trades?

I know Matt Ryan isn't what he used to be, but I don't think he's fallen quite that far, to where their top WR should be traded for the Lions back up RB

Veto's are a bad thing unless you have proof of something shady.  Peoples' opinions on players vary.  To veto a trade based on different opinions is a bad precedent.  Let's say both Williams and Ridley end up between 10 and 15.  If I needed an RB and Williams would have been a top 15 back for me, I'd be pretty pissed off that someone stopped me from getting him because they thought I was paying too much to get him.

Based on Week 1, there's no evidence that Williams is the "backup".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Veto's are a bad thing unless you have proof of something shady.  Peoples' opinions on players vary.  To veto a trade based on different opinions is a bad precedent.  Let's say both Williams and Ridley end up between 10 and 15.  If I needed an RB and Williams would have been a top 15 back for me, I'd be pretty pissed off that someone stopped me from getting him because they thought I was paying too much to get him.

Based on Week 1, there's no evidence that Williams is the "backup".

Well, Swift got more touches and had the better game, so I would say that makes him their top RB.

I agree though, I'm not a big fan of vetos on trades, but if it's a league with trade veto, then I think this one would certainly get a bit of scrutiny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, polecatt said:

Well, Swift got more touches and had the better game, so I would say that makes him their top RB.

I agree though, I'm not a big fan of vetos on trades, but if it's a league with trade veto, then I think this one would certainly get a bit of scrutiny

Williams started the game and got 3 carries before Swift got 1.  On the second drive, again, Williams started the drive and got more carries than Swift.  Game flow and large early deficit caused Swift to be in there faster and more often, but the game plan was for Williams to be used more in the running game.  There's nothing wrong with Swift, I just don't see one as the "starter" and the other as a "backup".  Williams had 17 touches, Swift had 19.  While I do think both could see 15 to 20... each, every game, I think both are viable options.  Detroit has terrible/unproven, WR's.  Both Williams and Swift had more targets than every WR.  I think that's a trend that will continue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, worth noting:  the Lions are not a great team.

They will be playing from behind for a fair portion of the season.  when that happens, the pass catching RB usually is more valuable than the first down RB who will get more carries. 

this is especially the case in PPR scoring

negative game scripts are good for pass catching RB's.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ray_T said:

either way, by the title of the thread I was expecting to see some wayyyy unreasonable offers.   While this may not be an offer you would accept, its not unreasonable.  I'd argue its fair market value. I dont know that you could do much better by shopping around.    

 

Oh I'm sure we will get to the crazy yet-

 

Hell a day in and someone got Calvin Ridley for Melvin Gordon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

This, is an example of a "panic" trade.

Nonsense.  Sanders for McLaurin isn't a completely lopsided offer, and he could use Sanders more than he could use McLaurin anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, AxeElf said:

Nonsense.  Sanders for McLaurin isn't a completely lopsided offer, and he could use Sanders more than he could use McLaurin anyway.

He's selling low.  That's a panic move.  McLaurin was a 2nd round pick with legit WR1 potential.  Sanders was a 4th round pick who may be a RB2.  WR1's are worth more than mid/low-end RB2's.  We know this because that's where they get drafted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

He's selling low.  That's a panic move.  McLaurin was a 2nd round pick with legit WR1 potential.  Sanders was a 4th round pick who may be a RB2.  WR1's are worth more than mid/low-end RB2's.  We know this because that's where they get drafted.

is it?

the player hes getting is more valuable to him.

its like if you have a bunch of really good RB's and no WR.  you care less about getting top dollar for your lowest ranked RB so long as you can fill the WR void.   because having that spot with nothing costs more than any gains you get from a good RB who sits on your bench.

you try to get good value, but when there are a limited number of buyers in a league, sometimes thats not easy.   RB's in general are harder to acquire than WR's as the season wears on and injuries happen.

so if he overpays nominally to get a RB he needs I dont think its a deal breaker.   as he waits and more RB's get hurt, the asking price will go up more often than not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Ray_T said:

is it?

the player hes getting is more valuable to him.

its like if you have a bunch of really good RB's and no WR.  you care less about getting top dollar for your lowest ranked RB so long as you can fill the WR void.   because having that spot with nothing costs more than any gains you get from a good RB who sits on your bench.

you try to get good value, but when there are a limited number of buyers in a league, sometimes thats not easy.   RB's in general are harder to acquire than WR's as the season wears on and injuries happen.

so if he overpays nominally to get a RB he needs I dont think its a deal breaker.   as he waits and more RB's get hurt, the asking price will go up more often than not.

He's selling low, period.  McLaurin's value is higher than Sanders'.  Meaning, he could/should, be able to get better.  If he can't, then he should trade Diontae Johnson, not McLaurin.  Johnson and Sanders are about equal.  So yes, it is a panic move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol no it’s not.  It’s the right move.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TBayXXXVII said:

McLaurin was a 2nd round pick with legit WR1 potential.  Sanders was a 4th round pick who may be a RB2.

Nonsense.

McLaurin has an ADP of 32.19--that's not even a 2nd round pick in a 16 team league--and he just lost the QB that was going to make him valuable this year.  Sanders' ADP is 38.48, and he scored 15.3 PPR points without a TD in Week 1.

Parenthetically, both players had 4 catches in Week 1; Sanders just had 15 rushing attempts at 4.9 ypc to boot.

It's an almost perfectly lateral move that fits his team needs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

He's selling low, period.  McLaurin's value is higher than Sanders'.  Meaning, he could/should, be able to get better.  If he can't, then he should trade Diontae Johnson, not McLaurin.  Johnson and Sanders are about equal.  So yes, it is a panic move.

I respectfully disagree.

When I looked at the fftoday preseason rankings, Sanders was projected to end the year with 152.6 fantasy points and Mclauren 151.2.

I realize there is more to this than just point totals but this would at least suggest we are in the ballpark.

and if you need a RB more than you need a WR, its likely the right move to make.

even if you feel your WR is worth more based on your own personal rankings.

sure you can recommend he tries to get more from the guy, but when the difference between 2 players is small and it fills an area of need you do the deal anyways.

I have personally found that WR's are infinitely more replaceable than RB's are.   late in the year, in any league starting 2 RB's good luck finding one who is starting on the wire unless there is an injury.

not the case with a WR.

the fact that this guy has a need at RB makes me think this deal makes sense on all fronts.  I'd do the deal if this was my team and I wouldnt waste time thinking about it because the other guy will have time to think too and could theoretically back out of it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×