Our FP guys give some fair trade values for off season and future.
A top three pick is worth more than all RBs after #8 and all WRs after # 10.
This is debatable with Robinson but pretty much realistic.
This is a fair chart to evaluate players (Ed), determine a fair trade (Ed), and make a good offer to another to another manager (Ed). 
I’m using that tool for years already. It may even have been the feature that drew me to FantasyPros, back in the days of Mike Tagliere.
They made a few changes over the years, like introducing separate values for QBs in 1QB and SFLEX leagues (something I’ve been heavily lobbying for).
But many things never changed, which is a good thing: there’s always the same number of players for each position. There are no big moves in values just because a player had a few good or bad games. And…
The value of draft picks isn’t being adjusted because of expectations to a specific rookie class.
I’m fairly sure that, in the first DTVC after the NFL draft, the top 10 rookies will show more total value than the current top 10 picks. Which is fine for me, because you never know how your rookie draft will turn out.
In SFLEX leagues, you never know if the first picks go RB or QB. In terms of pure trade value, the 1.03 may net you more value than the 1.01. Team needs are an important factor here.
I agree that it is a great tool, and I use it myself a ton.
Still, I would strongly recommend to use it with caution. Couple examples:
In an SFLEX league, you trade away Daniel Jones (45) to acquire Austin Ekeler (55). Great trade, right? You gained 10 points of trade value.
But what if Jones was your only QB, while you also have Breece Hall and Travis Etienne on your roster? Still a great trade?
Then, and this is one of my pet peeves: you trade away Breece Hall (64), and in return, you get Antonio Gibson (31), Michael Carter (13) and Jerry Jeudy (34). Great trade, right? You gave up a value of 64 and got a value of 78 in return. Smashed it.
Sadly, nope. You traded away an RB1 for years to come (provided he can stay healthy), a player you can start every week he’s active, for 3 roster fillers who, worst case, will all not be startable anymore in the future.
I’d call this a terrible trade for the team that gave up Hall. You don’t trade elite players away for a bunch of bench fillers, even if their trade values add up to the same amount. You just don’t.
Finally, imagine this scenario: your team is up for a full rebuild. You won’t be a contender next year, probably not even the next 2 seasons. The owner of Austin Ekeler (55) offers him to you for the 2023 1.10 in an SFLEX league (40-ish). Great value, right?
Wrong again. The 2023 class is loaded with talent on every position. In your SFLEX league, 7 of the first 9 picks could be QBs and RBs. Which means you will get a top 3 WR off the board with that pick. In previous years in my league, that pick could have netted you players like Ja’Marr Chase, CeeDee Lamb, Justin Jefferson or Deebo Samuel.
Players that can carry your team for years to come. And you gave such a player away for an RB who will definitely have fallen off the age cliff by the time your team is back in shape. You wasted value and slowed your rebuild process. That was not a good trade for your team, despite the seemingly positive value.
The DTVC is a great tool to get a rough idea of how much players are worth. But it cannot cover 3 key aspects you should be aware of when making a trade:
- Does this trade improve my starting lineup, or does it create roster gaps?
- Do I get back players from the same tier than the ones I trade away?
- Does the player I trade for fit my roster strategy for the upcoming season and beyond?
The Ekeler trade I mentioned would be a whole different deal if you are in a win-now situation and all you need is another strong RB. Then it can make sense to pawn off a potentially great future WR for an ageing player who might have one more great season in him and help you win that trophy.
As long as you remember all the time that a trade isn’t great just because the DTVC tells you you gain X points in value, it’s a great tool. But only then.
2 Likes
Good post, I cannot comment on Superflex as not knowing enough (by choice).
As you say, this is a guideline, not gospel and is a great help to establish a player’s value to a degree. You may choose to speculate higher or lower and be spot on. It is still a VG tool to have over trade simulators. etc,
1 Like
I do use it, and still you reject my trades. It’s not my fault you think your roster is filled with 1st round picks…
You may read it but certainly do not use it, based on me seeing y ou offer players tanked 30 and 40 spots lower with saying you want to make a silly offer to negotiate further. Three other managers have called your offer ridiculous and complained.
Trix are for kids, NOT vet managers knowing better. JMO & others…
I’ve given you (and others) offers that were unfair to me, and got rejected. So don’t even start with the whining over my trade offers. I doubt you even check the trade chart. You just assume the offer is bad, because it’s me.
As for “others”, I’ll let them complain directly to me, rather than hiding under your skirt.
Personally, if I traded like you want me to, I’d end up in the cellar. Sorry if I’m not the gullible fool you want me to be. Maybe you can trade with this guy?
Ed, part of the job of being commissioner is dealing with complaints. Tell me which offer was unfair to you?
I’ve made 5-6 trades last season. Show me any that were not fair and anyone who was gullible.
You ignore my mention of offering players ranked 30-40 spots lower and the only one you kept asking for was AJ Brown
All true stories.
I don’t remember every offer I make, and there’s no way to track rejected trade offers. And you got a complaint about somebody having to reject a trade offer? Oh cry me a river. Tell little Mary Sunshine to get over herself. If getting a bad trade offer is the worst thing that happens to you in fantasy season, you’re doing great. Just decline the trade and move on. Or better yet, use the trade offer to come up with your own counter-offer, that is equally insulting.
Personally, I love trade offers, even bad ones. At the very least, it means I have something that somebody else wants. Exactly what is bad in that?
You are correct. Most of your trades were bad ones for you. I already showed this in another thread. You get taken to the bank by others, and then you blame me for wanting to stiff you? I wonder why that is…
Others just called the offers annoying or a waste of time, not a big deal.
I made one bad trade in Jacobs for Akers but, Akers came on the last 5=6 games to out perform Jacobs. Show me another?
I’ve already shown you on another thread. I’m not doing the research again just because you conveniently forget uncomfortable truths.
Not at all. I traded Mike Williams for a 5th, Pickens for a 4th, Hollywood for Kirk and then Jameson with Kirk for a top 1st rounder.
I recall wanting Stevenson early before he was Pats top RB and made a fair offer. Your counter was AJ Brown who was ranked #28 at the time. Stevenson was #84. From our front page 2022.
Admittedly, Brown is/was worth more. But that was all you had that was comparable to Stevenson, who was RB11. You needed to work up a more complex deal that would have sold me. You didn’t. You just cried and went off in a huff.
At the time he was RB32 and it was a silly counter, Next you said you were thinking of dropping Pitts who was on IR after doing nothing. I said I might be interested but not gonna offer a lot. Your reply was again wanting AJ.
I have no idea why you like to argue so much as you are so bad at it.
Aww I’m so hurt! I think I’ll go off an cry now. Boohoo…
Seriously, do you need some cheese with your whine?
edmcgonRegular
Aww I’m so hurt! I think I’ll go off an cry now. Boohoo…
Seriously, do you need some cheese with your whine?
Damn, this brings back high school from many years ago with the whine and cheese. It was boring then let alone now, and you’ve used it twice. Have you been living in a vacuum?
Giving me the “I’m rubber you’re glue” treatment? How quaint.
OMG, an Ed Van Winkle. LOL