Big waiver wire day for many of us. Since Monday I've been engaging with opponents on trade possibilities. All of my players are on the table. They have to be, in my opinion. My opponents know this, or they soon learn it. I might want to sell high on Player A. But if an opponent would prefer Player B, then sure, let's talk about what Player B is worth to you.
Similarly, I want to give opponents the opportunity to tell me what they think of their players. I want Player C, and they also have Players D and E. "Which of these guys do you value most, and least?" This establishes how much our valuations are aligned. If they're most willing to part with Player E, and I'm least interested in Player E, then we can cut to the chase. "I'd rather have Player C or D. Which of my guys are you most interested in?"
Most of my trade discussions don't go anywhere. And they also don't have to go anywhere. With few exceptions, when I initiate a trade conversation, I'm not desperately trying to make something happen. There's someone on their team who I want, and I'm trying to gauge whether we can reach a win-win agreement. If not, all good, and the communication lines remain open for next time.
But occasionally, I'm eager, bordering on anxious. When that happens, sometimes I make good trades, and sometimes I make terrible trades. Because when I'm overly eager, I'm trying to close the deal. That might mean giving up a little more than I wanted. It's like wanting to bet on a team to cover the spread when they're favored by three points. Then when it's time to bet, the spread is six points. But by this point, you're so committed to the wager that you're willing to make a worse bet.
Yeah, that happens sometimes, and it's why I've found the best trades fill a hole for each team. Like I give up one of my extra RBs to someone who desperately needs a #2 RB, and in exchange I get a decent upgrade at QB (maybe a few extra points per game). Both of our outcomes are net-positive, at least based on lineups. My bench is a little thinner. But I'll probably score a little more most weeks, and hopefully so will my opponent.
One more thing: I always spell out my reasoning. There's no underhandedness. Like when Breece Hall got hurt, if you send an offer for Michael Carter, start off by saying, "Breece got hurt . . . looks bad . . . I'm willing to pay good value for Carter in case he Breece misses time." Or something like that. In most cases, managers are going to find out anyway. Better that this info comes from you than from the news--after they've seen your offer.
---
OK, so waivers. Here are a few thoughts on guys I think are overpriced and undervalued. After this week, I love Trevor Lawrence's schedule, and he's unrostered in nearly half of ESPN leagues. And Daniel Jones has five great matchups in his next seven games; he'll probably be heavily added today, for good reasons. On the flip side, in two-QB or very deep leagues, I'd be wary of paying much for Baiey Zappe or P.J. Walker. Some guys produce situationally. Sometimes they're exposed over time, especially if they're less experienced. Zappe and Walker seem like reaches.
At RB, beyond all the obvious guys, I warned last week (and really, all season) about not buying to the Isiah Pacheco hype. Still stands. I don't care of he's starting; he's not a reliable fantasy option, period. And I wouldn't overpay for Gus Edwards, for the same reason I didn't overpay for Kenyan Drake the week before. Baltimore has three capable backs. Edwards is a highly effective RB who doesn't get much work in the passing game. Beating up on Cleveland is great. His next two games in Tampa Bay and New Orleans probably won't be.
At WR, it's too late to jump on the Parris Campbell train. I'll write more about Sam Ehlinger later. For now, it seems clear (to me, for what it's worth) that every Colts receiver will take a hit.
At TE, Cade Otton. Again. As always. Otton-Otton-Otton for TE-desperate managers.
Similarly, I want to give opponents the opportunity to tell me what they think of their players. I want Player C, and they also have Players D and E. "Which of these guys do you value most, and least?" This establishes how much our valuations are aligned. If they're most willing to part with Player E, and I'm least interested in Player E, then we can cut to the chase. "I'd rather have Player C or D. Which of my guys are you most interested in?"
Most of my trade discussions don't go anywhere. And they also don't have to go anywhere. With few exceptions, when I initiate a trade conversation, I'm not desperately trying to make something happen. There's someone on their team who I want, and I'm trying to gauge whether we can reach a win-win agreement. If not, all good, and the communication lines remain open for next time.
But occasionally, I'm eager, bordering on anxious. When that happens, sometimes I make good trades, and sometimes I make terrible trades. Because when I'm overly eager, I'm trying to close the deal. That might mean giving up a little more than I wanted. It's like wanting to bet on a team to cover the spread when they're favored by three points. Then when it's time to bet, the spread is six points. But by this point, you're so committed to the wager that you're willing to make a worse bet.
Yeah, that happens sometimes, and it's why I've found the best trades fill a hole for each team. Like I give up one of my extra RBs to someone who desperately needs a #2 RB, and in exchange I get a decent upgrade at QB (maybe a few extra points per game). Both of our outcomes are net-positive, at least based on lineups. My bench is a little thinner. But I'll probably score a little more most weeks, and hopefully so will my opponent.
One more thing: I always spell out my reasoning. There's no underhandedness. Like when Breece Hall got hurt, if you send an offer for Michael Carter, start off by saying, "Breece got hurt . . . looks bad . . . I'm willing to pay good value for Carter in case he Breece misses time." Or something like that. In most cases, managers are going to find out anyway. Better that this info comes from you than from the news--after they've seen your offer.
---
OK, so waivers. Here are a few thoughts on guys I think are overpriced and undervalued. After this week, I love Trevor Lawrence's schedule, and he's unrostered in nearly half of ESPN leagues. And Daniel Jones has five great matchups in his next seven games; he'll probably be heavily added today, for good reasons. On the flip side, in two-QB or very deep leagues, I'd be wary of paying much for Baiey Zappe or P.J. Walker. Some guys produce situationally. Sometimes they're exposed over time, especially if they're less experienced. Zappe and Walker seem like reaches.
At RB, beyond all the obvious guys, I warned last week (and really, all season) about not buying to the Isiah Pacheco hype. Still stands. I don't care of he's starting; he's not a reliable fantasy option, period. And I wouldn't overpay for Gus Edwards, for the same reason I didn't overpay for Kenyan Drake the week before. Baltimore has three capable backs. Edwards is a highly effective RB who doesn't get much work in the passing game. Beating up on Cleveland is great. His next two games in Tampa Bay and New Orleans probably won't be.
At WR, it's too late to jump on the Parris Campbell train. I'll write more about Sam Ehlinger later. For now, it seems clear (to me, for what it's worth) that every Colts receiver will take a hit.
At TE, Cade Otton. Again. As always. Otton-Otton-Otton for TE-desperate managers.