Longtime FF4W community member Blake Morrison asked a question a few days ago: How do we offer trades that benefit us, but which don't look like "I'm just offering a bad player for a good player"? Each season I try to write one column about fantasy trading, and Blake's question tees up this topic.
In game theory there's something called the "Ultimatum Game." Suppose there are two people: Person A and Person B. Person A gets $100 to split between her and Person B, and Person B knows this. Person A can propose any split she wants. But (1) she gets to make only one proposal to Person B, and (2) if Person B rejects the proposal, then both people get zero dollars.
So imagine Person A offers Person B $10, leaving her with $90. Research shows that in such circumstances, Person B typically will reject the offer, even though he's giving up free money. The point is not the money. The point is fairness.
And "fairness" in this game doesn't mean a 50-50 split. There's a sweet spot, which shifts depending on how the game is played, how much money's in the pot, what part of the world it's played (cultural factors), etc. In a podcast I listened to a couple years ago, 70-30 was a rough sweet spot, where Person B is willing to accept a smaller share as long as it's not (my words) "insulting."
In the fantasy world, I never want to insult my opponent. For example, in my 14-team Premier Fantasy Football League, I have Justin Herbert and last week added Gardner Minshew. Some of my opponents could really use a starting QB, because there are only scraps on waivers. But Minshew's getting ready to face a near-elite Browns defense that's yielding only 10.8 QB fantasy points per game -- fourth fewest in the league.
The fact is, Minshew's a longshot to score more than 15 points, at least in my opinion. I won't try to shop him as something he isn't. That could come across as insulting. Could I get a sub-par handcuff RB for him -- someone like Matt Breida? Probably. Could I get Breece Hall? Of course not. That would be like proposing I take $90 and leaving them $10.
So when does a 90-10 split narrow to 70-30 or even 60-40? When someone like Minshew has a big game, and/or when his schedule is soft enough for managers to invest in him. Or if I turned it into a 2-for-2 deal, where I hand over (for example) a meaningful WR upgrade. Then the focus isn't entirely on Minshew. We're each getting something in the deal: I get a (hopefully) weekly starting RB, and they get a stop-gap QB and a much better starting WR. If my opponent has four good RBs, all the better, because their overall weekly output should improve.
In fantasy, 90-10 doesn't work. And frankly, neither does 70-30 in most scenarios. I play for 55-45 if I'm operating from a position of strength, and 51-49 if I'm not. I want an edge, but it doesn't have to be much, and it certainly doesn't need to near-automatic. Both sides have to accept real risk.
So if you want a great player from an opponent, understand the trade from their perspective. If you're asking for Patrick Mahomes after one rough game, you better treat him as an elite QB. Otherwise the conversation could end before it starts. If you're asking for Tee Higgins amidst injury woes and poor performances, then you can (probably) comfortably lower his value ahead of negotiations. But don't lower it too much, unless your opponent is desperate for wins and is tired of waiting for Higgins to come around.
If a 1-5 opponent has Justin Fields and no backup QB, you have more leverage to offer your backup (as long as he's better than any QB on waivers). But if your opponent with Fields is 5-1, don't fool yourself into thinking you can pry away a weekly starter for, say, Derek Carr.
If you've traded for a great player this year, would be great to hear how you did it. Did you make the offer, did they, or was it more of a conversation that led to a deal?