alt

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Download the Roto PDF here.


For obvious reasons, there are only slight tweaks to November’s Top 100 Roto. However, following the rankings is the newest chapter to the Trade Fever series. The ninth entry is built on last month’s idea of knowing your roots and assessing hidden value. Other topics include a range of management decisions through three examples, as well as ways to challenge yourself.  



As always
, the Trade Fever series aims at helping poolies become better fantasy GMs. If you are new to the game, or looking to join a keeper league, take note. As for the most seasoned of veterans, use it as a refresher course. Little nuggets of information may leave you to think differently about certain situations when challenged at the trade table


Download the Roto PDF here.


Write comment
Comments (3)add comment

GMGates said:

GMGates
... I'll be happy to elaborate on both comments this evening. Stay tuned.
November 21, 2012
Votes: +0

canada said:

canada
... @toughmudder I think the point was not so much that you would only make the trade if you get the same return but that rashly trading Luongo away at a low point doesn't necessarily make sense. He was once worth Quick and there is still a potential that he returns to that.

Then again I could be reading it completely wrong.

Either way it isn't written clearly.
November 21, 2012
Votes: +0

toughmudder said:

wally1
... So much of the advice given in this guide makes no sense whatsoever.

You used the following example:
X trades away Jon Quick for Luongo. At the time, the two goalies were of similar calibre, but since the trade Quick has become worth significantly more. You then say that you shouldn't trade Luongo away without considering that he "used to be" Quick. And as such, you shouldn't trade Luongo away unless he would get you the same return as Quick would.

I quote:
"While trading a starting goalie for forward depth is fine - depending on the situation - GM Y must have
realized at the trade table that the initial asset (Luongo) was once Quick. Would the deal above still have
happened if it was Quick involved rather than Luongo? Probably not."

This is a ridiculous way of thinking.

Better advice would be:
-Consider sunk costs. In other words, if you make a bad trade, accept it...and move on.

If someone traded Karlsson for Filatov 5 years ago, should the owner of Filatov only accept an offer that would get the same return as Karlsson? Of course not, it is completely unrealistic and will only result in your team not making the moves that would actually benefit it going forward.

November 21, 2012
Votes: +0
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.

busy