Trade Tactics... - Page 5 - Fantasy Sports Forums

One87 · #41 01-10-2013, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hybrid

I totally agree with this. If I want someone from another team, I make sure I spend some time on it and look at his situation and see what he needs. This is invaluable in trading and it makes you much more approachable for the next deal. They know you spend time on them and aren't just killing time. Nothing frustrates me more than overly shrewd negotiating and someone that always wants you to the spend the time to put a deal together for him. I don't typically deal with these guys Unless I have no choice.

Credibility with your trades is the most important thing you can do. If you go for the homerun on every deal, pretty soon nobody will trade with you.

Oh, and I firmly believe you HAVE to lose deals once in a while. Whether its in one of the methods above or just because you had to have someone due to injuries or due to an all in play to win the league.

I can respect that, doing your diligence before wasting someone else's time. But have you not experienced a time or two, when you looked a GM's roster and figured out what appears to be obvious needs to you only to have the trade rejected? It does happen.

fantasyhockeygeek · #42 01-10-2013, 02:29 PM

Your view is based on the assumption that we share common valuation principles and hold the players in the same value. That assumption is bunk.

No, I'm saying "don't waste my time with bs low offers that aren't going to go anywhere. If you're not prepared to step up and pay, where is my motivation to deal? Demonstrate from the start that you're serious about acquiring the player from me."

When someone approaches about a deal, I am not yet interested in dealing my player. You want Malkin, you find a way to meet my needs. I'm letting you know how you blow me away.

Again, tell me why, as an owner of Player X, I would go over to their roster, do homework on their players and figure out if I'm interested? As of yet I have no interest in dishing my player -- it is entirely incumbent on the other GM to generate that interest.

grindin griers · #43 01-10-2013, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pengwin7

REALLY LOW,
then SORTA LOW,
then STILL LOW
then he says "Well, what the heck do you want... why don't you just tell me?"

Then you tell him.
Then he says, "No, too high... why didn't you just tell me what you wanted in the beginning?"

Negotitation: Discussion from two directions... not one.

Kind of sounds like how the CBA negotiations went

Pengwin7 · #44 01-10-2013, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fantasyhockeygeek

You want Malkin, you find a way to meet my needs. I'm letting you know how you blow me away.

Your view is based on the assumption that we share common valuation principles and hold the players in the same value. That assumption is bunk.

Well... I suppose it's a difference in negotiations.
I do a lot of compromising in my life.
I don't expect somebody to figure out what I need.
I'll tell them what I need.
I get right to a solution.

havanablast21 · #45 01-10-2013, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by One87

I can respect that, doing your diligence before wasting someone else's time. But have you not experienced a time or two, when you looked a GM's roster and figured out what appears to be obvious needs to you only to have the trade rejected? It does happen.

True...but I'd argue that in many cases...a trade is rejected because:
A) You don't really have an attractive piece to offer him back, regardless of needs.
B) He doesn't want to part with the player you are trying to acquire period!
C) He doesn't want to deal with a particular GM (personal reasons I like to call Burke vs Lowe Factor).

blayze · #46 01-10-2013, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pengwin7

Are you really saying you do NOT do this in your own trade negotiations?
You FORCE the other guy to offer you a player?

Force is a strong word, but in a nutshell yes.

What if the other guy is so horny for your player (he did approach you after all, and not the other way around), that he is willing to pay you more than you're willing to accept? Why would I give up my position and leave that extra value on the table?

It's no different than Poker. Why should I have to show my hand first? You want to see my hand? Then pay up.

Pengwin7 · #47 01-10-2013, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blayze

What if the other guy is so horny for your player (he did approach you after all, and not the other way around), that he is willing to pay you more than you're willing to accept? Why would I give up my position and leave that extra value on the table?

Again... this is just wasting time for him to come to you.
Any time somebody asks on a player I own, I assume they're "horny for that player".

I'll ask for the moon in return.

At least I give them a starting point.
Now we at least have two players on the table to discuss.

If they don't like it, they walk... and I haven't wasted their time.
If they think it's close, we'll negotiate.
At least my counter gets somewhere...

fulcrum · #48 01-10-2013, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by One87

I can respect that, doing your diligence before wasting someone else's time. But have you not experienced a time or two, when you looked a GM's roster and figured out what appears to be obvious needs to you only to have the trade rejected? It does happen.

Oh for sure it has happened. And you are likely right, they have no interest in trading that guy regardless of what I did. So your approach would have saved you a lot of time.

But I still prefer to err that way. Mostly because of how I feel about it when someone sends me a well thought out offer. I respect that GM because it was his time spent on it, not mine and he was the guy that initiated it. And that tells me he is a good trade partner down the road.

That's how I want to be received when I make an offer.

blayze · #49 01-10-2013, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pengwin7

Any time somebody asks on a player I own, I assume they're "horny for that player".

I'll ask for the moon in return.

So... if someone asks you what it takes for a player that you own, you'll "ask for the moon in return".

Uhm... doesn't this contradict everything you've been saying?

Also you may want to reconsider asking for the moon - you should definitely come back strong (because you know they're desperate), but the moon is hardly a reasonable "starting point". That's how deals die before they start.

fantasyhockeygeek · #50 01-10-2013, 02:39 PM

P7, I think you're right, but only once mutual interest in making a deal is established.

Again, tell me why, as an owner of Player X, I would go over to their roster, do homework on their players and figure out if I'm interested? As of yet I have no interest in dishing my player -- it is entirely incumbent on the other GM to generate that interest.

Your approach assumes that the trade is going to be consummated purely on the basis of player valuation. For me, player valuation is a secondary concern in pursuing trades.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Fantasy Ranking

Login Form