17.02.2010, 17:35
Okay, I now understand your point. I would say that the value of a player is not defined by other trades, but by the value he brings to the teams involved. Every player has subjective value to the teams involved, often based on the position he plays, the strength of both teams involved, the past performances of the player, etc. What you consider a 3rd round pick I might consider a 1st, and vice versa. So Moreno+3rd for Edelman+1st is a trade I wouldn't do with my current roster, but for Rene and Thomas it made sense for them. Thomas was able to essentially trade Moreno+2nd for R. Rice+3rd ... a good trade on his part. However, if I was in possession of his roster I wouldn't have made EITHER trade. That's the subjective value coming into play.
From my estimate you accepted the best offer available. If you were steadfast in your stance that you wouldn't accept less than a 1st for Rice, then I think the deal you got was a fine deal for you. I'm guessing that had you accepted less for Rice you would've still gotten high picks (for instance, ask for a 2nd and offer a 5th+Rice), and the loss of return pick would've been easier for you to handle. Also, it was possible that you simply could have demanded a 2nd round pick straight for Rice. Return picks in a trade are nice to offer, but they're not required. Those are just two examples of how I would have continued negotiations, but I have no idea if you did or did not do the same.
I would tend to agree with the underlying point of Rene's post above. The value of Rice is subjective, and his position as a veteran RB is limiting compared to a rookie, thus the value is harder to collect on due to these limitations. For Rene's roster Moreno has more value than Rice, even for the same pick in the draft. For my roster Rice has less value than Maclin. In both examples we'd need to drop a quality keeper player in order to make room for Rice, and it's not smart to sacrifice a 1st round pick just to make a marginal improvement in keeper quality.
I understand the frustration. Seeing a #4 RB traded for less return on value than a top rookie RB is strange before each trade is dissected.
From my estimate you accepted the best offer available. If you were steadfast in your stance that you wouldn't accept less than a 1st for Rice, then I think the deal you got was a fine deal for you. I'm guessing that had you accepted less for Rice you would've still gotten high picks (for instance, ask for a 2nd and offer a 5th+Rice), and the loss of return pick would've been easier for you to handle. Also, it was possible that you simply could have demanded a 2nd round pick straight for Rice. Return picks in a trade are nice to offer, but they're not required. Those are just two examples of how I would have continued negotiations, but I have no idea if you did or did not do the same.
I would tend to agree with the underlying point of Rene's post above. The value of Rice is subjective, and his position as a veteran RB is limiting compared to a rookie, thus the value is harder to collect on due to these limitations. For Rene's roster Moreno has more value than Rice, even for the same pick in the draft. For my roster Rice has less value than Maclin. In both examples we'd need to drop a quality keeper player in order to make room for Rice, and it's not smart to sacrifice a 1st round pick just to make a marginal improvement in keeper quality.
I understand the frustration. Seeing a #4 RB traded for less return on value than a top rookie RB is strange before each trade is dissected.
Trophy Case
IDFL 2015, 2017, 2020
NSFF 2018, 2022