How do I promote trades in my league? I'm a founding member of a group 10-14 players who just don't seem interested in trading. We've tried limiting waivier pickups to 15-20, which makes drafting a priority, but everyone seems either afraid of making a bad trade or just not doing the work. Any suggestions?

Trading is a problem in alot of leagues. What I've found amazing in my 16 years of playing fantasy is how people look at trades. Remarkably, most owners I've ever traded with or tried to trade with always take the "what does he know that I don't know?" approach. In other words, one owner is always trying to screw the other owner. Instead of just analyzing an offer and seeing how it betters or worstens his team, many owners just assume they'll lose out, unless they are the one initiating the offer. It seems silly, but I've seen it all too often.

One thing I instituted a few years back in one league was to allow trading of draft picks. It helped a little, but not as much as I thought it would.

Other than lazy owners, I think the problem with a lot of leagues, including the ones I'm in, is that ther are very few holes on anyone's team. Most (I hesitate to use that word) 12 team leagues start some combination of 4 RB's and WR's (2 and 2 or 1,2,1 flex . . .). It's just too easy to have a back-up and negates the need for a trade. I don't think it has anything to do with FA moves (unless you severely restrict it).

My untested solution would be to increase the starting requirements to deplete the FA pool. In a 12 teamer, I think something like 2 RB, 3 WR, and 1 flex would do it.

I agree with both Bullies and BuckeyeArt at least to some degree. Some owners, maybe even a lot, view an offered trade with skeptisism, afraid they don't see the real value. Some owners are lazy. I have a couple in a league I run that are so afraid of the computer or the site that all they know how to do is put in their starters. They have no idea how to run waivers or offer/accept trades. Stupid for me to even be in that league but I started it years ago and know most of the owners quite well.

You could even look at it a little different. Will more trading make your league better? Or is it just that you want to trade more and no one will? What is an acceptable amount of trades? Is it your format that lowers the amount of trades? Is it the owners you have in your league?

How is your league set up? Redraft? Keeper? Dynasty? Salary Cap?

A lot of things factor into whether a league is a "trade" league or not. Mostly I think it's the owners themselves. I've been in a few leagues for a while and depending on the change in ownership the amount of trades vary.

You can't do something like this in a redraft but allowing offseason trades can get owners in the mood for trading. The same can apply for allowing trading of draft picks.

Sometimes there is little you can do. Every league just like every owner kind of develops a personality over the years. The personality of your league just may be, little trading.

The most important point may be, Is your league competitive? If it is leave it alone. No league is perfect. If your league is competitive you're already above what a lot of leagues are.

Hey, thnks all. It is a pretty casulal redraft league so I think it really is a matter of owner indifference and fear. I was just wondering if I was missing something.

I tell you, with 14 teams this year, there is crap on waiviers.

quote:

Other than lazy owners, I think the problem with a lot of leagues, including the ones I'm in, is that ther are very few holes on anyone's team. Most (I hesitate to use that word) 12 team leagues start some combination of 4 RB's and WR's (2 and 2 or 1,2,1 flex . . .). It's just too easy to have a back-up and negates the need for a trade. I don't think it has anything to do with FA moves (unless you severely restrict it).

Buckeye, I've played in 8-man leagues for many years, and I can assure you that even in these small leagues, there are teams with holes that can't be filled by the waiver wire. Think about it. We have 8 teams with 14-man rosters (again, relatively small). That's 112 players drafted. Are there really 112 good, solid fantasy players in the NFL? No, not even close. So, I really don't think that affects trading all that much.

quote:

Originally posted by Bullies:
We have 8 teams with 14-man rosters (again, relatively small).

What does the average team look like (# of players at each position)?

Bullies, a "hole" is obviously relative to the talent being used. I agree with you in that there will always be holes no matter what format you use. But, it will be much easier to recognize by everyone when you dig deeper into the talent pool. Come on, in an 8 team, start 2 league, everyone is starting a #1 something.

When I look at someone else's team, it's very easy for me to spot what I perceive to be someone else's weakness. I guarantee my perception is not the same as that owner's perception. Here's an example I think you'll agree with. Take Chambers (or evn Chad Johnson). He is obviously a hole in an 8 team league (probably even in a 12 team). But, I think you'd have a hard time convincing someone that he represents a hole. Now look at a league with the parameters I suggested. The WR's being used (started) are Mason, Parker, and Moulds. It's a lot easier for someone to perceive them as holes, even if you're the one who drafted them.

While the relative values of the holes is the same between a shallow and a deep league, the names of the players in a deep league make it easier to view them as "holes".

quote:

Come on, in an 8 team, start 2 league, everyone is starting a #1 something.

And everyone is starting some #3 somethings and sometimes some #4 somethings. You just said above that it's all relative, and it is. So that fact alone should have nothing to do with affecting the number of trades each year in a given league. And the owners in my leagues don't trade on name recognition. They trade on facts.

It's far, far easier to part with a #3 or a #4 than a #1. I don't see how you could possibly argue differently. You may have 8 perfect owners with absolutely no attachments to any of their top draft picks but most leagues do not. The passion people have when discussing Chad Johnson or Chambers is much greater than with Eric Moulds. To suggest that emotion doesn't enter into the trade process is just a bit idealistic.

Apparently, we're not talking about the same thing.

I think we were but I'll reduce it.

1. Trades ideally should occur at the same frequency in both league types.

2. But, since people are more attached to their #1's, it is harder to make a deal work. How often have you heard someone say in this forum "but ***** is his #1 and he won't part with him"?. Routinely.

3. People are not as attached to #3's or #4's. If they are useful in a league, a trade may occur.

4. It is idealistic to think all owners think with only facts.

I do a lot of what I think of trolling...think fishing, not internet bad behviour...just throw out deals to see if I get a counter offer, and I've raded Wally Lundi twice this year. Once for Nate Burleson i week one...yuck, but now for G-men def. Interestingly, I've traded him twice to the same player.

That's great. We had a guy in our league who was infatuated with Westbrook the year before he was famous. He must have dropped and added him 4-5 times at $5 a pop. It got to the point where you could just say "Did you see the thing about Westbrook?" and he was back on his team. But, trading him twice, that's even better.