Trade Tactics...

[blayze]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Pengwin7]

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?

No - it doesn't contradict anything I've said.

Let's look at this from the vantage points of being asked:
Like FHG said... why would I want to trade away MY (Datsyuk)?
If I don't want to move him, I'll ask for the moon. I'm only trading him if I get the moon. Say a 10.0 player (Malkin).
If I do want to move him, I'll ask for something above-reasonable, because I'm interested. Say a 9.0 player (Eberle).

Let's look at this from the vantage point of me asking:
If he responds with something ridiculously high (Malkin), then he's wasting my time and I am nowhere near a trade.
If he responds with something sort of high (Eberle), I'll take that offer and try negotiating for something a bit lower than Eberle.

Again... at least it's a start.
At least there are two players on the table, one furnished from each side.
Negotiation.

[havanablast21]

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...

You'll ask for the Moon in return? Doesn't that challenge you entire point? If you're asking for "THE MOON" then really how is that a Starting point. I expect you asking for "THE MOON" means you're not expecting the other guy to bite. PLUS...if "THE MOON" insinuates that you, yourself, don't consider your counter to be REAL...then do you really have a true counter on the table to discuss?"

I guess I just can't wrap my head around this logic. But I'm sure if it's worked for you, then it's an art you've mastered.

[Pengwin7]

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?

You wouldn't do this?
And you are complaining about somebody being "lazy"?

[fantasyhockeygeek]

Yeah, they're being lazy.

I have no interest in making a deal - why would I do work?
They have an interest in making a deal - they should do work to accomplish it.

If they succeed in getting me interested, then I'll do work. But why would I embark on a bunch of effort if I have yet to have any interest in embarking on effort? I wouldn't!

[Pengwin7]

You'll ask for the Moon in return? Doesn't that challenge you entire point? If you're asking for "THE MOON" then really how is that a Starting point. I expect you asking for "THE MOON" means you're not expecting the other guy to bite. PLUS...if "THE MOON" insinuates that you, yourself, don't consider your counter to be REAL...then do you really have a true counter on the table to discuss?"

There are 4 viewpoints on this issue... and the problem is that many of us are only looking at one... or only discussing one.

You have to put yourself in 4 sets of shoes:
1a) I asked for his player, he's not interested unless the offer is insane "the moon".
1b) I asked for his player, he's interested but will still ask for something "high" (moon-ish).

2a) You asked me for my player, but I'm not interested. I'll counter with "the moon".
2b) You asked me for my player, I'm sort of interested... but I'm still going to counter high (moon-ish).


The BIG problem here is that you guys CONTINUE to comment on my trade tactic from only one side... "getting the offer". Not everybody is like you guys... some people (like me... and all the other guys in my leagues) will actually respond when people say "I'm interested in ____, what would you want in return"?

Clear or no?

[Pengwin7]

Yeah, they're being lazy.

I have no interest in making a deal - why would I do work?
They have an interest in making a deal - they should do work to accomplish it.

If they succeed in getting me interested, then I'll do work. But why would I embark on a bunch of effort if I have yet to have any interest in embarking on effort? I wouldn't!

And I guess the girls come to you?
Must be nice.

[fantasyhockeygeek]

No, they don't! I'm a fantasyhockeygeek!

If I'm the GM with the desirable asset, I'm the pretty girl. You wanna dance? You buy me a drink!

If I'm interested in getting a dance with the pretty girl, I ask her what she's drinking instead of assuming I know her tastes.

[Pengwin7]

No, they don't! I'm a fantasyhockeygeek!

If I'm the GM with the desirable asset, I'm the pretty girl. You wanna dance? You buy me a drink!

If I'm interested in getting a dance with the pretty girl, I ask her what she's drinking instead of assuming I know her tastes.

Another point where we differ.
I'm always the man in the negotiation.
I'll tell you what I want.

[fantasyhockeygeek]

Another point where we differ.
I'm always the man in the negotiation.
I'll tell you what I want.

And that's why you don't "consummate the deal" as often (by your own admission) - you're only focused on your needs. Typical man. :P

[gainerama]

All very good points from all of you. From my experience, I always end up over paying because there's always one piece from his side that's worth paying a lot for. I need the other guy to PERCEIVE that he's getting the upper hand on me, otherwise he won't deal. I just find that if both parties end up with a deal that breaks even in value or washes out, then there's no incentive to make an offer in the first place. Over paying and forcing the accept will save a lot of time in most cases.