There's a lot of really strong dynasty analysis out there, especially when compared to five or ten years ago. But most of it is so dang practical-- Player X is undervalued, Player Y's workload is troubling, the market at this position is irrational, and take this specific action to win your league. Dynasty, in Theory is meant as a corrective, offering insights and takeaways into the strategic and structural nature of the game that might not lead to an immediate benefit but which should help us become better players over time.

Short-Term Pain for Long-Term Gain

Three weeks ago, I wrote about how complicated models tend to outperform simple heuristics (or rules of thumb) in environments with low uncertainty, but as uncertainty increases, that observation tends to flip. Two weeks ago, I gave two such heuristics that to maximize value in rookie drafts, and then last week, I talked about how maximizing value (instead of chasing wins) was the most sustainable path to long-term success in dynasty.

This week we continue our series on heuristics and value with what is arguably the simplest— and also the hardest— rule in my repertoire. I mentioned last week that a good heuristic is like a slogan, and if it takes more than 10 words to explain, you probably need to work on distilling down the concepts a bit more. I had a rule that I played around with for years but could never get successfully "sloganified". That rule was some variation on "always be willing to trade non-core assets for future firsts". I know— catchy, right?

This illustrates the importance of getting concepts stripped down to their core. That rule of thumb isn't especially helpful because it never explains what counts as a "non-core asset". Does it vary from team to team? Inevitably there will come a point when doing the right thing is hard, and if there's wiggle room, we're liable to convince ourselves that it isn't the right thing after all so that we don't have to do it. Maybe that "non-core asset" is actually a "core asset", and we can justify hanging on to him.

Fortunately, a few years back, when I was talking about this rule, someone suggested the perfect distillation to me: "Flexes for Firsts". Always be willing to trade your flex starters for other teams' first-round picks.

A Spoonful of Sugar Helps the Medicine Go Down

If a player is starting every week for you, he's critical to your team's success, and it's hard to imagine parting with him. If he's never starting for you, it's much easier to trade him for fair value when the time comes because your team doesn't feel any short-term pain.

Players who are seeing regular time in your flex spot typically feel like every-week starters. If you traded them, it would feel like you're taking points out of your weekly lineup, and that's painful. But in practice, they're more like the latter; flex production is easier to replace (because, by definition, you can draw from a replacement pool at multiple positions), and it's also typically less valuable (since your highest-producing players are "starters", so your "flex" players are giving less of a positional edge).

I mentioned last week that instead of "win-now" trades, contending teams should be more willing to make the opposite— trades where they take a short-term production hit for a long-term value gain. "Flexes for firsts" gives a useful framework for finding those trades.

Like all simplifications, there's more nuance to it than the slogan would imply. For instance, in superflex leagues, your second quarterback is a "starter", not a "flex". (Superflex is functionally a 2-quarterback league that allows you to still get some points from your second quarterback slot if you wind up with severe trouble from injuries or byes.) Similarly, if that "flex" is the 21-year-old receiver you just took with the 3rd pick in the rookie draft, don't immediately turn around and trade him for a late first-round pick in next year's draft.

But if a player is primarily seeing your lineup through your flex spot, and if that player is older, or his production is generally considered to be a result of his situation rather than his talent, you should probably trade him for future rookie picks. (Remember: situation changes faster than talent does, so today's middling player in a great situation is tomorrow's backup after the team spends a high rookie pick on his replacement.)

Even if your league doesn't have flex spots, "flexes for firsts" can still apply. Is a player only cracking your starting lineup infrequently, perhaps as a bye-week or injury replacement? Then he's a "flex". Is he starting weekly but barely outscoring the guy behind him? Then he's a "flex".

As a useful exercise, I like to imagine my team in two or three years. Do I envision this player being in my starting lineup? If not, it's probably time to get what value I can for him.

What Kinds of Trades Are We Talking About?

I don't want to undersell how hard this can be. Taking points out of your weekly lineup always feels bad. But some of the most ridiculous-looking trades I've seen as a dynasty manager have been "flexes for firsts" type trades. With the benefit of hindsight, it's hard to remember why they ever looked fair, to begin with, but I assure you they did simply because the promise of points in the lineup is so seductive.