Dear Mr. Fantasy: When to trade untouchables

Do you have a question? Send your thoughts to DMFantasyFootball@cbs.com and we'll address as many as we can. Put Attn: Dear Mr. Fantasy in the subject field. Include your name, hometown and state.

Fantasy Football, more than any other Fantasy sport, has its untouchables.

You know what I'm talking about -- those players, most often running backs, who have so much value to their owners that they'll never, no matter what the circumstances, get traded.

And for good reason. With only a handful of stud running backs available across the league -- not even enough to fill a full round, really -- Fantasy owners live and die by their untouchables. They quite literally go untouched -- not just on the trading block, but in the starting lineup as well. Aside from its bye week, you'll never find an untouchable on the bench or in a flex spot. Its status never changes.

If you drafted Aaron Rodgers as your backup, you are dealing from a position of strength. (Getty Images)

Most teams have only one. Some have none. None have two, barring a miracle on Draft Day, because they never have a chance to acquire another. By drafting an untouchable, a team assumes an identity, and by trading its identity, a team admits defeat.

So you can't expect to land an untouchable with simply another untouchable or two near-untouchables. No, to land an untouchable, you have to do something a bit more drastic ...

I traded Peyton Manning, Roy Williams and Jamal Lewis for Marion Barber. I received a lot of flak from my league saying I gave away too much for Barber. I made Aaron Rodgers my starting quarterback and picked up Matt Cassel from waivers as my backup. I'm very happy with the trade. What do you think? -- Pete Sampogna, Dayton, Ohio

SW: I like the move, Pete -- well, I did before the Lions traded Williams to the Cowboys. It looks a little worse now than it did at the time you made it, but I still salute your way of thinking.

You landed an untouchable without crippling your team in the process. You still have a top-five quarterback to fill in for Manning, so you won't miss him, and you won't miss Williams considering he hasn't done anything for you so far.

If you have enough depth -- and I can only assume you do -- you can afford to make a trade like this one. Because your leaguemates are right: You "lost" this trade. You gave up more than you got. But by utilizing excess players to acquire a second untouchable, you improved the only part of your team that matters on a week-to-week basis -- the starting lineup.

To coax a team into surrendering an untouchable, you have to do exactly what you did: overwhelm it with an offer so good that you technically lose, but without giving up anything you can't replace. You leave yourself vulnerable to injury, yes, but if you want a team that can steamroll the rest of the league en route to a 12-2 record and an easy playoff run, you have to take such risks.

Well done, sir. Let the insults roll right off you.

I just received a trade offer, and I am wondering if this makes sense. I would get Ronnie Brown and either Chad Johnson or Donald Driver for Reggie Wayne and Earnest Graham. Does this seem like a good trade to you? -- Anthony Wilson, Toledo, Ohio

SW: Not to me, Anthony, and the decision only somewhat hinges on how long the Buccaneers plan to use Graham at fullback. To me, Reggie Wayne and Ronnie Brown have about the same value, only you could more definitely call Wayne an elite player at his position than you could Brown at his. Also, assuming Graham returns to his 15 carries per game -- and his 5.6 yards-per-carry average suggests he has to -- his value so far exceeds Johnson's or Driver's that I wonder why you'd even consider this deal in the first place. It ultimately breaks down to you giving up a No. 1 wide receiver and a No. 2 running back for a borderline No. 1 running back and your choice of two borderline rosterable players. And if anything, acquiring Johnson or Driver would almost handcuff you because their upside prevents you from releasing them. Nah, I wouldn't do it.

I have a lineup dilemma for Week 7. My running backs are Adrian Peterson vs. Chicago, Thomas Jones vs. Oakland, Steve Slaton vs. Detroit and Chris Johnson vs. Kansas City. I have to start two of them. Peterson is a lock, but I can't figure out who to put as my No. 2. Jones is coming off a big week, but Slaton and Johnson have great matchups. What's your opinion? -- Kevin Faber

SW: I agree you have to stick with Peterson no matter what. He could blow up with three touchdowns against anybody, and if you end up missing your first-round pick's best game of the year, someone might accuse you of sabotage. Unfortunately, sticking with Peterson leaves you with a tough, tough decision. You can eliminate Jones right off the bat because one good game doesn't move him into the same category as Slaton and Johnson -- two clear No. 2 Fantasy running backs. Both have ridiculously easy matchups, so you kind of just have to go with your gut. I lean toward Slaton here because his big games have come more recently and I think he has a better chance of making an impact in the passing game. But if you have a better feeling about Johnson, I wouldn't blame you for starting him instead.

I've received a trade offer of Drew Brees for Jay Cutler (I'd be receiving Brees). Would you make this trade? -- Dan Martinez, Orange, Calif.

SW: By now, I think we have to consider Brees the clear No. 1 quarterback in Fantasy Football. I'd rank Cutler second, but a distant second because you could make a case for more quarterbacks over him at No. 2 than over Brees at No. 1. The deal makes sense, and you have to agree to it. For the record, though, I generally shy away from these not-broke-but-I'll-fix-it-anyway deals because the very act of making them tempts fate to injure your new, almost-equitable acquisition. If you trade Cutler for, say, Marshawn Lynch, and Lynch gets hurt, you can live with it because you obviously had a need to fill. But if you trade Cutler, an elite quarterback, for Brees, another elite quarterback, and Brees gets hurt, you feel more than a little stupid. I know from experience. Sure, you might call me superstitious and say I could just as easily end up kicking myself for not making the deal when my player gets hurt, but it never seems to work out that way. Don't get me wrong, though: I'm not trying to discourage you from making the deal, Dan. I'm just saying I'll have some sleepless nights on your behalf.

I have questions at running back and wide receiver this week. I play in a points-per-reception league. I have LaDainian Tomlinson, Ronnie Brown, Chris Johnson and Willis McGahee and am wondering who to start. I find it hard to bench Tomlinson ever, and Johnson's matchup vs. Brown's is making me lean toward Johnson. I also have Hines Ward, Wes Welker and Marques Colston. Do I immediately get Colston back in or go with Welker and Ward? And while I'm at it, I plan on starting Aaron Rodgers at quarterback, but I also have Derek Anderson, so I might as well ask. -- Dan King, Dallas

SW: My initial reaction to this question had me recommending Brown because of the league format, thinking he contributes more in the passing game than Johnson, but then I realized the Dolphins new offense has all but eliminated that aspect of his game. Johnson actually has more receptions than Brown this year, and Brown has no more than three in any one game. So you're right, Dan: Johnson against the Chiefs makes him the better choice to start than Brown against the Ravens. As for Colston, assuming the Saints have him active -- and I'd check back Sunday morning to make sure -- I'd start him right away. He just has too much statistical upside to leave on the bench. Between Ward and Welker, I'd bench Ward because Welker has shown more consistency. And as for your quarterback situation, don't even think about starting Anderson yet over a clear top-five quarterback like Rodgers. Granted, you have legitimate reason to get excited if you have Anderson on your roster, but let him have another big game or two before you entertain such thoughts.

OK, you have to help me understand. The following trade got overturned four times in my league, but only because my opponents don't want my team to get better. They literally told me that they are just afraid they won't be able to beat me. But the league commissioner vetoed the trade and didn't let it pass. I gave up Jake Delhomme, Ryan Grant and Chansi Stuckey for Drew Brees. Help me understand this! The guy I am trading with needs depth. He is starting Michael Pittman right now, and he is playing Roy Williams and Calvin Johnson, who are floundering. Why in the world would this not pass? -- Chris Newkirk

SW: Well, I should start by saying I've seen better trades overturned. I can't envision too many scenarios where I'd rather have Delhomme and Grant than Brees, who as I said earlier, looks like the clear No. 1 quarterback in Fantasy. That said, I can't think of any reason why Grant won't finish strong with his hamstring injury behind him, and if he finishes strong, he'll serve as no worse than a No. 2 Fantasy running back. Giving up a No. 2 running back for a No. 1 quarterback sounds about right, especially when you throw in a satisfactory replacement like Delhomme. (Notice I conveniently ignored Stuckey. Yeah.)

So while I don't like the trade, I wouldn't question anyone for accepting it. I might say your opponent got a little desperate and traded for Grant assuming he'll deliver a best-case scenario, but I won't say he doesn't know what he's doing.

I can't defend your league's decision to overturn the trade. I assume your opponents just didn't want to see you improve, and like you said, some even admitted it. Just because you already have a good team doesn't mean you should lose the right to improve it, and if your opponents have the privilege of overturning league trades, they should know better than to base their decisions on how those trades affect them. Sorry, pal.

I am trying to trade Michael Turner, Jerious Norwood and Lee Evans for Brian Westbrook and T.J. Houshmandzadeh. The other owner demands I exchange Evans for Roddy White before he'll agree to the trade. I like White, but I want Westbrook for the final push and already have his backup, Correll Buckhalter. Should I make this deal, or am I giving up too much? My other wideouts are Steve Smith, Donald Driver and Chris Chambers. -- Kevin Grennan

SW: I like White too. In fact, I like him more than Houshmandzadeh with Carson Palmer's ongoing elbow concerns. So here's an idea: Instead of swapping out Evans for White, why not just eliminate White and Houshmandzadeh from the deal altogether, making it Michael Turner and Jerious Norwood for Westbrook? I don't see why your opponent would balk at that trade if he came close to accepting the one that included Evans. And if he does turn down the deal, just stick with what you have. You don't have enough top-flight wide receivers to absorb the loss of White, and Westbrook doesn't even seem like a sure-fire improvement over Turner these days. Besides, you have Buckhalter. He might end up making another spot start or two later in the season, knowing Westbrook's injury history.

Way off on a few this week, guys. Marvin Harrison ... thanks a lot! -- Jennifer Fernandez, Chicago

SW: Tell me about it, Jennifer. I have Harrison in one league and benched him for the first time all season this past week. But that's Fantasy Football for you. The guy had no more than 40 yards receiving each of his last three games and then blew up for two scores against one of the best defenses in the league. Still, try to keep his performance in perspective. He did catch only three passes. One just happened to go for 67 yards, and another just happened to come in the red zone. Until he becomes a more reliable source of Fantasy points, I can't consider him more than a No. 3 Fantasy WR, which makes him a candidate to bench every week.

Someone has offered me Steve Slaton for LaDainian Tomlinson. If I wanted to trade Tomlinson, what kind of players should I be shooting for? -- Joseph Estrada, Los Angeles

SW: Ones better than Slaton. Actually, I think Slaton might finish at about the same level as Tomlinson, but if you're looking to trade Tomlinson, the whole point is to capitalize on his name. You want to get someone better than him, not someone maybe just as good. So if I decided to shop Tomlinson now, I'd probably shop him for combinations like Steve Slaton and Anquan Boldin, Brandon Jacobs and Marques Colston or Michael Turner and DeSean Jackson. Try that approach, and if nobody bites, fine -- keep Tomlinson. His current numbers make him a pretty valuable asset, and he might even improve in the second half. Remember, the whole point of trading is to improve your team, so you need to feel confident that you are, especially when the deal involves your first-round pick.

Do you have a question? Send your thoughts to DMFantasyFootball@cbs.com and we'll address as many as we can. Put Attn: Dear Mr. Fantasy in the subject field. Include your name, hometown and state.