Packaging for a solid starter clears at 1.22x. Packaging for an elite player clears at 0.85x. Depth is worth least exactly where you want to spend it.
Every number here is recomputed when the page loads. Nothing is hardcoded.
| Shape | The single player | Clears at | Middle half | Trades |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Two for one | Solid starter | 1.22x | 0.81x to 1.79x | 6,670 |
| Two for one | Very good player | 1.05x | 0.76x to 1.22x | 4,991 |
| Two for one | Elite player | 0.85x | 0.69x to 1.04x | 3,827 |
| Three or more for one | Solid starter | 1.47x | 0.99x to 2.23x | 928 |
| Three or more for one | Very good player | 1.18x | 0.85x to 1.57x | 1,502 |
| Three or more for one | Elite player | 0.90x | 0.72x to 1.11x | 3,108 |
Ratio of the package side's total value to the single player's value, priced on the day each trade happened. Medians, not averages. Fit refreshed 2026-09-11.
I price every completed dynasty trade in the corpus at the player values that were current the day it happened. Package-for-one deals get grouped by the tier of the single player, using that snapshot's 95th percentile so a 2022 star and a 2026 star land in the same band.
I throw out the throw-ins, so a bench piece cannot make a two-for-one look like a three-for-one, and no single league can dominate a bucket. Buckets below their sample floor never get published at all.
The 1.32x calculator bar is not my measurement. It is the package premium a public trade calculator asks for, read off its own value-adjustment tool at each tier, where it sits close to flat rather than moving with the player. Treat it as an approximate reading of what calculators ask, and the clearing figures above as the measured part.
Free to cite, link back if you do. For one specific deal, the trade grader prices the exact assets and checks the trade shape against real clearing behavior. This study explains how to use that price evidence. Is this trade fair? covers the mechanics.