Have the AI initiate more trades with you/us, but do it better

[tejdog1]

For example, if you've got a hitter in AAA, who's older, but hits for power or something, maybe the AI comes to you with "I've noticed that your 28 year old AAA first baseman, Jerry Gates, is hitting .304/.463/.491/.954, and has a reputation for being a power hitter. We have a need for such a player, and would be open to trading for him, within reason. Please make us an offer."

Or even: "We notice you have a starting pitcher in AAA, but your major league rotation is full of quality arms. We would be interested in exploring a trade for one of your excess arms, either in your major league rotation, or your AAA pitcher. Please contact us."

[blasek0]

And improve the trading AI so that when they do offer you a trade, they'll still accept it if you go to the trade proposal screen to play around with the offer. Don't know how many times the AI has offered me a trade, but won't accept that exact same trade on the trade proposal screen, often with a "Are you kidding? We'd never accept this deal!"

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by blasek0

And improve the trading AI so that when they do offer you a trade, they'll still accept it if you go to the trade proposal screen to play around with the offer. Don't know how many times the AI has offered me a trade, but won't accept that exact same trade on the trade proposal screen, often with a "Are you kidding? We'd never accept this deal!"

They will still accept it - just go back to the original email/offer, click on respond and accept.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

They will still accept it - just go back to the original email/offer, click on respond and accept.

Yeah that's like an email only special.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by tejdog1

For example, if you've got a hitter in AAA, who's older, but hits for power or something, maybe the AI comes to you with "I've noticed that your 28 year old AAA first baseman, Jerry Gates, is hitting .304/.463/.491/.954, and has a reputation for being a power hitter. We have a need for such a player, and would be open to trading for him, within reason. Please make us an offer."

It's a good idea in general but I think your first example is too complex and not a logical sequence for a minor trade for a fringe player. There is also the question of sensitivity. If a fringe MLB/AAA player generates an AI offer spontaneously how do you calibrate the AI so that you don't have hundreds of offers for all of the better players? It's much more likely that the team with the fringe player would initiate the offer and the other team would then determine if the need was worth the price asked. Spontaneous AI offers should occur for higher value transactions.

At the low level above the AI should just make a specific offer. If the need is urgent enough to prompt an offer it should know the value required to fill that need and make it easy for the other team to say yes. In the example above the AI is fishing, a practice that's frowned upon when initiating a transaction. The response of the contacted team should be "what offer"? You called us!

I've read several anecdotes noting that RL GM's will not respond to an inquiry that doesn't come with a player list. Typically it goes, "I like player X we could give you any one of players A B or C". The onus is on the inquiring team to show its cards first. That allows the second team to decide if they are interested in any trade before they reveal information about how they value players on both teams. It also allows them to raise the stakes on the team making the inquiry to squeeze more value out of the transaction.

I think this applies to any set of logical transactions in business.

Originally Posted by tejdog1

Or even: "We notice you have a starting pitcher in AAA, but your major league rotation is full of quality arms. We would be interested in exploring a trade for one of your excess arms, either in your major league rotation, or your AAA pitcher. Please contact us."

Again that's fishing and is not common AFAIK. The response would be "who are you offering". The contacted team gains nothing by identifying players on the other team first. This gives them a relative value that may facilitate a trade with a third team. The contacted team has no motivation to identify what "excess arms" may be available on their team without seeing what the other team has to offer first.

I realize this isn't real life but having the AI fish would not help AI trades IMO. FWIW I have made good trades out of bad AI offers. Improving the opening value of AI offers would be my first request. Not giving players up but making the value just enough to make it interesting

My big beef with the AI is the complete evaluation vacuum that seems to exist in the various routes to a trade. Players on waivers or DFA should be easy to trade for. Players on the trading block should not be evaluated the same as your all star SS. Nothing is more annoying than to get the "you have no players" message for a player the AI has in AAA and on the trading block.

Also as indicated above the team initiating a trade should always be in an inferior position with respect to value. Currently AI offers rarely meet that requirement.

[tejdog1]

Great points, and I agree with all of them. I'd just like the AI to be more logically proactive when initiating trade talks. I get some trades and just shake my head.

Why yes, Mr. Computer AI GM, you ARE offering me a 78/78 third baseman for my 74/74 pitcher, but uh did you notice I also have a 78/78 third baseman, and no other position to move him, and I also like my pitcher?

The three trade settings should also factor into things. If you're in Win Now mode, you should be more willing to give up prospects to get MLB established stars/whatever. I'm not saying ridiculously willing to trade everyone, but... sometimes it's absolutely dumb how hard it is to make a trade.

Also the trade emails should ALWAYS (IMO) have addendums from your head scout, and more information in general. Imagine this:

Sandy Alderson of the New York Mets proposes the following trade: MLB 2b/3b Wilmer Flores, AAA SP Rafael Montero, MLB SP Dillon Gee for AAA OF Joc Pederson

Report from Jonathan Grayson (lead scout for the Dodgers):
The Mets are in rebuilding mode right now, preferring to trade assets and acquire prospects. Wilmer Flores has hit well in AAA [insert line here], his overall/potential ratings are [], and his defensive ratings at 2b and 3b are []. Rinse repeat for Montero and Gee.

Then maybe a recommendation, too. Such as: In my opinion, there is no way I would make the trade Alderson has proposed. They would need to add one or two prospects of significant value. Pederson has superstar potential.

[blasek0]

Originally Posted by RchW

Yeah that's like an email only special.

Yeah, but it's still a somewhat annoying loophole that this is required. Frequently, you can improve upon their original offer and they'll still decline it.

[rpriske]

The thing I find annoying is when they respond to an offer with "this trade between two low-level prospects is close, but not quite right. We would make the deal if you were willing to throw in the best player you have on your team."

[RchW]

Originally Posted by rpriske

The thing I find annoying is when they respond to an offer with "this trade between two low-level prospects is close, but not quite right. We would make the deal if you were willing to throw in the best player you have on your team."

I haven't gone back to the AI on such a deal in several versions. I don't remember if the AI ever said ok after thinking about it. Has anyone else had a "yes" come out of a "I'll have to think about it" response.

[RchW]

Dola

Another thing to keep in mind vs real life is that OOTP's time compression makes us anxious to complete deals quickly because we don't work in real time. I don't know for sure but can imagine that real life GM's and more likely assistant GM's may discuss variations of an initial proposal over a week maybe two and the list of principal players, add-ons and cash may go though a complete 360 or morph into a different deal. It's very likely that most deals die simply because the need that started the discussion for both teams dropped in priority with time. Most GM's say that overreacting to a "crisis" is a fundamental mistake that leads to bad deals.

Given that, my ideal OOTP trade module would be a think about it list where you could make multiple offers to all the AI teams. Unlike the current system you could offer the same player or players to multiple teams then ask the AI to think about it. You could set an urgency score, understanding that high urgency gets you less value. You could set a firmness score where a low value would indicate your willingness to add value. If possible the AI should respond say once a week with something like "still thinking", "not ready" "keep it on the table" or "no deal". The key programming would be for the AI not to reject a deal by definition until 2 weeks go by. That way if circumstances change a proposal made in May might become possible in June.

It's probably too complex but we can hope.

[blasek0]

Originally Posted by RchW

I haven't gone back to the AI on such a deal in several versions. I don't remember if the AI ever said ok after thinking about it. Has anyone else had a "yes" come out of a "I'll have to think about it" response.

I can think of one or two, but that's about it.

[rpriske]

Originally Posted by RchW

I haven't gone back to the AI on such a deal in several versions. I don't remember if the AI ever said ok after thinking about it. Has anyone else had a "yes" come out of a "I'll have to think about it" response.

Absolutely.

They usually say "I may regret this but..."

[blasek0]

Originally Posted by RchW

Given that, my ideal OOTP trade module would be a think about it list where you could make multiple offers to all the AI teams. Unlike the current system you could offer the same player or players to multiple teams then ask the AI to think about it. You could set an urgency score, understanding that high urgency gets you less value. You could set a firmness score where a low value would indicate your willingness to add value. If possible the AI should respond say once a week with something like "still thinking", "not ready" "keep it on the table" or "no deal". The key programming would be for the AI not to reject a deal by definition until 2 weeks go by. That way if circumstances change a proposal made in May might become possible in June.

It's probably too complex but we can hope.

Oh god this would be fantastic.

[nyy26wc]

Originally Posted by RchW

I haven't gone back to the AI on such a deal in several versions. I don't remember if the AI ever said ok after thinking about it. Has anyone else had a "yes" come out of a "I'll have to think about it" response.

My average is about 1/3 the AI comes back and says yes.