Which trade would you make?

[IStillDream]

I haven't done a poll like this before (and I apologize if this breaks a cultural norm I'm not aware of), but I'd be interested to see how you OOTP veterans approach this type of situation.

So, it's the 2016 winter meetings, and two years undoing the disastrous moves of the 2015 offseason, the Red Sox have just paid off with a World Series win. However, some reconfiguration of my team was in order, and I'm debating whether another move is needed.

The 2015 lineup was by and large quite good--Swihart, Betts, and Boagerts all took big steps forward, Paul Goldschmidt (acquired in an all-in deal in 2015) was excellent, and after Adrian Beltre was horrific at 3rd, Miguel Sano (acquired in a prospects-for-prospect swap the prior offseason) came up and hit 14 HR in 230 AB.

The two areas of concern were a black hole at DH--Ortiz finally lost it, playing below replacement level and retiring at season's end--and the outfield, where Rusney Castillo and Hanley Ramirez were both decent with the bat but awful with the glove (-9.5 and -6.8 ZR respectively). Hanley is already gone--I shipped him, Sam Gaviglio and Jon Moscot (both waiver pickups after injuries), and RA Dickey to Detroit for Alex Gordon and a prospect.

So right now, my lineup looks like this:

RF:Mookie Betts
SS:Xander Boagerts
1B:Paul Goldschmidt
3B:Miguel Sano
DH:Jose Bautista--this is actually a risk, he posted two straight below-replacement seasons and I got him on a high-aav 1 year deal.
C-Blake Swihart
LF-Alex Gordon (whose power has declined somewhat)
CF:Rusney Castillo
2B-Dustin Pedroia

Meanwhile my rotation was excellent, to the point where, with the mid-season emergence of Archie Bradley showing ace-like stuff, Danny Duffy was relegated to my 6th best starter despite posting a 120 ERA+ and 3.3 WAR. The FA starter class is incredibly weak--Mike Leake, whose ERA+ was 96 in 2015 is probably the best option--so Duffy commands a lot of trade value. On the other hand, he was superb in the playoffs as a longman, (though I do have Matt Moore to fill the role), and my AAA rotation is poor.

Finally, the last piece of the puzzle--I have both CF prospect Manuel Margot at AAA, who's a superb fielder, but posted an 82 OPS+ at AAA, and Jackie Bradley Jr, who hit poorly in his MLB appearances before missing half the year with injury. I also have multiple very promising outfield prospects in the low minors, likely 3-4 years away.

OK, apologies for all of that preamble. If I want to upgrade from Castillo, here are the 3 deals that other teams have said they will accept:

1) Castillo, Duffy, Margot, 3B prospect Connor Kaiser (Rookie-league level, well-rounded, 3 star potential), SS prospect Ramon Beltre (S-A, excellent fielder and baserunner, questionable hitter) and an 8th round pick to MIA for Giancarlo Stanton and his monster contract.

2) Castillo, Duffy, Margot, Kaiser, Nick Longhi (high-power, low contact single-A OF) to STL for Jayson Heyward and their 2nd round pick. Heyward's deal is 4 years, $20 mil flat each year

3) Castillo, Margot, Hunter Dozier (average 25 year old MLB-ready 3B, currently at AAA), David Carpenter, Bryce Brentz, and a 7th round pick to SEA for RF Dario Pizzano and a 5th round pick. Rookie with 34 MLB games in 2015, in which he posted a .360 OBP, 114 OPS + and 0.7 WAR. High contact and Gap, very high Eye and Avoid K's. Almost no power. Solid defensive RF.

Obviously the prize here is Stanton, but I'm scared of his contract, especially the 30 million in his age 34 and 35 seasons. I don't have a ton of payroll obligations going forward, but I want to lock up and retain my young talent as it gets more expensive. Hayward would seem to represent the somewhat more affordable, very high-quality middle ground (and the pick is nice), while Pizzano is less of a known quantity but could be a star for very little money, and wouldn't cost Duffy.

Or, of course, I could stand pat a year and see who crops up in free agency a year out or at the deadline.

[Cod]

I'd go with Heyward for two reasons:

1) His defense. As it stands, your outfield defense is terrible in CF and with the huge outfield in Fenway, could be an issue on balls hit to the gap towards right field. Heyward gives you the best option here Stanton wouldn't upgrade your defense much, but would provide more power.

2) Adds another left handed bat to your lineup, which makes the overall lineup an even left/right split.

[ike121212]

You might not want to hear this, but I wouldn't make these trades. They are 5/6 for 1 trades and that's way over my threshold for abusing the trade AI. Tacking on an extra draft pick back, to maximize the deal further, just makes it worse.

[NoOne]

i'd guess heyward, but it depends on your market. you don't need a huge market to support a 200m payroll in 'good' times. you can work around a 30m contract when you have a mostly younger team. however, if you have a currently expensive payroll, i'd avoid stanton without a doubt. (assuming you are not the yankees or dodgers or something - then spend like a drunken sailor!).

be willing to miss out on a couple of stanton's good years, so that you don't get stuck holding the bill for an aged, overpaid player and so that you get at least something worthwhile in return.

i'm not familiar with the real player ratings anymore. if betts is a high obp guy, i'd say you want the power over another similar player like pizzano.

[NoOne]

Originally Posted by ike121212

You might not want to hear this, but I wouldn't make these trades. They are 5/6 for 1 trades and that's way over my threshold for abusing the trade AI. Tacking on an extra draft pick back, to maximize the deal further, just makes it worse.

are they weak players? i am not up on the real world player ratings.

i guess i can see where you are coming from, but it's possible they are up to snuff if they all play for the MLB club as upgrades, needed replacements in offseason or in the prospects' cases fit into future plans well.

when you want to trade for a very good player (stanton and heyward can both fit that bill), you have to give 3-4 good players. a few throw-ins to cap it off is no big deal and happens in real life, too (obviously draft pick trading is severely limited in the mlb, but his world has it enabled, and it's still not unlike other real world leagues that allow trading picks). also, the ai favors trades involving positions of weakness. so, it's in your best interest not to trade useless players to the other team. if they are good, they are likely to start or develop and start later.

edit: Istilldream, that LF prospect you mention as high power, low contact... if that is ~50/80contact or a bit higher (1/2 or better of any scale), that's the new fictional power hitter norm. the first few years of the draft are loaded with real world amatuers, too. so, it takes a while to get to fictional players. you'll notice a drop in draft quality. anyway, going forward from that point, you will have to adjust what you look at as a good power hitter etc... babip will be lower, avoid k's higher, more power, etc... slight change in distribution. stat output will change a bit too, but you can make use of LTM to adjust that back to what you want or let it run on it's own etc.

[IStillDream]

Originally Posted by NoOne

are they weak players? i am not up on the real world player ratings.

i guess i can see where you are coming from, but it's possible they are up to snuff if they all play for the MLB club as upgrades, needed replacements in offseason or in the prospects' cases fit into future plans well.

when you want to trade for a very good player (stanton and heyward can both fit that bill), you have to give 3-4 good players. a few throw-ins to cap it off is no big deal and happens in real life, too (obviously draft pick trading is severely limited in the mlb, but his world has it enabled, and it's still not unlike other real world leagues that allow trading picks). also, the ai favors trades involving positions of weakness. so, it's in your best interest not to trade useless players to the other team. if they are good, they are likely to start or develop and start later.

edit: Istilldream, that LF prospect you mention as high power, low contact... if that is ~50/80contact or a bit higher (1/2 or better of any scale), that's the new fictional power hitter norm. the first few years of the draft are loaded with real world amatuers, too. so, it takes a while to get to fictional players. you'll notice a drop in draft quality. anyway, going forward from that point, you will have to adjust what you look at as a good power hitter etc... babip will be lower, avoid k's higher, more power, etc... slight change in distribution. stat output will change a bit too, but you can make use of LTM to adjust that back to what you want or let it run on it's own etc.

Thank you, that was how I felt about it. This is the package that would be going back for Heyward, for example

Duffy- 28 year old starter who put up 3.3 WAR the season before. Making $4.6 million in his final contact year. Rated consistently above average (13/14 out of 20) in every category and on all 4 pitches. Significantly better than every starter on the FA market.

Castillo- 29 year old OF who slashed .279/.348/.411 with 15 HR. Posted 2.6 WAR despite poor defensive year. Under contract for 4 more years at an AAV of $11 million.

Manuel Margot- 22 year old rookie CF with a full year at AAA under his belt. 20/20 defensive CF, 19/17/16 ratings for the speed categories. Rated 12/20 in contact with potential for growth, 11/20 in gap power, 8/20 for HR power, 9/20 for eye but with a potential of 12/20, and 13/20 in avoid K with potential to grow to 15. If I don't make a big trade, I might honestly dump Castillo's salary and just start him.

Connor Kaiser- 20 year old 3B with average to above average potentials in Contact, Gap Power, HR Power, and Eye, 14/20 defensive at 3B.

Nick Longhi--21 year old LF at High A. According to OSA (which likes him better than my scout), his potentials out of 20 are 7 contact, 12 gap, 15 power, 9 eye, and 6 avoid K. Above average defender at LF and RF.

(He's a real guy, but thank you kindly for the info about fictional players, that makes sense of what I've been seeing--I signed an international FA who had a contact potential of 7 out of 20 but power and eye potential of 19 and 17).

So, a very solid, very cheap #3 starter, two cost controlled MLB outfielders (one with a good bat, one with an elite glove), and two prospects with reasonable chances at an MLB future. Considering that the Cardinals need pitching and have a completely barren farm system in my game, I think that's a pretty reasonable return for Heyward. That's how real MLB teams make trades.

[IStillDream]

Originally Posted by NoOne

i'd guess heyward, but it depends on your market. you don't need a huge market to support a 200m payroll in 'good' times. you can work around a 30m contract when you have a mostly younger team. however, if you have a currently expensive payroll, i'd avoid stanton without a doubt. (assuming you are not the yankees or dodgers or something - then spend like a drunken sailor!).

be willing to miss out on a couple of stanton's good years, so that you don't get stuck holding the bill for an aged, overpaid player and so that you get at least something worthwhile in return.

i'm not familiar with the real player ratings anymore. if betts is a high obp guy, i'd say you want the power over another similar player like pizzano.

Thank you, that's quite helpful. The Red Sox are a high-budget team; right now my payroll is 182 million and I have about 20 million in remaining room. That will tail off substantially for 2018--I have an option on Bautista (with a 2 mil buyout) that I'll likely decline, and Gordon's only got 1 year left, so I'll just make him a QO and be happy whether he stays or goes.

However, while I just extended Boagerts long term, Swihart and Betts are going to be arb eligible after this season, and Sano the year after, and I'd like to lock them all down if I can. I also have Yu Darvish in my rotation, whose very reasonable deal will be coming due, and I want to have the cash to re-sign him and still make a run at someone in 2018.

Given all of that, Heyward's deal could be absorbed pretty easily (it's only 9 mil more than Castillo's, and for the same years), while Stanton's might be a challenge.

And yes, Betts is a high OBP guy. In fact, Goldschmidt was the only player on my team who hit more than 17 HR in 2015 (though Sano hit 14 in 40% of a season, and Bautista might return to form). So Pizzano wouldn't help much in that area.

[NoOne]

Originally Posted by IStillDream

Thank you, that's quite helpful. The Red Sox are a high-budget team; right now my payroll is 182 million and I have about 20 million in remaining room. That will tail off substantially for 2018--I have an option on Bautista (with a 2 mil buyout) that I'll likely decline, and Gordon's only got 1 year left, so I'll just make him a QO and be happy whether he stays or goes.

However, while I just extended Boagerts long term, Swihart and Betts are going to be arb eligible after this season, and Sano the year after, and I'd like to lock them all down if I can. I also have Yu Darvish in my rotation, whose very reasonable deal will be coming due, and I want to have the cash to re-sign him and still make a run at someone in 2018.

Given all of that, Heyward's deal could be absorbed pretty easily (it's only 9 mil more than Castillo's, and for the same years), while Stanton's might be a challenge.

And yes, Betts is a high OBP guy. In fact, Goldschmidt was the only player on my team who hit more than 17 HR in 2015 (though Sano hit 14 in 40% of a season, and Bautista might return to form). So Pizzano wouldn't help much in that area.

yeah, power is what you need... i don't know the mathematical breakeven point, but there is a point where BA can trump excess power with lower BA.

i don't like guys hitting under .250-ish. i think their output gets less consistent. luck starts to get a heavier weight, the more inconsistent production is (more volatilility).

another very useful tip for running a large market team and BIG-contract players only... (assumes no money supply issues.. if it's common for you to have 35m to 40m/year contracts in your league, this may not work for you)

if they demand a huge salary, relative to your league, let them hit free agency and allow the market to set his salary. because you have a huge budget and lots of room, they will always ask for what you can afford to pay them. if you can afford 42m/year they will ask for it, regardless of league salaries.

once they hit free agency, you are likely to save a ton of money. if i have someone request upper 20's or low 30's a year, i typically save 5 to 10+ million off of those figures by letting them hit free agency.

again this is for those players that ask for 35-40million per year, not anyone else. FA is almost always more expensive, otherwise. (relative to your league. so, if 20million or 500k is astronomical, then use that threshold etc.)

[ike121212]

Originally Posted by IStillDream

So, a very solid, very cheap #3 starter, two cost controlled MLB outfielders (one with a good bat, one with an elite glove), and two prospects with reasonable chances at an MLB future. Considering that the Cardinals need pitching and have a completely barren farm system in my game, I think that's a pretty reasonable return for Heyward. That's how real MLB teams make trades.

If you think it's fair, then you're free to do it. I think your description says it all though: solid, cost controlled, chance at an MLB future for an all-star. I don't think he gets dealt without a premium prospect or two going back.

Anyways, i think a lot of long time players have house rules against X for 1 trades. If you make even 1 each year, the effects are huge.

[NoOne]

Originally Posted by ike121212

Anyways, i think a lot of long time players have house rules against X for 1 trades. If you make even 1 each year, the effects are huge.

that isn't evidence one way or another in a logical argument. that's just preference of a particular group of people. purely opinion in nature.

the only way to be sure about your hypothesis that it isn't realistic or unfair (whatever it is) is to go over trades of the last 50-100 years and crunch the numbers. i'd suggest FA years only, since the enviromnent for trades significnatly changed at that point.

only if what he is doing is out of proportion in a statistically significant way, can you say it is not realistic or taking advantage of the game.

off the top of my head i can think of at least one recent real life trade that is not unlike the ones he described. i cannot attest to the rate of such trades, nor how often he trades x for 1, as you say. no one could without putting in the effort of crunching the numbers. detroit got cabrera for 2 well-though of prospects and 2 throw-ins. that's far less than what he is offereing for stanton or heyward.

i don't think it's as ludicrous as you portray it. i also think it's possibly true. the point is that it is not obvious to the naked eye.

if my team was missing those pieces, and i could get 3-4 quality mlb players that will start for my team for one superstar, i'd at minimum seriously consider the deal.

[ike121212]

Originally Posted by NoOne

that isn't evidence one way or another in a logical argument. that's just preference of a particular group of people. purely opinion in nature.

the only way to be sure about your hypothesis that it isn't realistic or unfair (whatever it is) is to go over trades of the last 50-100 years and crunch the numbers. i'd suggest FA years only, since the enviromnent for trades significnatly changed at that point.

only if what he is doing is out of proportion in a statistically significant way, can you say it is not realistic or taking advantage of the game.

off the top of my head i can think of at least one recent real life trade that is not unlike the ones he described. i cannot attest to the rate of such trades, nor how often he trades x for 1, as you say. no one could without putting in the effort of crunching the numbers. detroit got cabrera for 2 well-though of prospects and 2 throw-ins. that's far less than what he is offereing for stanton or heyward.

i don't think it's as ludicrous as you portray it. i also think it's possibly true. the point is that it is not obvious to the naked eye.

if my team was missing those pieces, and i could get 3-4 quality mlb players that will start for my team for one superstar, i'd at minimum seriously consider the deal.

We're talking about the trade AI of a game. I'm sure you see my point, it's very easy to add a few average players/prospects to upgrade a position. Way too easy on Normal trade settings (not sure what his settings are). It's easy to rationalize an individual trade, even a bad one.

Since you brought up Cabrerra, Miller and Maybin were both premium prospects. 5 star in game. I think it's far more than this trade offers.

[IStillDream]

The other thing I forgot to mention here, which may make things more understandable, is that Heyward is coming off a lost season--he broke his knee in late May and never returned. In his absence, every Cardinals OF was replacement-level or below offensively. Despite his defense, Castillo would have been 4th in WAR for their position players, 0.7 ahead of Stephen Piscotty, their actual highest-rated OF, who slashed .246/.301/.

(As an aside, the game seems to value Heyward less in general--it calculates from his real stats in 2014 just 3.5 WAR, compared to BR's figure of 6.4).

Duffy will also represent a quite meaningful upgrade to their rotation--he was half a win better than their current #3 Carlos Martinez, and will allow them to drop Lance Lynn into the pen, who managed just 1.6 WAR in 29 starts.


I wasn't aware until this thread that many for one deals represented some kind of hole in the AI. I will keep an eye out for it in the future certainly, and I'll turn the trading difficulty up--I didn't touch any of the defaults when I started the game, so it's on normal. Fundamentally, though, one of the things I most enjoy about the game is using arbitrage; picking up assets I think are undervalued with the idea of flipping them down the line. I'm not about to brag to anyone about my success, but it's fun.

[IStillDream]

OK, I think this settles my conscience anyway. They're willing to take just Margot, Duffy, and Castillo for Heyward, so I'm effectively moving Longhi and Kaiser for the pick. Certainly a 3 for 1 deal would be kosher?

[ike121212]

Originally Posted by IStillDream

Fundamentally, though, one of the things I most enjoy about the game is using arbitrage; picking up assets I think are undervalued with the idea of flipping them down the line. I'm not about to brag to anyone about my success, but it's fun.

I think a lot of people enjoy this part. I can't count how many times I've done this a little too much and it turns into a boring juggernaut. It's why you'll see many vets suggesting setting trades to Hard, using some house rules for transactions, or playing stats-only.

[IStillDream]

Originally Posted by ike121212

I think a lot of people enjoy this part. I can't count how many times I've done this a little too much and it turns into a boring juggernaut. It's why you'll see many vets suggesting setting trades to Hard, using some house rules for transactions, or playing stats-only.

Gotcha, that makes sense, I wouldn't want to overdo it and have things stop being fun. It would seem there are ways to make those trades that wouldn't turn into that. I signed four aging but valuable veterans to short deals in the pre-2016 offseason, gambling that I could flip them for someone before I had to release them all, only to find that no one was that interested. On the last day of spring training, in desperation I sent all 4 of them plus Tommy Layne for a hotshot young lefty reliever, Kyle Crockett. Ultimately, it worked out for both sides--Crockett was very solid for me, if not the dominant force he appeared, and the players I sent them combined for 5 WAR and helped push them into the wildcard. I met them in the ALDS, and Crockett wound up working 2 innings to close out game 4 and clinch the series.

In this case I'm struggling to be objective because Duffy has been so valuable to me--in the postseason my top 2 starters got hurt and my rookie phenom flamed out, and so he wound up pitching game 7 of the World Series and leading us to victory. So in my head, it makes all the sense in the world that he could be the lynchpin of a deal like this--indeed, that's the exact sort of performance (on top of a quite good season--a 120 ERA+ with good peripherals is nothing to sneeze at) that leads to real GM's beating down a team's door to get somebody. Maybe that's a trade glitch of a different kind.

[NoOne]

Originally Posted by ike121212

We're talking about the trade AI of a game. I'm sure you see my point, it's very easy to add a few average players/prospects to upgrade a position. Way too easy on Normal trade settings (not sure what his settings are). It's easy to rationalize an individual trade, even a bad one.

Since you brought up Cabrerra, Miller and Maybin were both premium prospects. 5 star in game. I think it's far more than this trade offers.

i definitely understand, but i was looking at this specific situation and weighing it on it's own and saying it isn't necessarily what you are describing.

a rule is fine if you need it to keep you honest, but it shouldn't restrict normal gameplay.