CT Fantasy Baseball - Interested?

[An Old Friend]

I'll take Hader off your hands!

Make me an offer.

I'm just not going to move someone who was expected to a blue chip asset less than a month ago at a discount just because they get off to a slow start. That seems to me to be the surest path to the bottom.

I looked to see if I could figure out a match. I wouldn't move Hader, personally. He's going to be fine IMHO.

BUT, if your patience wears thin... call me!

I am going to need to find some saves at some point.

[Quincy Varnish]

My pitching was never going to be the strength of my roster. That was clear going all the way back to the draft.

But if my biggest assets (Acuna, Seager, Torres, Hader, Fairbanks, etc.) don't perform, there isn't going to be a solution. And, yes, Acuna IS hurting me in that I have to get a lot more out of the 1st overall pick than 1 HR and sub-.800 OPS. Acuna, Seager, and Torres are all about .200 OPS, or more, below expected right now.

You should not be regarding Hader, Fairbanks or Torres among your biggest assets. Hader is an underperforming closer on a team that has thus far been awful - so you’ve been unable to benefit from his essential purpose; to compile Saves. You could take the opportunity to sell his prestige, get a ‘lesser’ closer (that is actually performing his job) and ask for more. At this moment, that is his only value. Fairbanks has even less, because he is injured and the Rays usually do not have a dedicated closer - you do not know if he will maintain his job security, or even still have his job upon return. These are not the qualities of a ‘big’ asset.

Torres is a nice 2B, but his performance has been so erratic throughout the years that he’s essentially an unknown quantity. Seemingly every year, managers (in shallower leagues) end up dropping him out of frustration. He’s definitely an asset, but not one you should be clinging to with the hopes he reaches his expected ‘ranking’. But I can see why you might consider him a ‘strong hold’.

So I'm still expecting my offense to pick up and be like Top 3 in every offensive category before it is over. Then I will try to mix-and-match my pitching, in particular when I get Cobb, Kelly, Rodriguez, and Fairbanks healthy, to average about middle of the pack. That should total to about 125 to 130 pts.

Cool.

The problem is there really aren't that many "win-win" trades to be made. You may convince people that there are, but any trade is vastly more likely to be a "win-lose" proposition.

Terrible perspective. A trade can benefit both parties, and that is generally the only way you’ll be able to get anything done. If you could find any entertainment value from the “wheel and deal” approach… you’re missing out b/c of the above philosophy, and potential opportunities to improve your team. It’s understandable that you may not have a sense of urgency at this time, considering the present standings.

The only really obvious "win-win" would be something like if Team A were projected to win the HR category by 50 over the 2nd place team, but be below average in SVs, while Team B is projected to win SVs by 25 over the 2nd place team, but be below average in HR. Then those teams exchanging excess HRs/SVs could be a "win-win".

…and “something like” that obvious scenario would be the impetus of any trade. “I have something you need, you have something I need.” Such a negotiation does NOT require that one party have a gross excess of a particular resource. But one thing is for sure - every team in this league has a shortage of something.

But, at this point, anyone thinking that have a lock on having a wildly excessive number of HRs, SVs, wins, QSs, Ks, etc. is probably delusional. But I don't discount the possibility of you taking advantage of the consistently bad decision making of others.

Agreed. It’s a complex league to forecast b/c of the number of teams/roster spots, and a wide range of potential outcomes from low-ranking players who’d be otherwise unclaimed in ordinary leagues. This IS a learning experience for us all, and for the beginner it could be overwhelming… so I can see why you sought professional consultation

I will add - the last time I looked, your team was projected to rank 14th in WHIP. Someone ELSE got Yamamoto, while you remain awaiting the return of the great Merrill Kelly.

[Quincy Varnish]

The problem is there really aren't that many "win-win" trades to be made. You may convince people that there are, but any trade is vastly more likely to be a "win-lose" proposition.

Terrible perspective. A trade can benefit both parties, and that is generally the only way you’ll be able to get anything done. If you could find any entertainment value from the “wheel and deal” approach… you’re missing out b/c of the above philosophy, and potential opportunities to improve your team. It’s understandable that you may not have a sense of urgency at this time, considering the present standings.

You can consider it a "terrible perspective," but yet I think an accurate one.

If you do a post-mortem on all trades that get done in the league this year, how many of them do you think will actually have benefitted both parties?

To "benefit both parties," the result of the trade will have to be for both parties to finish higher in the standings than they would otherwise. That's a very fine needle to thread, IMO.

No, it isn’t. If your sole objective is to craft the most balanced roster, meaning without any glaring deficit - it is not possible to accomplish that goal in a league this deep, without negotiating trades. Other teams will have deficits that you do not, and vice versa. The size of this league and the rosters will prevent you from addressing your weaknesses via waiver adds.

You can certainly sell any deal on the possibility that it will be a "win-win" for both parties, and probably do have to sell it on such a possibility, but the reality will much more likely turn out to be a "win-lose."

As you also note:

You could take the opportunity to sell his [Hader's] prestige, get a ‘lesser’ closer (that is actually performing his job) and ask for more. At this moment, that is his only value.

But that's not the basis for actually crafting a "win-win" trade. That's the basis for crafting a "win-lose" trade based on "taking advantage of the consistently bad decision making of others." I respect that that is really the basis and approach for most attempted dealing. You offer people the possibility of a "win-win" trade, but one that works out in reality to be a "win" for you notwithstanding its outcome for the other party.

No, wrong, that isn’t what it as, at all. Wrong, incorrect, no es verdad. You have an underperforming asset, in Hader. Saves are not your only problem… you’re going to have weaknesses in WHIP, K and more issues could arise w/ your offense in general - but right now, you could be accumulating more saves.

My team has more depth than yours. I did not waste high draft picks on closers, but currently I’m ahead of you in saves by farting around with guys who are 1) filling in for injured closers or 2) new on the job, with little security. I’m getting sick of that [shirt]. A pitcher like Hader is probably going to get his act together and start accumulating saves, so he would have appeal to me - the roster spots I’m using for temporary fixes could be used to address other arising issues. Theoretically, I could trade you Yates AND Foley (both of whom could hold their jobs) and get back Hader (who is GUARANTEED to hold his job). Or you could ask for one of those two, and upgrade any number of other positions - maybe you haven’t noticed, but nearly all my players are better than yours.

So… who would be taking advantage of whom, in the above scenarios? That isn’t how trades work, between non-idiots. We could both address temporary, and long-term deficits… or not, because it might be a better idea to leave you with the utmost faith in your draft, Fantasy Pros, and the confidence the April standings provided you. It’s becoming clearer - that could be the best strategy to defeat you… to passively observe, as your confidence/caution prevent you from making more complex decisions.

My point is that, if I were on the other end, I wouldn't be giving me much value in return right now for a currently-underperforming Hader or Fairbanks. I would only be looking to "buy low" on them.

I will add - the last time I looked, your team was projected to rank 14th in WHIP.

Yes, but I would add that 5th is projected to be 1.29 and 14th is projected to be 1.30. So over a combined 1500 innings, that might be a difference of about 15 hits. I would call that well within random "luck."

Okay, then Fantasy Pros projections are officially trash. There will not be 10 teams with essentially the same WHIP.

Oh well… I’m only trying to pass on some sage wisdom I’ve gleaned from decades of experience. You don’t need any of that.

[Goldfan]

Who has TO?

[Quincy Varnish]

Who has TO?

Mattmitch

[Goldfan]

Who has TO?

Mattmitch

He’s lapping most of the field

[Quincy Varnish]

So, if you feel like your team has been pleasantly overperforming expectations to date, you'll probably be a bit disappointed by the projections, and vice versa if you feel like your team has been underperforming to date.

Thanks for sharing all of it… even though I don’t buy into many of their projections, they can be useful to identify potential issues. I’ll be curious to see how adding C. Walker/Santander will move their numbers, once that trade is completed. I’m hoping my runs scored will no longer be a “problem”.

[Quincy Varnish]

Who has TO?

Mattmitch

He’s lapping most of the field

TO is, sure. It’s April. Mattmitch is currently in 4th. O’Neill is ranked 30th overall.

[An Old Friend]

Who has TO?

I think Fantasy Pros graded my draft pretty poorly so they must be quite confounded to see me atop the standings right now.

[Quincy Varnish]

Who has TO?

I think Fantasy Pros graded my draft pretty poorly so they must be quite confounded to see me atop the standings right now.

You’re currently 6th in the “power rankings”… I’m 10th, lol.

[An Old Friend]

Who has TO?

I think Fantasy Pros graded my draft pretty poorly so they must be quite confounded to see me atop the standings right now.

You’re currently 6th in the “power rankings”… I’m 10th, lol.

Power rankings?? I haven’t seen this…

[Quincy Varnish]

Who has TO?

I think Fantasy Pros graded my draft pretty poorly so they must be quite confounded to see me atop the standings right now.

You’re currently 6th in the “power rankings”… I’m 10th, lol.

Power rankings?? I haven’t seen this…

Matt’s posted them here a couple of times.

You can link your account to their “My Playbook” app, and it gives projected league rankings, and individual team projections by category. That’s free. I can’t see all their numbers, b/c I don’t need to, and you have to pay for more info.

[An Old Friend]

Who has TO?

I think Fantasy Pros graded my draft pretty poorly so they must be quite confounded to see me atop the standings right now.

You’re currently 6th in the “power rankings”… I’m 10th, lol.

Power rankings?? I haven’t seen this…

The FP "power rankings" only grade you for "rest of season" prediction, not based on performance to date.

So… like, does it account at all for guys like Vaughn Grissom and Carlos Correa who will shortly replace Bryson Stott and Josh Smith in my lineup? Just curious.

[Quincy Varnish]

No, it isn’t. If your sole objective is to craft the most balanced roster, meaning without any glaring deficit - it is not possible to accomplish that goal in a league this deep, without negotiating trades. Other teams will have deficits that you do not, and vice versa. The size of this league and the rosters will prevent you from addressing your weaknesses via waiver adds.

I would disagree with your premise here.

The objective isn't to "craft the most balanced roster," it is to accumulate the most fantasy ranking points, period.

You can have a nicely "balanced" roster where you score 10 pts., above average, in each of the 12 categories = 120 pts.

But if I score, say, 14 pts. in each of the six offensive categories (84 pts.) but only 7 pts. in each of the six pitching categories (42 pts.), I still end up with 126 pts.

Okay. Now explain how you’re going to that. You cannot have a garbage WHIP and expect a low ERA, or that you will accumulate many wins b/c there is an underlying problem with your pitching staff - it’s bad.

No, wrong, that isn’t what it as, at all. Wrong, incorrect, no es verdad. You have an underperforming asset, in Hader. Saves are not your only problem… you’re going to have weaknesses in WHIP, K and more issues could arise w/ your offense in general - but right now, you could be accumulating more saves.

My team has more depth than yours. I did not waste high draft picks on closers, but currently I’m ahead of you in saves by farting around with guys who are 1) filling in for injured closers or 2) new on the job, with little security. I’m getting sick of that [shirt]. A pitcher like Hader is probably going to get his act together and start accumulating saves, so he would have appeal to me - the roster spots I’m using for temporary fixes could be used to address other arising issues. Theoretically, I could trade you Yates AND Foley (both of whom could hold their jobs) and get back Hader (who is GUARANTEED to hold his job). Or you could ask for one of those two, and upgrade any number of other positions - maybe you haven’t noticed, but nearly all my players are better than yours.

Sure, if you, hypothetically, want to make me an offer for Hader (or anyone else) which is representative of Hader eventually "getting his act together" I would certainly give it strong consideration.

However, if I was YOU, I'd not be offering, or accepting, a deal based on a full valuation of Hader eventually "getting his act together." If I were YOU, I'd only be looking to acquire Hader as a currently "distressed asset" from an owner who has grown impatient. That, I think, would be most "non-idiot" way of approaching a trade with me for Hader, right now.

However, if Hader racks up three or four saves in the next week, I would be in a much stronger position to ask for a full valuation if I wanted to approach someone with a trade or received a trade offer.

There will be no offer from me for Hader, but if there were - I would not be offering the type of value you’d receive if he were fully performing - so I have no idea why you’re rambling about this.

Perhaps consider the “asks” that you have laid out in this thread. I mentioned trading Yamamoto, and your initial thought was Seager - but I would need to add more. Well… Seager has been just as [shirt]ty as Hader, and Seager is highly injury prone. Why would that be an opening offer?

Maybe you’re just bad at accurately valuing your players, in which case… avoid the trade market entirely.

[Quincy Varnish]

My team has more depth than yours. I did not waste high draft picks on closers, but currently I’m ahead of you in saves by farting around with guys who are 1) filling in for injured closers or 2) new on the job, with little security. I’m getting sick of that [shirt]. A pitcher like Hader is probably going to get his act together and start accumulating saves, so he would have appeal to me - the roster spots I’m using for temporary fixes could be used to address other arising issues. Theoretically, I could trade you Yates AND Foley (both of whom could hold their jobs) and get back Hader (who is GUARANTEED to hold his job).

By the way, this hypothetical trade (Yates and Foley for Hader + throw in to balance rosters), is exactly the kind of "sell it as a potential win-win trade which likely becomes a win-lose trade" that I was talking about.

You sell me on taking Yates and Foley because they are, maybe, better in the short term. If they both lose their saves opportunities in short order, you have Hader, who is indeed guaranteed to hold his job and eventually rack up saves, and I have two RPs who are worth very little and I can't move them on to get back the value I gave up in Hader. You win, I lose.

If, by sheer luck, both Yates and Foley hold on to their saves opportunities, maybe I end up with more saves from the two of them than Hader. I win, you lose.

We only win-win if (1) I get marginally more saves out of Yates and Foley than you get out of Hader, to make up for the fact that I'm tying up an extra roster spot in two RPs instead of one and (2) you find a way to use the extra roster spot to add other value. That's why I say that a "win-win" is an unlikely scenario.

I want to point out that I respect your approach to this. You're approaching it a bit like a stock market day trader - get an asset, get something out of it in the short term, then flip it for something else. I fully see where it COULD work, if you consistently make move that are a net "win" for you, getting more in value than you give up.

It’s going to work.

I also fully respect your approach, because it’s well considered… but it’s not wise, in this format. I think you’ll still finish well. I’m offering you sound advice, which is against my competitive instincts - but it appears you must live and learn.

[Quincy Varnish]

Okay. Now explain how you’re going to that. You cannot have a garbage WHIP and expect a low ERA, or that you will accumulate many wins b/c there is an underlying problem with your pitching staff - it’s bad.

Right now, on the pitching side, I'm sitting at 39 pts. And that's with as bad as things have gone with Hader, Fairbanks, Brown, Kelly (inj.), Rodriquez (inj.), etc. Definitely not ideal, but still not that far off of the 42 to 48 pts. I would look to get out of my pitching staff.

As noted in projections, if I can get ~46 pts. from pitching and ~81 pts. from my offense, I think I'll be fine. And when I went Acuna-Henderson-Seager with my first three draft picks, that was pretty much the path I was committing to.

So before doing anything remotely "desperate" and selling offer someone - like Hader - at a significant discount, I'll patiently wait longer to make any major changes.

Perhaps consider the “asks” that you have laid out in this thread. I mentioned trading Yamamoto, and your initial thought was Seager - but I would need to add more. Well… Seager has been just as [shirt]ty as Hader, and Seager is highly injury prone. Why would that be an opening offer?

Again, I'm still going to consider Seager to be a premier asset only one month into the season. I expect him to rebound strongly. I'm not interested right now in selling him as a "distressed asset."

If you are willing to assume that Seager will rebound to his expected performance level, then a trade for someone like Ryan or Yamamoto would make sense (in particular if we consider the apparent fragility of pitchers this year).

You did not mention "trading Yamamoto". You mentioned "nobody truly understands my deep desire to acquire a shortstop." That's a much different proposition. That said, when I suggest that I would make Seager available, my ask is always going to start high at the beginning of the negotiation. I can never get MORE than where I'm willing to start, but can always decide to take less. As we discussed previously, I would make various of my SS available, but I never thought there was really a good match there.

That statement was tongue-in-cheek. I definitely wanted an upgrade there, and had some initial talks fall flat. You may have misconstrued that for desperation.

Looks like you’re happy w/ your pitching, I guess…