STLtoday.com

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑07 Jun 2024 14:36 pm

An Old Friend wrote: ↑07 Jun 2024 14:29 pm

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑07 Jun 2024 14:17 pm

An Old Friend wrote: ↑07 Jun 2024 13:05 pm

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑07 Jun 2024 12:28 pm I'd never consider making it with anyone in the Top 4.

That's fair... kind of like how teams rarely trade within their own division.

Exactly. That's why this trade struck me as odd - in particular when I of course knew you had options to get saves without "trading within the division."

Quincy and I talked about starting the league and it's fun to compete. Even more so, now, that we have vastly different strategies but are both competing at the top.

I'm not just trying to beat Quincy... I'm trying to beat everyone. So if it ends up being mutually beneficial to us, even better. If I lose the league because of THIS trade, shame on me, but I don't think the talent that changed hands is going to sway the league in either of our favor. I think the deal helps me stay near 140 points overall which would keep me at/near the top of the table.

If Quincy uses Nestor / Greene to further improve his roster, good for him. Saves are scarce, so even though I feel the deal was pretty equitable, it's going to likely cost a premium to get help in the most scarce category.

I guess that's the thing - you are trying to beat everyone. But, IMO, the part of "everyone" you have to worry about is QV, Whatashame, and Booooyah.

Better than you making a trade which is beneficial to both you and QV would be making a trade that is just beneficial to you (because you traded "outside of the division").

If I thought that this trade would be a massive boon to Quincy, I wouldn't have made it. And I think I got better than he did.

Interestingly, Yahoo projects the two hitters over the rest of the season as:
JD Martinez - .279 AVG / .868 OPS, 17 HR, 48 RBI - 96th overall
Riley Greene - .282 AVG / .799 OPS, 11 HR, 38 RBI - 159th overall

Greene's current xBA is .245 and Martinez's is .272

I paid for saves and a bat that I project to be better.

That's fair - different projections lead to different answers. I would probably just put more faith in the models cited by FG than whatever model Yahoo uses.

Well, after all of this dialogue, it should be a fun exercise to look back on in a few months to see what transpired.

An Old Friend wrote: ↑07 Jun 2024 15:00 pm Well, after all of this dialogue, it should be a fun exercise to look back on in a few months to see what transpired.

It’s as though this is some kind of game to you.

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑07 Jun 2024 05:11 am Honestly, the Cortez/Greene for Yates/Martinez deal is SO lop-sided in your favor, if you were making it with one of the teams at the bottom of the league, I'd be vetoing it. Maybe I should be vetoing it anyway.

Care to offer your thoughts about the latest trade in progress?

Quincy Varnish wrote: ↑09 Jun 2024 06:15 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑07 Jun 2024 05:11 am Honestly, the Cortez/Greene for Yates/Martinez deal is SO lop-sided in your favor, if you were making it with one of the teams at the bottom of the league, I'd be vetoing it. Maybe I should be vetoing it anyway.

Care to offer your thoughts about the latest trade in progress?

Well - that's interesting.

FP would say AOF is getting 24 VORP in Wheeler/Sewald, and an open roster spot vs. Barking Lion getting only 20 VORP from Smith/Parker/Crochet. Used well, that open roster spot is probably worth at least 6 VORP, so it's like 30 to 20, which is crazy.

Smith and Parker are currently substantially overperforming vs. future predictions. The ONLY logic I see is if BL hasn't looked at the "regression to the mean" predictions for them.

Yeah, it's WAY in AOF's favor - almost unseemly so.

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑09 Jun 2024 07:08 am

Quincy Varnish wrote: ↑09 Jun 2024 06:15 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑07 Jun 2024 05:11 am Honestly, the Cortez/Greene for Yates/Martinez deal is SO lop-sided in your favor, if you were making it with one of the teams at the bottom of the league, I'd be vetoing it. Maybe I should be vetoing it anyway.

Care to offer your thoughts about the latest trade in progress?

Well - that's interesting.

FP would say AOF is getting 24 VORP in Wheeler/Sewald, and an open roster spot vs. Barking Lion getting only 20 VORP from Smith/Parker/Crochet. Used well, that open roster spot is probably worth at least 6 VORP, so it's like 30 to 20, which is crazy.

Smith and Parker are currently substantially overperforming vs. future predictions. The ONLY logic I see is if BL hasn't looked at the "regression to the mean" predictions for them.

Yeah, it's WAY in AOF's favor - almost unseemly so.

I would like to hear Barking Lion’s perspective.

Quincy Varnish wrote: ↑09 Jun 2024 07:16 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑09 Jun 2024 07:08 am

Quincy Varnish wrote: ↑09 Jun 2024 06:15 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑07 Jun 2024 05:11 am Honestly, the Cortez/Greene for Yates/Martinez deal is SO lop-sided in your favor, if you were making it with one of the teams at the bottom of the league, I'd be vetoing it. Maybe I should be vetoing it anyway.

Care to offer your thoughts about the latest trade in progress?

Well - that's interesting.

FP would say AOF is getting 24 VORP in Wheeler/Sewald, and an open roster spot vs. Barking Lion getting only 20 VORP from Smith/Parker/Crochet. Used well, that open roster spot is probably worth at least 6 VORP, so it's like 30 to 20, which is crazy.

Smith and Parker are currently substantially overperforming vs. future predictions. The ONLY logic I see is if BL hasn't looked at the "regression to the mean" predictions for them.

Yeah, it's WAY in AOF's favor - almost unseemly so.

I would like to hear Barking Lion’s perspective.

I concur.

Can you veto a trade and then withdraw your veto later is an explanation is given?

Different topic, I find it interesting that:

Matt Waldron - 24th ranked player over the last 30 days (3 wins, 3 QS, 39 K in 35.3 IP, 1.78 ERA, 0.91 WHIP) is still only rostered in 41% of Yahoo leagues

and

Jose Soriano - 138th ranked player over the last 30 days (2 wins, 2 QS, 23 K in 31 IP, 2.90 ERA, 1.06 WHIP) is only rostered in 12% of leagues.

Must be a lot of leagues out there with few teams and/or slots for few SP.

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑09 Jun 2024 09:31 am Can you veto a trade and then withdraw your veto later is an explanation is given?

Since we haven’t heard from either party - what might you regard a sufficient ‘explanation’?

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑09 Jun 2024 09:31 am Can you veto a trade and then withdraw your veto later is an explanation is given?

No... but why do you require an explanation?

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑09 Jun 2024 10:05 am Different topic, I find it interesting that:

Matt Waldron - 24th ranked player over the last 30 days (3 wins, 3 QS, 39 K in 35.3 IP, 1.78 ERA, 0.91 WHIP) is still only rostered in 41% of Yahoo leagues

and

Jose Soriano - 138th ranked player over the last 30 days (2 wins, 2 QS, 23 K in 31 IP, 2.90 ERA, 1.06 WHIP) is only rostered in 12% of leagues.

Must be a lot of leagues out there with few teams and/or slots for few SP.

I’m in two other leagues. Both of them are the standard 12 team, 23 roster spot format; representative of the vast majority of Yahoo’s leagues. Soriano is on waivers in both. Waldron is only claimed in one of them, and that claim was processed yesterday. Ryan O’Hearn is unclaimed in both. I just picked up Josh Smith in one league today, so I’m eager to explore the possibility of trading him for Zack Wheeler. Just kidding - it’s a money league, so something like that would be vetoed within an hour, and the managers involved would be investigated.

Think of it this way - the pool of claimed players in our league is 41% larger than the standard league.

An Old Friend wrote: ↑09 Jun 2024 15:55 pm

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑09 Jun 2024 09:31 am Can you veto a trade and then withdraw your veto later is an explanation is given?

No... but why do you require an explanation?

Can’t speak for Matt, but I actually would like to hear how you break down the exchange of value in this trade. Humor me.

Zack Wheeler
Paul Sewald

for

Garret Crochet
Mitchell Parker
Josh Smith

Try it this way, if you are willing. Both sides would add up to 100, with each player having a respective value ‘score’. How does it balance out?

Quincy Varnish wrote: ↑09 Jun 2024 15:53 pm

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑09 Jun 2024 09:31 am Can you veto a trade and then withdraw your veto later is an explanation is given?

Since we haven’t heard from either party - what might you regard a sufficient ‘explanation’?

I think it would be BL explaining whether they are aware of the regression predictions and if they think the players they are getting are going to keep producing at current levels nonetheless.

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑09 Jun 2024 18:25 pm

Quincy Varnish wrote: ↑09 Jun 2024 15:53 pm

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑09 Jun 2024 09:31 am Can you veto a trade and then withdraw your veto later is an explanation is given?

Since we haven’t heard from either party - what might you regard a sufficient ‘explanation’?

I think it would be BL explaining whether they are aware of the regression predictions and if they think the players they are getting are going to keep producing at current levels nonetheless.

Barking Lion has not posted at all since 6/1, or in this thread for about a month. We may not know the details of his decision making before this trade is processed. Not every trade needs to be subjected to an audit, where both managers are obligated to defend their motives.

From my perspective, a trade should be evaluated on the basis of fairness alone. Obviously, you’re free to any action/inaction you choose, justified by a variety of motivations or judgements.

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑09 Jun 2024 18:25 pm

Quincy Varnish wrote: ↑09 Jun 2024 15:53 pm

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑09 Jun 2024 09:31 am Can you veto a trade and then withdraw your veto later is an explanation is given?

Since we haven’t heard from either party - what might you regard a sufficient ‘explanation’?

I think it would be BL explaining whether they are aware of the regression predictions and if they think the players they are getting are going to keep producing at current levels nonetheless.

Barking Lion is lagging in 3 pitching categories - Wins, Strikeouts, and Quality Starts. He's also pacing to finish about 100 innings under the innings cap. Crochet has obviously been outstanding and close to Wheeler's equal. I get certainty in Wheeler and offload some pitching surplus and he gets an ace with another strong performing starter in Parker. Parker has made 10 starts and hasn't given up more than 3 earned runs in any of them. Both Crochet and Parker have far exceeded Fantasy Pros preseason projections.

Josh Smith's preseason projection / prediction was this: .231 AVG, .684 OPS, 3 HR, 14 RBI, 17 Runs, 2 SB
Josh Smith actual statistics through 63 games are these: .287 AVG, .810 OPS, 4 HR, 24 RBI, 32 Runs, 4 SB

Why would you lean so far into Fantasy Pros rest of season projections when they've whiffed so badly on these players?

I'll give you that his batted ball metrics don't necessarily support the slash line, but he hit like this at every level in the minors. He has plus plate discipline & plus bat to ball skills. He qualifies at 3 positions and represents a nice upgrade from who Barking Lion has been using there.

BL is in good shape in saves so he was comfortable giving up a closer which fills a need for me. He also moves towards closing his innings gap and raises his floor on wins / strikeouts / quality starts.

I offered his choice of Crochet or Ragans and a better infield bat and said explicitly that I was trying to trade up for a SP and fill my saves gap.

Note from An Old Friend
Offering Crochet here but could swap out for Ragans (if you prefer one over the other). Crochet is more highly rated, today. You fill the need for an infield bat and keep Bohm at 1st, I trade up on a SP and get a closer to fix my saves gap. Let me know.

This is the first time I have posted in this thread except to let QV and AOF know that I was interested in participating in the league. It’s tough to talk about the current trade proposed without it sounding like sour grapes BUT my initial reaction was WTF!! This trade is pretty one sided and all of the rationalizing in the world doesn’t change that fact.

AOF receives arguably the best pitcher in baseball and a top closer who admittedly was injured early but is healthy now. He gives up two lesser pitchers and a middling infielder. Smith is off to a nice start but wouldn’t be considered in the upper echelon of infielders and is outperforming any projections for him.

I’m not one to veto trades and I haven’t vetoed any in this league this year. I have actually made two trades and we will see how they work out. Most of the trades are not always to my liking but I can see what both sides were trying to do.

This particular trade will be hard not to veto because it is pretty one sided. Not trying to be unreasonable but this trade offer is difficult to understand.