TRTR : Day 11

[jbmagic]

Perhaps the Ai weight Evaluation % was set higher to stats than ratings?

[Stu]

Originally Posted by jbmagic

Perhaps the Ai weight Evaluation % was set higher to stats than ratings?

Another possibility. Bottom line, it's impossible to evaluate that trade without more information.

[Muppetus Galacticus]

I didn’t want to spend my time pitching deals back and forth to the various teams in the league, so I tried out the Shop a Player function, a returning feature to OOTPB 2007. I wanted to win big now, so I chose to offer up young right fielder Jose Madrid, who was a five-star potential player but an undeveloped prospect who wasn’t going to help me much this season. I didn’t get an impact shortstop offered to me, but the Washington Darts (a team set to rebuilding mode) were willing to part with four-star third baseman Ed Cox. Knowing that my new signing Will Hoffman could shift to shortstop if need be, I opted to explore this trade.

The RF, Jose Madrid, was described as, "an undeveloped prospect who wasn’t going to help me much this season." To me, that doesn't mean he was far away from the major leagues. He might only be a year away from a starting spot every game. The Darts might have been desperate for an outfielder.

[chimanbj]

Pending offers screen...I could cry...I can't tell you how many times I made huge contract offers to someone, and then a few "days" later, make an offer to an underpriced guy for the same position, only to have them both sign and put me in the poor house...

[battists]

Originally Posted by skywalkr2

If the team WAS in rebuilding mode... I think that is another reason why they would keep a league minimum 4 star 3B. Rebuilding shouldn't mean... trading away any good player for prospects... it should mean trading away aging players for prospects / young players.

Well, like all of this, it depends. What if the guy was due for arbitration and was expected to make $10 million per, and they were out of money?

I'm not trying to be fanboyish, mind you, just agreeing with Stu that there's just not enough info there to make a judgment call.

[neojonas]

Very nice writeup! I can't wait to get back to the Preview tonight and try some more stuff. I'm like a 5 year old in a candy store with no prices!

[JHruska]

Also, he was using stars as his metric. If those work the same way they did pre-2006, they're position relative on gold-star players such as the 3B. And you can generally expect a superb OF (assuming, of course, that the 'spect reaches his potential) to provide a lot more offense than a very good 3B.

[Dagrims]

Originally Posted by battists

Well, I didn't see Nutlaw's league, but there's any number of reasons a team might make this deal:

b. team had a logjam at that position, or an upcoming stud at that position

This seems to be the most likely reason. Reversing the trade, I would certainly consider trading a four-star 3B if he was in his mid to late 20s, I had a great player already playing there or a huge prospect ready to start at the position, and I was looking for a top prospect in the outfield because I had three starters in their early to mid 30s with little or no depth on the bench.

[battists]

Originally Posted by JHruska

Also, he was using stars as his metric. If those work the same way they did pre-2006, they're position relative on gold-star players such as the 3B. And you can generally expect a superb OF (assuming, of course, that the 'spect reaches his potential) to provide a lot more offense than a very good 3B.

This is true too.

Also, 2007 has another option: you can make overall ratings "positional" or "overall." In other words, you can rate your 3B compared to all 3B in the laegue, or compared to all players in the league. As you can imagine, this can make a pretty powerful difference in how players are rated.

[JHruska]

Originally Posted by battists

This is true too.

Also, 2007 has another option: you can make overall ratings "positional" or "overall." In other words, you can rate your 3B compared to all 3B in the laegue, or compared to all players in the league. As you can imagine, this can make a pretty powerful difference in how players are rated.

Wow. First time I've read that one. That's a huge difference.

[Muppetus Galacticus]

Originally Posted by JHruska

Wow. First time I've read that one. That's a huge difference.

"

That's a nice extra

[CHCfan]

Originally Posted by CHCfan

Question about the offers screen: can we withdraw offers, unlike last version? Also do we confirm a deal after the player agrees (i.e. like in a trade, we need to confirm)? This really bugged me about v.2006

just wanted to bump this back up, kinda getting lost in the fray. It's pretty important to me.

[battists]

Originally Posted by CHCfan

Question about the offers screen: can we withdraw offers, unlike last version? Also do we confirm a deal after the player agrees (i.e. like in a trade, we need to confirm)? This really bugged me about v.2006

Yes to the first, no to the second.

[CHCfan]

Originally Posted by battists

Yes to the first, no to the second.

Good enough. Thanks a bunch, steve.

[kq76]

Originally Posted by battists

This is true too.

Also, 2007 has another option: you can make overall ratings "positional" or "overall." In other words, you can rate your 3B compared to all 3B in the laegue, or compared to all players in the league. As you can imagine, this can make a pretty powerful difference in how players are rated.

For the positional one, is it compared to all players who have a rating at that position or does it just compare those who have that position listed as their primary position? I hope it's the former.

[Muzamba]

I'm sure somebody already spotted this, but ya never know...

Typo on the first screenshot under "Create Fictional League" button:

"A Fictional League can have of any structure you want..."

[Nutlaw]

Hi there. Yeah, I wrote this (uncredited?) blog.

Will Hoffman was already rated at both 3B and SS when I signed him. He was a better 3B than SS, so I originally signed him to play 3B, but he was also an acceptable SS, so I didn't mind moving him to make room for Cox.

While Cox was a 4 star player when I traded for him, he spent the season fluctuating between 3-3.5 stars. He was arbitration eligible the next season and the team who traded him to me (Washington) didn't look like it was going to be competitive for a few seasons. The prospect that I sent to them was already half-developed, and had the potential to be a much better player. It was a good move on their part (and hopefully mine).

[Nutlaw]

Oh, and I can't go back to view Washington's roster at the time of the trade, but they did have another 4 star 3B at the end of the season, so they didn't really need to hold on to Cox as well.

[CHCfan]

Originally Posted by Nutlaw

Hi there. Yeah, I wrote this (uncredited?) blog.

Will Hoffman was already rated at both 3B and SS when I signed him. He was a better 3B than SS, so I originally signed him to play 3B, but he was also an acceptable SS, so I didn't mind moving him to make room for Cox.

While Cox was a 4 star player when I traded for him, he spent the season fluctuating between 3-3.5 stars. He was arbitration eligible the next season and the team who traded him to me (Washington) didn't look like it was going to be competitive for a few seasons. The prospect that I sent to them was already half-developed, and had the potential to be a much better player. It was a good move on their part (and hopefully mine).

Originally Posted by Nutlaw

Oh, and I can't go back to view Washington's roster at the time of the trade, but they did have another 4 star 3B at the end of the season, so they didn't really need to hold on to Cox as well.

Thanks for the follow-up, Nutlaw, and nice write-up as well!

[John]

Great writeup.... I'm getting more excited about 2007 every day.