-
Shoeless Joes's trading block has been updated!
-
That may be true; but I think there are more value contracts now than there were even one year ago; but over time I expect the quantity of "value" contracts to increase, especially under the new arbitration system
-
I agree with the economic principle you are implying here, I just don't know that it applies any differently than it would have last year.
Caimans 🐊 on
January 22, 2013 11:05 AM
-
There are very few teams in my opinion that have a ton of money and just a few spots they want to fill.
Caimans 🐊 on
January 22, 2013 11:05 AM
-
Strikes, the issue is most teams haven't increased their number of 'value' contracts year over year for that model to work.
Caimans 🐊 on
January 22, 2013 11:04 AM
-
Bottom line: I genuinely do believe there is natural inflation over time; not trying to play mind games. It's ECON 101 for me; scarcity + demand = inflation. If I'm wrong, so be it, it's better for everyone. Inflation helps no one.
-
In process though, I like the new allocation system better. I'd rather be able to keep Cole if he's the second coming of Verlander, even if his price goes up by $20. I'd rather have the option to keep him, at least.
-
Actually, the old arbitration system might have better for my strategy; if Cole blows up this year he gets voted off but all my other guys (assuming they produce) are protected. But under the new system a few dollars allocated on 5-7 players will suck.
-
Much more difficult to forecast those values with the new arbitration system.
-
If G. Cole and Z. Wheeler turn out to be aces in three years at $15 and $9, great - I now have a ton of free cash to land a $70 Kershaw if he's the final piece to my championship puzzle
-
The goal is to land as many value contracts as possible, so that when they peak and I'm ready to go for another championship, I'm willing to spend my remaining cash on the very best players at auction.
-
Anyway, that's the way I see it, and it's consistent with my off season strategy. Only reason I'm "rebuilding" and going all in on prospects is because it's the best way to (risk) find value contracts.
-
In the end, I'm going to take the best player available, regardless of the price (to some extent) because it's the best way to maximize my points
-
Thus, I have more cash with fewer spots, and I need players that make a big difference. That means at $48 Kershaw last year might look just as appealing at $60 this year because I still need elite production but have fewer spots to get it in.
-
But if I continue to add value contracts (players that produce more than their currnet market price) over time, then 1) I have fewer roster spots to fille, and 2) I have more cash to fill them
-
That means inflation should increase over time, year to year, as more value contracts are on the books and what is left are stars or super stars that have always been expensive. Trout will never be a value contract again, ever.
-
A) Teams end up with more cash to spend in the draft (b/c their value contracts free up more resources), and B) it is extremely difficult to identify those value contracts for the present or future year at the time of the draft itself.
-
Example: Let's use Medlen ($5) and Darvish ($6) as examples. They are among the best "value" contracts in the league. But as more and more of those "value" contracts are rostered within the league, what's left is two things (speaking in general):
-
Trying to think of a better way to communicate why I think inflation will occur; I really believe it will, and Jed may have identified a good example:
-
And they are always out there, even though the FA pool looks pretty scrubby at first glance.
Eckfords ⚾ on
January 22, 2013 10:24 AM
-
I think you only go bonkers on superstars if you have zero confidence that you can hit bullseyes with the $2 end-gamers.
Eckfords ⚾ on
January 22, 2013 10:24 AM
-
Which is not to say I wouldn't love to own Mike Trout. But in last year's auction I got a $41 Granderson and a $3 Alex Rios, and look who turned out to be more valuable.
Eckfords ⚾ on
January 22, 2013 10:23 AM
-
Bottom line is anyone can own a $50 superstar or a 1st-round draft pick. It is actually is the Chris Parmelee picks who make championship teams, because that's the area where you can see value where others aren't seeing it.
Eckfords ⚾ on
January 22, 2013 10:22 AM
-
Inflation, if it does occur, is potentially bad for everyone. Prevents teams from affording more players at fair or value prices. Affects my non-competitive roster the same as anyone else
-
Re: Knights - not sure I understand. I plan to bid for elite guys, so if their salaries don't inflate as much as I think they will then that is better for me, b/c I could potentially afford more of them or afford other players as well.
-
Yeah, Worley was a tough call. Grandal's suspension put him over the edge, I'd have kept him at $5 but not $10.
-
It's weird how the "salary" column is actually "cap penalty if this were during the season"
-
I really like Grandal and Worley but I see that they were both just on the edge of being overpriced.
Eckfords ⚾ on
January 22, 2013 10:10 AM
-
Wow. I dunno, there are some pretty interesting guys in that group.
Eckfords ⚾ on
January 22, 2013 10:10 AM
-
Grandal, jeez. That's a pretty nice addition to the pool.
Eckfords ⚾ on
January 22, 2013 10:08 AM
-
More cuts from me, but I don't think they increased the "talent pool" ;)
-
The only player I would really reach for in this draft is Trout. Possibly Profar, but if you want to win then you probably don't need a $20 AAA player.
Eckfords ⚾ on
January 22, 2013 10:07 AM
-
Strikes, if you say I'm wrong about the benefits of inflation to you based on roster construction then you either don't value the guys on your roster as much as you say you do or you are lying.
Caimans 🐊 on
January 22, 2013 9:59 AM
-
Granderson. See Trey, that talent pool is growing as we speak!
Eckfords ⚾ on
January 22, 2013 9:37 AM
-
Yeah I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just not understanding why inflation was absent in 2012 but will be in full force 2013. I can't see any underlying differences.
Eckfords ⚾ on
January 22, 2013 9:35 AM
-
Technically, Detroit DID want to pay $200 million for Prince. There were no other bidders within $75 million. They just handed it to him.
Eckfords ⚾ on
January 22, 2013 9:34 AM
-
Look, whether I'm right or wrong about the inflation issue, at least we have something to discuss as a league on a cold Tuesday in January 60+ days before Opening Day. Most other leagues haven't looked at their roster since September...
-
That was posted today?
-
BAHAHA...article on "inflation" under the "Should I keep [Insert Player] at [Insert Price]?" section: http://www.fangraphs.com/fantasy/index.php/rebuild-retool-or-restock-prepping-for-year-2-in-ottoneu/
-
With a salary cap of $400 for all teams, once Medlen ($5) and Felix ($47) are on your team (post draft), the risk is the same (assuming both 1000 pt players), because all your funds are already allocated. You are down 1000 pts either way
-
What we're talking about here (inflation) happens all the time in MLB. Did LAA or DET want to pay $200M for Pujols or Prince? No, but they were the only elite 1B available and they were difference makers. Paid more than they should've b/c of scarcity
-
Pretty sure Durham would have preferred to lose a $6 Tulo instead of a $49 Tulo.
Eckfords ⚾ on
January 22, 2013 9:22 AM
-
So you're arguing that a $47 contract carries the same risk as a $6 contract? OK.
Eckfords ⚾ on
January 22, 2013 9:21 AM
-
I mortgaged a big chunk of future to acquire Pujols middle of last year, and it was a horrible trade. I will think long and hard about making a similar values-for-superstar deal this year.
Eckfords ⚾ on
January 22, 2013 9:21 AM
-
Lots of variables, but isnt' the chance of risk of injury to Felix pretty much the same as the risk to Kris Medlen? In other words, we have no idea what the risk is of either. If both project for 1,000 pts and both go down, it's the same effect
-
I understand that strategy, Trey, and would probably do the same in your shoes. BUT....I wouldn't just automatically assume that a contender will want to mortgage his future for a $54 Josh Hamilton or whatever.
Eckfords ⚾ on
January 22, 2013 9:20 AM
-
Inflation aside, I just don't favor big contracts for pitchers, they have too many moving parts that can go wrong. I honestly would've cut 47 Felix had I not found a buyer.
Eckfords ⚾ on
January 22, 2013 9:18 AM
-
I'd rather let you guys (league) figure out if a $ Chris Parmelee is a breakout and then trade a $60 Kershaw for him at the deadline.
-
Full disclosure: my draft strategy will be to draft elite guys for whatever cost it takes and then hold them for trade bait later. Seems much better than trying to find out if a $3 Chris Parmelee is a true breakout or not.
-
It makes a lot of sense until he gets shoulder/elbow inflammation. The consequences of that Kershaw pick failing -- and it could fail -- are much greater than the consequences of one of your two $32 players failing.
Eckfords ⚾ on
January 22, 2013 9:16 AM
Previous 50 messages |
Next 50 messages