Trading a $1 keeper for a $40 keeper pre-auction

[Gregg]

Would you ever trade a $1 keeper for a $40 keeper per-auction?

In my AL only I have been offered a $40 pitcher for my $1 catcher (2 catcher league).

FanGraphs value the catcher at $7.5 and the pitcher at $29.5.

The issue is that there will only be 3 top pitchers back in the auction. Sale, Verlander, and Bauer. I believe these will all go over $40. Maybe mid 40's to low 50's.

I need an Ace.

I have tried to trade some other players and my #1 draft pick (8th overall). He rejected it and came back with this $1 for $40. I am tempted.

So my first question is have you ever or would you ever in any circumstance trade a $1 keeper for a $40 keeper pre-auction.

Given this would you trade a $1 Omar Narvaez for a $40 Gerrit Cole?

[umjewman]

I've done it. I can't speak to the specific players because I only play NL Only and my AL knowledge is weak.

But in 2007, I did a pre-draft $2 Stephen Drew for a $51 Pujols. Won the league that year, although I had a cheap Miguel Cabrera and Prince Fielder which made adding an expensive Pujols ok.

Did it this year, trading an MLE Carter Kieboom for an expensive Goldschmidt and another MLE. Results TBD.

[Mithrandir]

I don't play in Only leagues so take that into consideration.

I am always willing to deal for a stud (if you think Cole qualifies as a stud). I don't know much about Narvaez.

I guess if you think that you need an Ace to compete for the money, then do it.

[Redbirds Fan]

First question, yes, especially if the dollar guy is a catcher or a pitcher in the value range you are talking about.

Second question, probably, without seeing the rest of your roster but taking your word for it that you need the Ace.

[harmon]

Given Fangraph's valuation is Cole a $40 pitcher or are you trying to stretch him to that level because of lack of available depth in your league? Is that a fair inflation bump....just asking?

[Gregg]

Given Fangraph's valuation is Cole a $40 pitcher or are you trying to stretch him to that level because of lack of available depth in your league? Is that a fair inflation bump....just asking?

That is a great question.

This is the second year of some new rules that are meant to curb some dumping and inflation. It seems that the rule allowing less keepers is causing players to be kept that are typically thrown back. So some of this is new in a very old league.

In addition to that many in the league are now valuing the best pitchers more than in years past.

I personally (with the help of RJ) have been able to mine some medium to cheap pitching gold in years past. Looking at what is going to be available at auction I am not so sure I can get the pitching staff needed to compete this year.

Thanks to all who responded. Gives good food for thought.

Any and all are appreciated.

[Sour Masher]

I'm generally someone who wants to trade the $40 guy for the $1 guy, as I like to think I auction well, and I want as much auction money as possible to take advantage of value when it presents itself. That said, I like Cole a lot. I might do that deal in your spot. But then again, I have never played in a 2 catcher only league, so my dismissiveness of Omar's value may be a product of ignorance. I imagine there are some truly bad options as a 2nd catcher in an only league.

[Gregg]

I'm generally someone who wants to trade the $40 guy for the $1 guy, as I like to think I auction well, and I want as much auction money as possible to take advantage of value when it presents itself. That said, I like Cole a lot. I might do that deal in your spot. But then again, I have never played in a 2 catcher only league, so my dismissiveness of Omar's value may be a product of ignorance. I imagine there are some truly bad options as a 2nd catcher in an only league.

Thank you.

FanGraphs and CBS both project him as the 6th best catcher in AL only leagues.

[Ken]

This is actually a very complex question that has some interesting discussion around it. There are a few concepts in play here that surround inflation.

A few things to keep in mind.

1) If inflation is *high* in your league ( .. I know that is a relative concept ), the higher end players are more valuable in a relative sense.
2) The shallower the league, the less valuable the cheap players become. In a 10 team league, replacement value is so high that you'd almost always take the more expensive players, assuming both are profitable relative to contract.
3) I used to always enjoy going into an auction with more money, but Lucky taught me several years back that I was making one mistake in my valuations. There's value in NOT having money. Specifically, the more money you have left in an inflated auction, the more money you are exposing to inflation, the less your team as a whole will be worth. So if I'm expecting 50% inflation, and I have $150 going into the auction, since players on average cost $150 for every $100 of value I'm losing $50 to inflation. But if I go into the auction with $75, I'm only losing $25 to inflation.
4) Obviously there's a balancing act involved here. More money is better than less money, even if that money is inflated. For example keeping a $20 Cole is better than keeping a $40 Cole. But it's not $20 better. It is $20 minus inflation better.
5) Keep in mind that inflation is primarily experience on the stars of the league that are thrown out early. If you expect 50% inflation overall, you may see 60% inflation on the top end players, and eventually inflation flips and the cheap players are underpriced.
6) In reality you want to make sure you end up on both of those sides. You have to get some top end guys (don't leave the auction with money in your pocket), but at the same time you want to have money left at the end to realize those discounts mentioned on the cheaper players.

In some ways it is more of an art than a science. I've developed some patterns I like to exercise during auctions to where I can always have money when there's good values to be had. It takes practice.

Sorry some of that was off topic. TLDR summary, if inflation is high enough I'd take Cole.

[Gregg]

This is actually a very complex question that has some interesting discussion around it. There are a few concepts in play here that surround inflation.

A few things to keep in mind.

1) If inflation is *high* in your league ( .. I know that is a relative concept ), the higher end players are more valuable in a relative sense.
2) The shallower the league, the less valuable the cheap players become. In a 10 team league, replacement value is so high that you'd almost always take the more expensive players, assuming both are profitable relative to contract.
3) I used to always enjoy going into an auction with more money, but Lucky taught me several years back that I was making one mistake in my valuations. There's value in NOT having money. Specifically, the more money you have left in an inflated auction, the more money you are exposing to inflation, the less your team as a whole will be worth. So if I'm expecting 50% inflation, and I have $150 going into the auction, since players on average cost $150 for every $100 of value I'm losing $50 to inflation. But if I go into the auction with $75, I'm only losing $25 to inflation.
4) Obviously there's a balancing act involved here. More money is better than less money, even if that money is inflated. For example keeping a $20 Cole is better than keeping a $40 Cole. But it's not $20 better. It is $20 minus inflation better.
5) Keep in mind that inflation is primarily experience on the stars of the league that are thrown out early. If you expect 50% inflation overall, you may see 60% inflation on the top end players, and eventually inflation flips and the cheap players are underpriced.
6) In reality you want to make sure you end up on both of those sides. You have to get some top end guys (don't leave the auction with money in your pocket), but at the same time you want to have money left at the end to realize those discounts mentioned on the cheaper players.

In some ways it is more of an art than a science. I've developed some patterns I like to exercise during auctions to where I can always have money when there's good values to be had. It takes practice.

Sorry some of that was off topic. TLDR summary, if inflation is high enough I'd take Cole.

Thank you. Some good stuff here.

I was trying to do your #6 by trading for Cole as well as keeping Narvaez. We went back and forth a bunch. He finally just came out the blue and said Cole straight up for Narvaez.

The reason I like the $1 Narvaez is that he allows me to keep or spend elsewhere. Also he will make a profit. Cole will not make a profit, but he will get me great counting stats that will allow me to go cheap for the rest of my pitching roster (when combined with my other pitcher keeps).

I am leaning towards making the deal.

Thanks to all for the help.

[Sharky]

Ken, love your point 3 (dollars at auction are buying players at inflated value). This is so poorly understood.

[Sour Masher]

Ken, love your point 3 (dollars at auction are buying players at inflated value). This is so poorly understood.

I think this is so fundamental, it is probably one of the few concepts most get, actually. I mean, almost everyone understands auction dollars are not worth as much with inflation. But some of the other points, like how inflation happens more at the top end, and how exactly inflation should affect keeper values is less commonly understood. For instance, some folks are citing the projected values of both players, but the projected values are not inflation adjusted, and not compared against the likely cost of comparable players in the auction. So when folks say Cole won't turn a profit at 40, I'd retort that his value at 40 exceed paying 45 plus for Bauer. Both of these players are clearly good keepers, and while the projected values favor the catcher, Ken's point about how inflation happens more at the top seems to be true in almost all auctions, as it seems it is in Gregg's league. So, as others have suggested, this is a close deal.

[Ken]

I think this is so fundamental, it is probably one of the few concepts most get, actually.

You think so? I feel like most people, if given the opportunity to take more $s into the auction, do so without considering the negative consequences. I see this often in leagues I'm in.

[harmon]

You think so? I feel like most people, if given the opportunity to take more $s into the auction, do so without considering the negative consequences. I see this often in leagues I'm in.

Probably a couple of factors at play here. It's just more fun to have additional money at the auction and the feeling that you can pick up multiple "bargains". Some are also into "price checking" and "controlling the board" as well as dominating a category such as speed or saves for trading purposes.

[Sour Masher]

You think so? I feel like most people, if given the opportunity to take more $s into the auction, do so without considering the negative consequences. I see this often in leagues I'm in.

Really, can I join? . Seriously, it surprises me that leagues you are in, which I'd assume are ultra competitive, or you'd be dominating them with your knowledge, would have owners not keeping elite talent at good, inflation adjusted prices, simply to have more inflation devalued auction dollars.

But as harmon says, I could see other things being in play, like guys maybe not keeping some borderline pricey dudes because they prefer the fun and strategy of having more auction money over price certainty of an at cost player.

I admit, my experience is fairly limited. Over the last 20 years, I've only been in one league the majority of those years, and in that league, I don't think I've ever seen an owner toss back a pricey but still under-inflation value elite talent like Cole. Now, I have seen lots of dudes toss back what I consider under-value middle tier and lower tier guys, but for reasons you've already mentioned, I kinda get that, especially in a 14-16 team mixed league like mine. You wanna have the coin to land even more elite guys in a league my size. Tossing back a mid-tier guy who may be a couple of bucks under costs isn't a bad strategy if you are focusing more on stars and scrubs.