NL LABR results

[Moonlight J]

results in sequential order

Full draft board http://rtsports.com/labr-nl-auction

[Big Tymer]

This one is always fun to watch because of Doug Dennis. Really like his offense (and why wouldn't you with his allocation or $230) and he has some nice upside at P but not sure the innings are there. There was some value to be had at SP so think he still might be better served going $210/$50 or even $220/$40 and upgrading a few of those arms.

[joncarlos]

Man, where did all the money go? Almost every player I see went for less than I'd expect. Even at the top end- 29 for Marte, 30 for Blackmon, 30 for Seager, 29 for Votto, even 33 for Rizzo and 35 for Harper. I guess some of the high 2nd tier guys got pushed a bit - Cutch 25, CarGo 27, Stanton 27, Myers 27, Yelich 26, G Polanco 28, Murphy 28, Braun 31. But then I'm looking at Asdrubal for 14, Oh for 16, Maeda for 13, Cueto for 22, Familia for 11 even with a 30-game suspension looming, Eaton for 20, etc.

Then there's Trea Turner for 34 which you knew someone would do.

[The Dane]

Man, where did all the money go? Almost every player I see went for less than I'd expect. Even at the top end- 29 for Marte, 30 for Blackmon, 30 for Seager, 29 for Votto, even 33 for Rizzo and 35 for Harper. I guess some of the high 2nd tier guys got pushed a bit - Cutch 25, CarGo 27, Stanton 27, Myers 27, Yelich 26, G Polanco 28, Murphy 28, Braun 31. But then I'm looking at Asdrubal for 14, Oh for 16, Maeda for 13, Cueto for 22, Familia for 11 even with a 30-game suspension looming, Eaton for 20, etc.

Then there's Trea Turner for 34 which you knew someone would do.

That's the effect of zero inflation. Those prices looks reasonable given that no one had any keepers.

What always amazes me is that some of these teams are helmed by "experts." Holy frijoles, a few of them are horrible.

[revo]

$22 for Eric Thames? Wow, someone's drinking the Kool-Aid!

[The Dane]

Only because we've talked about it a bit, the SD OF shook out about how I'd expect: Margot $15, Jankowski $13, Renfroe $11, Dickerson $10.

They definitely pay for upside.

[Hammer]

Rich Hill at $20 is high

[harmon]

Tom Murphy goes for $10.

In another post I mentioned how I really would like to get him for $5 or less. The concensus was that he should go for less even in NL only. Surprised to see him go for 10 in a one year league like this when his real value will likely start in 2018.

[The Dane]

Tom Murphy goes for $10.

In another post I mentioned how I really would like to get him for $5 or less. The concensus was that he should go for less even in NL only. Surprised to see him go for 10 in a one year league like this when his real value will likely start in 2018.

These guys are absolutely bonkers for the young guns... even if they are slinging most of the year in the minors. Part of this is a rules thing around their bench spots, and the rest is a crazy love for upside. Strange to think that in a redraft league, Cody Bellinger, JP Crawford, Gavin Cecchini, Lewis Brinson, Jorge Alfaro, Jesse Winker, Albert Almora, and Austin Meadows all got drafted (most for more than $1). Dahl, even with the recent injury, went for $20, while Parra went for $5. The way to be competitive in this league is to draft boring players for way cheaper than they should go.

[Judge Jude]

These guys are absolutely bonkers for the young guns... even if they are slinging most of the year in the minors. Part of this is a rules thing around their bench spots, and the rest is a crazy love for upside. Strange to think that in a redraft league, Cody Bellinger, JP Crawford, Gavin Cecchini, Lewis Brinson, Jorge Alfaro, Jesse Winker, Albert Almora, and Austin Meadows all got drafted (most for more than $1). Dahl, even with the recent injury, went for $20, while Parra went for $5. The way to be competitive in this league is to draft boring players for way cheaper than they should go.

I made a profit last year on Prado, AHill, Kendrick, Jay, and Hellickson. finished 11th though

[chancellor]

That's the effect of zero inflation. Those prices looks reasonable given that no one had any keepers.

What always amazes me is that some of these teams are helmed by "experts." Holy frijoles, a few of them are horrible.

You're probably being generous. About half of them look non-competitive at best and awful at worst.

Too bad you didn't get a crack at them this year.

[The Dane]

You're probably being generous. About half of them look non-competitive at best and awful at worst.

This was explained to me very eloquently by the wonderful Jonah Keri during some -ultimately fruitless- trade talks. (What follows are my words, not his.) These guys are essentially selling "plans," a set of guidelines, strategies, and most importantly, philosophies. For them, it's actually better to be middle of the pack with players your source praised, than it would be to win with guys your source panned. Winning is great, but you have win according to the plan you're selling. This is a real obstacle toward winning, because they aren't completely free to draft who will generate the stats to win. If you write an article about how Jeanmar Gomez is a horrible choice to close, but then you get him and his 10-15 saves put you over the top, you've won the battle and lost the war, so to speak. So, they can't really optimize their roster the way some unaffiliated owner can. This why they can go with someone like Austin Meadows, instead. They can roll the dice on unexpected PT, and he can likely be replaced by a schlub that didn't get drafted and so they didn't actually spend on him, and Meadows is a prospect they've probably praised. They're covered all around that way.

But, yeah, it makes several of those teams look really, really, bad.

[pitbull]

That is a good explanation Dane. I've often wonder if I or anybody who is just an average Joe would do a better job of drafting.

[The Dane]

That is a good explanation Dane. I've often wonder if I or anybody who is just an average Joe would do a better job of drafting.

I think, over the years they did it, that the Regular Guys fared pretty well in the LABR. I certainly don't think it was because they were more knowledgeable or more experienced than the experts, but that they were free to care only about winning, and not selling a system. That said, many of those experts are real pros.

[Gregg]

This was explained to me very eloquently by the wonderful Jonah Keri during some -ultimately fruitless- trade talks. (What follows are my words, not his.) These guys are essentially selling "plans," a set of guidelines, strategies, and most importantly, philosophies. For them, it's actually better to be middle of the pack with players your source praised, than it would be to win with guys your source panned. Winning is great, but you have win according to the plan you're selling. This is a real obstacle toward winning, because they aren't completely free to draft who will generate the stats to win. If you write an article about how Jeanmar Gomez is a horrible choice to close, but then you get him and his 10-15 saves put you over the top, you've won the battle and lost the war, so to speak. So, they can't really optimize their roster the way some unaffiliated owner can. This why they can go with someone like Austin Meadows, instead. They can roll the dice on unexpected PT, and he can likely be replaced by a schlub that didn't get drafted and so they didn't actually spend on him, and Meadows is a prospect they've probably praised. They're covered all around that way.

But, yeah, it makes several of those teams look really, really, bad.

I found this when I was looking for something else. It just seemed that I should bump it for review.