2024 AL auction keepers - my annual help solicitation

[SlideRule]

Hi all, happy drafting season! I'd like some crowdsourced input on my keeper options for my 10-team AL only. $260, 8 keepers, 2-C roto league. Inflation is usually 20%-30% and concentrated on the top players (ie the top few hitters and pitchers usually go for ~$50). Notable is that we are switching to S+H this year instead of just Saves. My once-great keeper list has been eroded a bit with the loss of Glasnow $3 and Bradish $3 (I think).

Here's my list, in rough order of certainty of keeping:

Kirby $5 B
Jung $7 A
Heim $1 B
Ragans $9 A
Bibee $9 A
~~~~~
Tucker $46 A (likely would go for ~$50+)
Seager $40 A (injury makes him questionable here)
Means $1 A (high risk, delayed start)
Jason Adam $5 A (solid if boring value for S+H category and ratios?)
Bradish $3 A (expect TJ and don't want to waste a keeper slot, but sad about it)
Griffith Canning $2 A (meh)

So who do you like to fill out my top 8?

[Ken]

Tucker, Seager, Canning.

I wouldn't keep injured guys if there are other options. Adam is fine, but I can't imagine there won't be another similar player for $5. Lots and lots of guys get holds, it's not a rare asset and you shouldn't pay for it with a keeper and certainly not for $5 IMO.

[madducks]

Looks like Tucker, Seager, and Adam are the only good choices. If you can keep less than 8 and draft a more reasonably priced SS, then you may want to do that.

[SlideRule]

I don't have to keep 8. Interesting disagreement already on Adam! I hadn't really even considered Canning because he's so boring, but I guess I should. Really Canning over Means? Upside seems a lot higher with Means.

[rhd]

Personally, I would not keep either Tucker or Seager, even w your relatively hi inflation. So what if you have to pay $50 or so to get them back? There's too much risk and too little benefit w keeping guys that expensive and so little excess value.

Because they're very cheap and thus little risk, I would be much more comfortable keeping Canning and Means. All the projection systems project Means for at least 100 IP or so and he's a good bet to earn at least that and possibly much more.

And I wouldnt worry about Adam. He might earn more than $5 but I would think if you threw him back you could get him back for $5 or less, so he's not a keeper.

[Ken]

Personally, I would not keep either Tucker or Seager, even w your relatively hi inflation. So what if you have to pay $50 or so to get them back? There's too much risk and too little benefit w keeping guys that expensive and so little excess value.

If you have to pay $50 to get them back then you are saving $4-$10. What's the "risk" you are referring to here?

[rhd]

If you have to pay $50 to get them back then you are saving $4-$10. What's the "risk" you are referring to here?

The risk is they have a down year or get hurt, which means you paid a lot of money for non-valuable production that you could have spent on less risky players w more potential benefit. If you're lucky they come close to earning their salary. I've tried keeping expensive keepers before and seen plenty of others do it. It seldom pays off.

[Ken]

The risk is they have a down year or get hurt, which means you paid a lot of money for non-valuable production that you could have spent on less risky players w more potential benefit. If you're lucky they come close to earning their salary. I've tried keeping expensive keepers before and seen plenty of others do it. It seldom pays off.

That's not an argument against expensive keepers that an argument against expensive players in general.

[rhd]

That's not an argument against expensive keepers that an argument against expensive players in general.

The point is it's generally not a good idea to keep such players. It would be different if you had to pay $60 or more to get them back. Then there's more potential benefit to offset the risk. Or if you thought they'd earn $60 but how often does a player earn that much in any league?. Now if we were talking about Ronald Acuna instead, that would be different because he might actually earn $60. But feel free to keep such players if you want. Not generally for me.

[Gregg]

I would keep Tucker.

I would not keep Seager. He said he might not be ready for the opener. You might get him at a discount and with a new contract.

I would be using the $40 and add some money to get the top player in the auction.

I always plan for a dollar pitcher or two. If I had the room I would take a shot a Means for a buck. You have the room. Then Canning or Adam for the last keeper.

[Ken]

The point is it's generally not a good idea to keep such players. It would be different if you had to pay $60 or more to get them back. Then there's more potential benefit to offset the risk. Or if you thought they'd earn $60 but how often does a player earn that much in any league?. Now if we were talking about Ronald Acuna instead, that would be different because he might actually earn $60. But feel free to keep such players if you want. Not generally for me.

It seems like you are just repeating the same argument rather than providing any new insight on why. There's not much functional difference between "keeping" and "auctioning" a high end player. When you are saying don't keep expensive guys, you are also saying don't buy them.

If you are saying you don't like buying expensive assets at auction that's a strategy I've seen work but just as often I've seen stars and scrubs (which is what this may lead to) work as much or more.

[SlideRule]

FWIW this league has evolved into a state where stars & scrubs is pretty common, in fact 1-2 owners typically even punt something like "starting pitching" or even "pitching" (but try to do well enough in saves and ratios with cheap relievers. The change to S+H might exacerbate that.

Last year top priced players included:
Yordan $44
Devers $44
Bieber $35
Gausman $34
Cole $47
JRam $49
Bichette $44 (ouch)
Trout $41

(other top players were kept)

So it's probably reasonable to assume I could get back Tucker for $50, or someone like Witt or Judge for $55. I am inclined to agree with Gregg's approach to keep Tucker, toss Seager, keep Means and pretend he's the Kyle Bradish that I wish I had...

[rhd]

When you are saying don't keep expensive guys, you are also saying don't buy them.

No, I'm not saying this. This is your fallacious assumption.

Sure, I pay high prices for players at auction. But when I go into an auction in a keeper league, I not only want excess value already on my team, I want the flexibility to be able to compete in the bidding for the players available. That means not having a lot of my budget tied up in hi-priced keepers who have little or no excess value. Maybe we just have different approaches to roto or maybe we value players differently or maybe both. Really, my valuation of Tucker for my league is that he's only worth about $38. Even w inflation of 20%-30% (let's say 25%), he should go for only around $47-$48. That's only $1-$2 of excess value but you've already tied up $46 of your budget before the auction begins. That $46 maybe could have been used to buy other players that might give you $10 or $20 in excess value but you cant get those players because you kept a marginal expensive player. I dont see how you can win doing that; you're building in mediocrity. If he has to pay more than $50 to get Tucker back, I would argue that the inflation is more 30%.

Maybe it's hard to say what he should do because I dont know his league. If it's a league where most of the elite players are kept, he might have to keep some expensive players even if they have no excess value or even negative value because there arent many other elite-level players available. In that case, I would say maybe they need to change the rules to make it so all teams have a chance if they make astute acquisitions. Otherwise, I dont see where it would be fun. But I didnt get the impression that his league was like this, just that it has relatively high inflation. It sounds he wants to keep Tucker, which might be the right thing for his league - he knows his league better than I do. But I wouldnt in my leagues merely based on 20-30% inflation.
.

[Ken]

No, I'm not saying this. This is your fallacious assumption.

Sure, I pay high prices for players at auction. But when I go into an auction in a keeper league, I not only want excess value already on my team, I want the flexibility to be able to compete in the bidding for the players available. That means not having a lot of my budget tied up in hi-priced keepers who have little or no excess value. Maybe we just have different approaches to roto or maybe we value players differently or maybe both. Really, my valuation of Tucker for my league is that he's only worth about $38. Even w inflation of 20%-30% (let's say 25%), he should go for only around $47-$48. That's only $1-$2 of excess value but you've already tied up $46 of your budget before the auction begins. That $46 maybe could have been used to buy other players that might give you $10 or $20 in excess value but you cant get those players because you kept a marginal expensive player. I dont see how you can win doing that; you're building in mediocrity. If he has to pay more than $50 to get Tucker back, I would argue that the inflation is more 30%.

Maybe it's hard to say what he should do because I dont know his league. If it's a league where most of the elite players are kept, he might have to keep some expensive players even if they have no excess value or even negative value because there arent many other elite-level players available. In that case, I would say maybe they need to change the rules to make it so all teams have a chance if they make astute acquisitions. Otherwise, I dont see where it would be fun. But I didnt get the impression that his league was like this, just that it has relatively high inflation. It sounds he wants to keep Tucker, which might be the right thing for his league - he knows his league better than I do. But I wouldnt in my leagues merely based on 20-30% inflation.
.

Our experience in auctions must be vastly different.

You went a little off track there with specifically valuing Tucker, that wasn't the point. If you don't like Tucker just say you don't like Tucker, that's fine. But if you expect that Tucker at fair value will go for $50 as the original point was focused on (the 25% number you used is a 'fallacious' assumption - as noted in the OP, inflation is concentrated at the top), you're looking at excess value wrong in my opinion. Excess value is in excess of the inflated price, not in excess of the raw value.

I've seen many many keeper auction teams fail by trying to save money going into an auction only to realize that what they saved themselves was cheap $ at the expense of the right to spend at inflated prices instead.

I've run the play of "I'll just keep extra money and find the players the rest of the league doesn't inflate as much", but that only works if you are in a league full of other teams who don't really understand inflation. If you have a couple good fantasy players in it that's all it takes to keep prices correct and take that huge $ chest you kept pre-auction and deflate its value.

[SlideRule]

So in my original message I was blindly assuming that Bradish was unkeepable given the UCL diagnosis. Now that I am looking closer at the overall situation and my other possible keepers, I'm wondering if I should reconsider. Is a $3A Bradish worth the risk of a keeper spot, if the alternatives are something like a $40 Seager, a $2 Canning, or a $1 John Means? I'm sure I'm just letting my optimism get the better of me and he'll hang around on the IL trying to rehab for a couple months before finally succumbing to TJ, but maybe the possible payoff is worth taking a chance over the limited value in those other options? Worst-case I lose a $3 pitcher and have to find a replacement on the wire...

Talk me off the ledge.