Keeper Decisions

[ThatRogue]

When deciding on your questionable keepers, do you lean towards profit potential, or do you lean towards roster flexibility/opportunity cost?

What brings up this question, is, as I do my draft prep, I am conflicted about Ronny Cedeno. I have him at $2 and he earned $9 in standard NL-only 5x5 formats last season. The projection systems I am using have him earning between $7 and $8 in my league's format this season. That's a reasonable profit for a cheap keeper, but, I am keeping Tulo at $11 and Weeks at $16. So keeping Cedeno means locking up all of my MI slots.

As you guys prepare for your auctions, how are you evaluating whether to keep a lesser, but cheap and profitable player?

[Lucky]

There's really a couple of questions here. In the abstract, I would say keep profit potential. You have to have a couple of cheap players, so if you can take one without losing out on another freezable player, it's not a bad move. If a bargain comes up in the middle that you cannot resist, buy him and put him in your UT spot.

The second is less theoretical and more practical. I wouldn't keep Cedeno as that cheap player. I'm afraid he will not earn that $7 to $8, and will instead drag your average down. His hit percentage varies wildly from year to year, and with it his average.

So, yes to profit potential, and no to Ronny Cedeno.

[mgwiz22]

I agree with Lucky.

[Gregg]

All of the above. It depends on how I feel about the player and the roster spots. In this example I would not keep Cedeno.

[kldub4life]

I see I am the only one so far who picked option 2, but in reality I wish I could have picked 1.5 (a mix of 1 and 2).

Profit potential of the keeper is important, but just as important to me is flexibility and making sure I have openings that matchup with the best targets for me in the auction. And I chose 2 because because of my current off season issues of wanting to keep CI and MI open because my top 2 targets are at those positions heading into our auction.

[revo]

why keep a cheap scrub just because he's slightly less expensive than his projected value, and potentially lose out on in a bidding war for an elite player by that same $1 or $2?

In addition, why lock up a starting roster spot with a scrub?

[cavebird]

As you guys prepare for your auctions, how are you evaluating whether to keep a lesser, but cheap and profitable player?

My main league has a rule that keepers are locked in your active roster until September. That ends the discussion on guys like Cedeno.

[ThatRogue]

why keep a cheap scrub just because he's slightly less expensive than his projected value, and potentially lose out on in a bidding war for an elite player by that same $1 or $2?

Thanks Revo...but that does not happen in our league. Unless an elite player slipped through to the end game (which would mean that the whole league screwed up), reducing what you have available to spend by $1, due to a scrub $2 keeper, has no impact on the amount you bid for elite players (though filling the slots could impact who you can roster).

In addition, why lock up a starting roster spot with a scrub?

This is the real issue at hand, and why I asked the question. Of course, in deep leagues (mine is 12 team, NL only with 40 man rosters - 25 active, 15 reserve), every roster will have a cheap scrub somewhere. We do play Ultra, so roster moves are unlimited and reserves/FAAB can be used to offset cheap mistakes.

There are 32 starting MIs in the NL and a 12 team league requires the rostering of 36 MIs. Obviously, the same issue exists at CI...and is even more exaggerated at OF (48 NL starters, 60 league slots) and Catcher (16 NL starters, 24 league slots). In the end, it will come down to making auction decisions that minimize the total number of cheap scrubs we have to roster...then selecting the right cheap scrubs that will either earn the most out of that particular slot, or be adequate enough trade bait to upgrade the slot.

[ThatRogue]

Thanks for the input

I found it interesting that only one person is really concerned about roster flexibility, but it makes sense that profit should be more important.

For the people that said no to keeping scrubs, I wonder if the response would be different if:

A. I had not said that player was Cedeno and
B. If I phrased the question as "you knew that the player, generally regarded as a scrub, would definitely earn a minimum of $7".

(Note that my other MIs are Tulo at $11 and Weeks at $16. My draft prep scenarios all have me tossing back Cedeno...but I was curious about whether I was evaluating the situation properly.)

[chancellor]

I wasn't aware you were an Ultra league with 40-man rosters. Given that depth, I'd keep Cedeno and pocket the $4-5 profit you'd get.

[umjewman]

I think the bigger question is why, when there is so much pitching available in our auction, would you tie up three roster spots on such middling talent like gallardo, latos, and nolasco

[Lucky]

I have a sort of similar situation in my keeper league. I have Alexi Casilla at $1. Everyone tells me not to keep him, even though I don't have an excess number of freezable players.

My prediction is that Casilla will have a good year. He has blazing speed, and a steady job for the first time. I can see 30 steals easily, with a decent batting average. He is 2B/SS eligible. I don't see him as my 2B or my SS, but he seems like a nice choice for MI. Everybody ends up with a few $1 players, so why not keep one that I think will earn $9 or $10 profit?

[Gregg]

I have a sort of similar situation in my keeper league. I have Alexi Casilla at $1. Everyone tells me not to keep him, even though I don't have an excess number of freezable players.

My prediction is that Casilla will have a good year. He has blazing speed, and a steady job for the first time. I can see 30 steals easily, with a decent batting average. He is 2B/SS eligible. I don't see him as my 2B or my SS, but he seems like a nice choice for MI. Everybody ends up with a few $1 players, so why not keep one that I think will earn $9 or $10 profit?

The opinions and educated guesses are one of the many things that make this game fun. You are correct in that most of us if not all will need a $1 player or two. If you can get a decent BA and 30 steals for a buck it is a no brainer keeper.

[Gregg]

I found it interesting that only one person is really concerned about roster flexibility, but it makes sense that profit should be more important.

For the people that said no to keeping scrubs, I wonder if the response would be different if:

A. I had not said that player was Cedeno and
B. If I phrased the question as "you knew that the player, generally regarded as a scrub, would definitely earn a minimum of $7".

(Note that my other MIs are Tulo at $11 and Weeks at $16. My draft prep scenarios all have me tossing back Cedeno...but I was curious about whether I was evaluating the situation properly.)

All of the info is important. If you did not have both Tulo and Weeks I might consider keeping Cedeno (maybe). But you do have them. With the spot open you can throw out other names at the same position making people spend money and then ultimately grabbing the scrubb that will best help your team. Hopefully better than Cedeno.

[ThatRogue]

Fair enough, Gregg...but I wanted to try not to bias the answer. After a couple of poor finishes recently, I'm rethinking my overall approach this season. With two UT slots open, I could still call MIs and watch the bidding...but I would not be able to price enforce effectively if I kept Cedeno.

I think the bigger question is why, when there is so much pitching available in our auction, would you tie up three roster spots on such middling talent like gallardo, latos, and nolasco

Because they all have cool last names?

Yeah...that's it. If they were named Smith, Jones and Williams, I'd have tossed them back (even though their respective costs are $12, $5 and $15, before I decide how long to extend Latos).