Broken Bat - Discussion Forum: A new angle on an old complaint

Forum >> Discussions >> A new angle on an old complaint

Post ID	Date & Time	Game Date

#71076	01/29/2020 10:38:37 pm	Apr 3rd, 2044
allen54chevy Joined: 11/22/2015 Posts: 475 Inactive	Cheating is the biggest fear. If you get to choose your trade partner then cheating will occur. A better solution would be to only allow trading between teams in your cup group AND no trading your first season of ownership. This greatly diminishes the chances of being able to trade with oneself. I agree though with both sides that: 1. Trading is a big part of baseball management in real life and in fantasy (heck I used to trade baseball cards as a kid.) Having it missing feels weird. 2. The potential for abuse if open trading was added could ruin this really cool game.

#71085	01/30/2020 6:58:07 am	Apr 3rd, 2044
Seca Joined: 05/05/2014 Posts: 5199 Waterloo Dinosaurs Legends	I appreciate the suggestion. I've been resistant to trading in the past. I'm more open to it now. Part of that is the new draft system. It's accelerated player development. More difficult than it used to be to plan and groom for the future given a shorter time frame. One additional measure that might help would be limiting the number of trades a team could make per season. Personally I would limit it to 1. Even OOTP hasn't managed to figure out good trade AI, and he's been doing it for a long time now. Hehe. Ya, I never found a setting that I liked in OOTP. It's really difficult to picture how to build the algorithm here. Tanner, for example, has 123 SI, multiple gold gloves and a couple 750 OPS seasons. He's still just 32, and making a very reasonable 1.6 million. Yet he sits in free agency. It's hard to imagine an algorithm that wouldn't see him worth a nice 14 pot prospect, if not much more.

#71087	01/30/2020 8:06:16 am	Apr 3rd, 2044
MukilteoMike Joined: 08/09/2014 Posts: 3294 Inactive	I appreciate the suggestion. I've been resistant to trading in the past. I'm more open to it now. Part of that is the new draft system. It's accelerated player development. More difficult than it used to be to plan and groom for the future given a shorter time frame. In my opinion, you've got it backwards. The new draft gives us a much higher ability to target what we want (in other words, plan). We can draft by position, including the simplest example of pitcher vs. not. We can see stats and the development to better estimate how far along they are and what it would take to alter that. While I think the new draft fails in many things, information is not one of them. It's up to us to utilize that.

#71090	01/30/2020 9:21:31 am	Apr 3rd, 2044
Seca Joined: 05/05/2014 Posts: 5199 Waterloo Dinosaurs Legends	In my opinion, you've got it backwards. The new draft gives us a much higher ability to target what we want (in other words, plan). We can draft by position, including the simplest example of pitcher vs. not. You have 12 position players in your minors. 8 of them I would classify as 1B. Perhaps you are doing a poor job of utilizing the new tools? I've got the same problem - 4 of 9 are 1B/DH types. The only good option on my board this week was another 1B. Left him in the pool. I do understand your point. On the surface, both seeing the skills and being able to draft by position should allow you to target better. In practice (in my experience anyway), - you are still lucky to get one useful player on your list let alone one that fits a need (regardless of the pool you draft from) - drafting by position seems like a trap; it limits one degree of freedom while relaxing another. You get a little better chance of finding the build you want, but lose control over age. If you have a 29 year old 2B and nothing in the minors, you'd like to put a teenage 2B in A. If you draft by position and the only good option is a 26 year old from the Asian pool, you've created a surplus. Margate's minors demographics look much like Waterloo's; skewed to AAA. Some of this is the bulge from the 2041 draft class. But part of it is the shorter gestation periods. 17 year olds are placed in A and can promote to AA the next week. These guys are in AAA within 2 seasons. If you draft a mix of college and HS, your system becomes top heavy very quickly. For me, draft by position seems like a poor proposition. Far better to control the age and look for the skill set, then get a slightly better chance at the skill set (looking at some of the guys on waivers, I'd argue draft by position gives you position knowledge, not a skill set) and lose control over age.

#71092	01/30/2020 10:08:54 am	Apr 3rd, 2044
MukilteoMike Joined: 08/09/2014 Posts: 3294 Inactive	I agree with much of what you said directly above. I've always been of the ilk to get the best available player and force the pieces into the puzzle. That may not be the best method, especially now, but that's my choice. And that's the key. If I never get a pitcher, I have to accept some of that responsibility because I've not told the draft to look at only arms, etc. As has been the case for years, I think the best, most practical, simplest and cheat avoidance trade system is not trading at all, but priority waivers. You have none of the regulatory hassle of trading. Instead, you have an effective way to get players on your roster in a thoughtful way. Do that with just one successful priority claim per season and you drastically increase the power of true management.

#71093	01/30/2020 10:13:05 am	Apr 3rd, 2044
Jason2327 Joined: 09/02/2014 Posts: 719 Abilene Patriots III.2	I totally see how too many trades could ruin the game. Limiting them would be smart. Not taking advantage of owners was why I made the limit of what the league levels. Legends not trading any lower than III would mostly guarantee that both owners know what they're doing. Again, may not be doable here, but it is a thought that might be the closest to anything suggest yet I think

#71112	01/30/2020 9:00:17 pm	Apr 7th, 2044
jclemen2 Joined: 11/22/2016 Posts: 177 Mount Prospect Skeletons Legends	Direct 1 to 1 trades where you make a deal directly with another team is just hard to control. There is the potential for collusion, or just for taking advantage of someone less experienced/active. I ran a Baseball mogul league and there were always issues with trading, and that was with no more than 32 teams. Someone new came in and took over a team, made a few quick trades, usually trading prospects for vets. In the long run they were worse off. They didn't understand the value of players and prospects. Not sure if it's been proposed, but what about a trade platform built similar to the waiver wire? Let's call it "Trade Block". I think it would eliminate the idea of collusion at the very least. The idea of this is basically two parts, and one is still figuring out how to value players in a trade situation. The 2nd part is easy, a player can be listed as available for trade, and if you are interested in trading for him it works just like waivers. You can search just like you can with waivers for players available for trade. There'd be a countdown to the time the trade is made, and you would click "make trade" or "offer trade", something like that to join the list of teams willing to trade for that player. The difference might be with 24 hours left the teams interested locks in, no one else can join, and at that time the value of the trade is set. Once that value is set for what you would have to give up, you have 12 hours to withdraw your team. At the 12 hour mark you have to have an open roster spot available if the trade goes through. Just like waivers, at the end of the clock the trade winner is randomly selected, just like waivers. I like the idea of seeing a player available to trade for, expressing interest, seeing how many other teams are interested, and seeing the cost of the trade go up over a couple days time. Near the end of the process the final value is determined, and I can decide if I'm in or out. Same for the person trading away the player, maybe up until 36 hours left they can withdraw the player if it looks like the value will be too low for them. This is a general idea, time frames and process can be tweaked. Back to the first part, assigning value to players, which I'm sure would take a lot more to figure out. I'll throw a few ideas out just as starter ideas, because at this point it's just an idea. The easiest idea I can come up with is trading picks. I know, there's no pick trading in baseball, but what i like about picks is it is a constant value across all teams. A first is a first is a first regardless of the team it belongs too. It doesn't require valuing skill, age, salary or anything else by AI. The value of that player being traded is going to be determined by us, based on how many people express interest in trading for the player. The value of picks for the next 3 years would have to have a value. If I put a player out for trade and 1 team expresses interest in the trade maybe the value of that is an 8th round pick 3 years down the road. If 250 teams are interestd maybe the value is multiple 1sts and a 2nd, or whatever. The cool thing with this is the value is determined by how many people are willing to pay the price. So when i see a player available it will tell me what the current cost of that player is. If I'm willing to give up a 5th round pick or whatever the current price is I can click "express interest" or "make offer" or whatever you want to call it. After a couple of more people that value would go up slightly. On the transactions page there would be waivers, and then a separate area for trade desk that would track your offers and what you would lose in the trade. The 2nd option requires valuing anything that can be traded. Picks could still have a value if you want to include them, and players would have a value based on how good of a prospect they are, and for players who have left that prospect stage it would take into consideration age, salary, skill etc. If I list a player as available for trade people can start making offers, and their offer will have a total score shown. Same idea as above, there is a countdown just like waivers, and some sort of time when the top x% locks in. Just like waivers those final qualified if you will offers go through a random selection of the winner. In this method you have a couple of days to make your "offer" by putting together the players you would trade, and you can increase your offer based on what you need to do to stay in the top group that can "win" the trade claim. An explanation of this with dates etc that are flexible: I list http://brokenbat.org/player/175870 as available for trade. It doesn't matter what his value is. Other teams start making offers, and their goal is to be within 15% (or 10%, just thinking as i go) of the final top offer to qualify. They will see what the top offer is, and will have to build an offer that is close enough to fall within 15% (or whatever %). As soon as I list him as available for trade there is a 4 or 5 day window until a trade is made. Teams can keep offering or upping their offer up until 24 hours left. At that time the offers lock. Teams eligible would have to be within 15% of the top offer to be eligible for the random selection of the trade winner. Teams would have up until 12 hours left to withdraw their offer, so if the top offer changes their mind that would let additional offers in that didn't make the initial cut. At 0 hour, just like with waivers, a winner is randomly selected. It could even be weighted, like the best offer has better odds of winning. The key is there's less chance of collusion because you can't make a direct trade with someone, and the value that is required is out there for everyone to see. Just a few ideas, as having a way to trade would be cool. The random winner approach of waivers in a trade format combined with somehow measuring the value of picks, players, or both. You could include making it more specific, like this player is available, i want a trade that includes a specific position, or I don't want prospects that have a lack of control or atrocious fielder etc description, or i just want picks. Thoughts?

#71115	01/30/2020 11:53:58 pm	Apr 7th, 2044
FreddyTheEye Joined: 11/11/2014 Posts: 625 Inactive	No to trades. Period. I don't even like trades in RL. Yes to anything that allows more control in the draft. Age of drafted prospects or skills ie. High range and fielding. As mentioned above this would give all the control and long term planning we need imo.

#71136	01/31/2020 6:54:08 am	Apr 7th, 2044
Seca Joined: 05/05/2014 Posts: 5199 Waterloo Dinosaurs Legends	@ jclemen2 I loved Baseball Mogul. Not sure if it's been proposed, but what about a trade platform built similar to the waiver wire? It has. I want to say Haselrig put forward some eloquent arguments for it, but I may be mistaken. I think the idea has merit. I'd limit the number of trades a team could make in a season. I'd also streamline your suggestion a bit - make it like waivers, but you offer a package instead of just making a claim. When the update processes it would try to judge the best package that was offered and award the player to that team.

#71146	01/31/2020 8:37:08 am	Apr 7th, 2044
Haselrig Joined: 04/13/2014 Posts: 2790 Novi Doubledays III.4	Ah, the Trade Pool. Those were the days [EDIT] Almost forgot the sequel. Updated Friday, January 31 2020 @ 8:47:30 am PST