MLB 16 Trade Discussion Thread

[HighCmpPct]

Re: MLB 16 Trade Discussion Thread

I wouldn't have traded four players for Yangervis Solarte, and I wouldn't have Victor Robles headline that deal but besides that the rest look good.

Well I only trades 3 for him, but let me explain this trade out a bit further.

First off Solarte is having a great year so far hitting, .272 12hr 47rbi and I have been getting little from Rendon after his hot start he's now at .249 7hr 28rbi. Not to mention I'm getting a absolutely horrendous year so far from Murphy .197 4hr 19rbi, though he has been coming around a tiny bit lately.

Maybe that will help show why I overpaid a bit for him.

[CBoller1331]

Re: MLB 16 Trade Discussion Thread

Id imagine you could get even more for Votto, although Im not sure how much value his contract takes away...He's already 32, and with 7 more years left at $25 MM. Once he gets to be 35-36 that's going to be an overpay.

[CBoller1331]

Re: MLB 16 Trade Discussion Thread

Well I only trades 3 for him, but let me explain this trade out a bit further.

First off Solarte is having a great year so far hitting, .272 12hr 47rbi and I have been getting little from Rendon after his hot start he's now at .249 7hr 28rbi. Not to mention I'm getting a absolutely horrendous year so far from Murphy .197 4hr 19rbi, though he has been coming around a tiny bit lately.

Maybe that will help show why I overpaid a bit for him.

Counting is hard :

I still don't know if I would have given up Robles...Wilmer Difo may have been a better fit

[kenp86]

Re: MLB 16 Trade Discussion Thread

Would a guy like homer Bailey and a low b be good value for Vlad Jr? Bailey is 6-6 with a 3.45 era. Jays needs a #4/#5 guy as there guys are under .500 with an era over 5 and 6 respectively.

Then where could I send votto and for what kindve value

[GamecocksLaw17]

Re: MLB 16 Trade Discussion Thread

Id imagine you could get even more for Votto, although Im not sure how much value his contract takes away...He's already 32, and with 7 more years left at $25 MM. Once he gets to be 35-36 that's going to be an overpay.

I think Votto's skillset is one that will age pretty well. He won't lose his plate discipline and OBP abilities. Plus his game isn't really around power. I think you're right that he could get back much more than Guerrero Jr. Theres also the full no trade clause and Votto saying he wants to stay in Cincy, but that's not too relevant in this video game sense. I'm not saying he will be an asset the whole contract but I can easily see a scenario where a 38 year old Votto accumulates 3 WAR and is worth his deal, just not really producing surplus value.

[CBoller1331]

Re: MLB 16 Trade Discussion Thread

I think Votto's skillset is one that will age pretty well. He won't lose his plate discipline and OBP abilities. Plus his game isn't really around power. I think you're right that he could get back much more than Guerrero Jr. Theres also the full no trade clause and Votto saying he wants to stay in Cincy, but that's not too relevant in this video game sense. I'm not saying he will be an asset the whole contract but I can easily see a scenario where a 38 year old Votto accumulates 3 WAR and is worth his deal, just not really producing surplus value.

Yeah that's kinda what I was thinking...I just didn't word it all that great. His power numbers probably will take a hit, but that's not how he makes his money. I just didn't know if his contract would lessen what the Reds got back in a potential deal

[sink4ever]

Re: MLB 16 Trade Discussion Thread

I was interested in acquiring Votto as Seattle (haven't yet, probably waiting until the offseason), so a little while ago I went back to find mentions of Votto in this thread. I found the following 4 suggestions:

TEX: Brinson + Tate/Ortiz + a lesser piece like Jurado/Beras/Matuella (Low A/High B + High B + High C?)
TOR: Alford + Greene/Reid-Foley + Tellez + a lottery ticket type (Low A/High B + Mid/Low B + Low B + High C)
BOS: Benintendi + Kopech + Travis + a lottery guy like Chavis maybe? (Low A/High B + Mid B + Mid/Low B + Low B)
KC: Mondesi + Ashe Russell + Jorge Bonifacio (Low A + Mid B + High C)

I added the potentials myself based on the roster I was using (an early OSFM I think). It looks like consensus is something around Low A + Mid B + Low B. Does that still seem to make sense to people?

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: MLB 16 Trade Discussion Thread

I was interested in acquiring Votto as Seattle (haven't yet, probably waiting until the offseason), so a little while ago I went back to find mentions of Votto in this thread. I found the following 4 suggestions:

TEX: Brinson + Tate/Ortiz + a lesser piece like Jurado/Beras/Matuella (Low A/High B + High B + High C?)
TOR: Alford + Greene/Reid-Foley + Tellez + a lottery ticket type (Low A/High B + Mid/Low B + Low B + High C)
BOS: Benintendi + Kopech + Travis + a lottery guy like Chavis maybe? (Low A/High B + Mid B + Mid/Low B + Low B)
KC: Mondesi + Ashe Russell + Jorge Bonifacio (Low A + Mid B + High C)

I added the potentials myself based on the roster I was using (an early OSFM I think). It looks like consensus is something around Low A + Mid B + Low B. Does that still seem to make sense to people?

I may be dissenting from the majority here, but Votto's contract is an absolute albatross. Could be one of the worst in baseball. He turns 33 before the season is over, and is under contract through 2023. That's seven more years. With the way regression works in the game, there's no way I am paying an A prospect like Benintendi for him so that I can pay out that much until Votto's age 41 season (he could retire before then and you'd be lucky). Multiple B prospects, maybe.

I could see you getting 2-3 years where he provides surplus value, 2 years where he just earns his keep, and 2-3 years where you're just praying he retires. So it may hinge on how long you plan to play out this franchise.

The only way you'd need to offer an A prospect is if you're making Cincy eat some salary.

[sink4ever]

Re: MLB 16 Trade Discussion Thread

I may be dissenting from the majority here, but Votto's contract is an absolute albatross. Could be one of the worst in baseball. He turns 33 before the season is over, and is under contract through 2023. That's seven more years. With the way regression works in the game, there's no way I am paying an A prospect like Benintendi for him so that I can pay out that much until Votto's age 41 season (he could retire before then and you'd be lucky). Multiple B prospects, maybe.

I could see you getting 2-3 years where he provides surplus value, 2 years where he just earns his keep, and 2-3 years where you're just praying he retires. So it may hinge on how long you plan to play out this franchise.

The only way you'd need to offer an A prospect is if you're making Cincy eat some salary.

Haha, that's music to my ears.

The counter to that, at least that I've heard mentioned from other sites, is that Votto is signed so long that they anticipate him being there after the rebuild and providing solid production. In that case Cincinnati doesn't necessarily have incentive to trade him away unless they get a great return.

I tend to agree with your thinking on his value, but I also want to make sure I stay aware that he is a pretty special player and his team doesn't need to get rid of him. I'm personally leaning toward including a low A as a headliner in my anticipated trade, just because I think it needs to hurt me a little.

[KBLover]

Re: MLB 16 Trade Discussion Thread

I'm personally leaning toward including a low A as a headliner in my anticipated trade, just because I think it needs to hurt me a little.

I guess but I admit I'll not understand the logic of trades needing to hurt teams.

You make trades to address concerns on your team, not to hurt it. Trades that hurt your team I've always thought were bad trades.

I have to agree with WTNY. All that might be true irl, but in the game, it's highly unlikely he'll be that good and I bet the Reds do what the Cardinals are doing in my carryover sooner than later...trying to get out from under a long Longoria contract (and getting no takers) where he's horrid...for $23M.

[sink4ever]

Re: MLB 16 Trade Discussion Thread

I guess but I admit I'll not understand the logic of trades needing to hurt teams.

You make trades to address concerns on your team, not to hurt it. Trades that hurt your team I've always thought were bad trades.

I have to agree with WTNY. All that might be true irl, but in the game, it's highly unlikely he'll be that good and I bet the Reds do what the Cardinals are doing in my carryover sooner than later...trying to get out from under a long Longoria contract (and getting no takers) where he's horrid...for $23M.

That's fair. What I mean by "hurt" is that I need to be willing to give up real talent to get real talent. I'm not trying to make sure I get the short end of the stick, but I want to be sure I'm not ripping off the other team.

In a situation like this, where's no concrete real-life example of Votto's trade value, I want to err on the side of making sure I don't cheat the CPU. I'm not saying that way is better, it just helps me personally enjoy my franchise more when I know I've "earned" the players on the team.

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: MLB 16 Trade Discussion Thread

That's fair. What I mean by "hurt" is that I need to be willing to give up real talent to get real talent. I'm not trying to make sure I get the short end of the stick, but I want to be sure I'm not ripping off the other team.

In a situation like this, where's no concrete real-life example of Votto's trade value, I want to err on the side of making sure I don't cheat the CPU. I'm not saying that way is better, it just helps me personally enjoy my franchise more when I know I've "earned" the players on the team.

I actually agree that trades should hurt the user. I also err on the side of a slight overpayment when in doubt.

The thing is, you taking on the contract is probably hurt enough. Conversely, the Reds shedding that money makes them able to attack free agency in a totally different manner over the next decade.

It's really a moot point, though, because if you are playing as the Mariners, they have a fairly weak farm system and you're not likely to find any legitimate, bonafide A prospects in there anyway.

[sink4ever]

Re: MLB 16 Trade Discussion Thread

I actually agree that trades should hurt the user. I also err on the side of a slight overpayment when in doubt.

The thing is, you taking on the contract is probably hurt enough. Conversely, the Reds shedding that money makes them able to attack free agency in a totally different manner over the next decade.

It's really a moot point, though, because if you are playing as the Mariners, they have a fairly weak farm system and you're not likely to find any legitimate, bonafide A prospects in there anyway.

Yeah, but then I had the draft, haha. My 1st round pick is a SP, 70 OVR and 90 POT. That's why I'm planning on trading for him in the off-season. I'm thinking my draft pick, DJ Peterson, and Alex Jackson to start with. We'll see, I'll reevaluate once I get there and probably pop back in here with all the final numbers and everything for feedback.

[kenp86]

Re: MLB 16 Trade Discussion Thread

Houston:
SP, F.Martes (3-12/6.00 era)
2B, L.Gurriel (5/36/.303)
3B, C.Moran (10/61/.327)

To ChW for J.Quintana (5-9/3.12 era) Fair?

Cleveland:
3B, G.Urshela (5/28/.290)
C, F.Mejia (B pot)

LaD:
RF, Y.Puig, (12/42/.264)
Fair?

[redsox4evur]

Re: MLB 16 Trade Discussion Thread

Houston:
SP, F.Martes (3-12/6.00 era)
2B, L.Gurriel (5/36/.303)
3B, C.Moran (10/61/.327)

To ChW for J.Quintana (5-9/3.12 era) Fair?

Cleveland:
3B, G.Urshela (5/28/.290)
C, F.Mejia (B pot)

LaD:
RF, Y.Puig, (12/42/.264)
Fair?

The Quintana deal feels too light. You are giving up your #3 and 11 prospects and Gourriel who can't even be traded for something like 6 months because he was just signed. I would switch Gourriel for Kemp no matter what because why do the Sox need a 32 year old 2nd Baseman? Especially when they would be clearly entering a rebuild. I am thinking something like Martes, Tucker/Cameron (higher potential and overall of the 2), Reed and Kemp. And the Cleveland deal feels alright.