New franchise trade logic

[Funkycorm]

Re: New franchise trade logic

What's unfortunate is y2y saves was left out and the improvements were trade logic and a dumbed down budget process such that you aren't really running a franchise - just a 40 man roster.

That's what we got instead of y2y saves.

I can't speak for the trade. But I will try it on my roster when I have the chance. This is where reduced potentials really shine. In 10 years of sims, I have only seen one or two head scratcher trades. I did not attempt any myself. Much better than before but still not perfect.

As far as the 40 man thing. This was discussed in another thread. But you would not discuss it with me. MLB payroll is based on the 40 man roster not the full organization.

You are managing and running a full franchise of 93 players. Are you not resigning them, having them play and develop? I am in 2031 of a sim future franchise and I have been managing my prospects and farm system since the beginning of the franchise. If you run the numbers about the difference in payroll between using 40 man and all 93 in the game, the difference is 5-7 million a year. Nothing that is going to let you go out and sign someone to a 30 million AAV contract.

As far as y2y being left out, there is no evidence it was left out because of the budget being changed to 40 man only. We all miss y2y saves, but it is more complex than copy and paste.

[CBoller1331]

Re: New franchise trade logic

Funky what's the breakdown of potentials for your roster? (Roughly what % are A, B, C, D...)

Its encouraging that you say it's better with edited rosters, as I have definitely seen some weird ones with a sim using base rosters

Sent from my SM-G930VL using Operation Sports mobile app

[Funkycorm]

Re: New franchise trade logic

I would say A/B/C/D is:

10/25/50/15

But I am currently out of town. Had to fly up to my parents to take care of a few things.

I am flying out tomorrow morning so I will try to get a better number later this weekend.

With my draft class edits, I stick to the above percentages so multiple years in the roster is closer to that true ratio.

[JWDixon120]

Re: New franchise trade logic

Trade Logic still rough. I’ve seen AI Braves trade Kenley Jansen to A’s for Matt Chapman?

Also saw them trade away Fried for Kevin Keirmaier and a C prospect lol


Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

[SportsGamer89]

Re: New franchise trade logic

Trade Logic still rough. I’ve seen AI Braves trade Kenley Jansen to A’s for Matt Chapman?

Also saw them trade away Fried for Kevin Keirmaier and a C prospect lol


Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

Why do the A’s still have Matt Chapman in your game?


Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

[Unlucky 13]

Re: New franchise trade logic

Sometimes I think we get too wrapped around the axel with trade logic. Imagine the outrage if the Rockies traded Nolan Arenado for a middle of the rotation and a handful of mediocre prospects in a franchise. Or that the Cubs would trade Kris Bryant for two guys that weren't even among the Giants' top 20 prospects. Franchise players would be losing their mind over how unrealistic it would be, but teams actually make trades like this.

I want franchise modes to be better than real life, though. If that makes sense.

I want it to be an idealized version of what could be.

[BigOscar]

Re: New franchise trade logic

Yeah I'm seeing a heap of absolutely terrible trades that make no sense no matter how you look at them. Like the Royals trading Witt Jr for a 25 year old 71 rated C potential SS. Or Seattle trading Julio Rodriguez for a 28 year old no hoper C potential. Somehow the Yankees on my Rtts franchise have managed to ditch half their roster within 2 years and are running out a bunch of low 70's overall guys with no potential.

I think they really need to get a handle on the basics of what sort of player gets traded and why. Far too many top prospects get traded by teams who aren't going for it, or young MLB players with tons of service time left getting traded. These aren't the guys who get traded, it should mainly be the older guys with contracts running down being traded to contenders, or teams in a rebuild shedding expensive contracts.

Honestly think it all starts with them giving the different teams unique personalities, so big teams act like big teams and small market teams act like small market teams. That's pretty much the single most important dynamic in baseball and they just don't represent it at all

[LegendKillerOne]

Re: New franchise trade logic

This is the number 1 reason I run 30 team control and handle any and all trades

[MakaveliLPC]

Re: New franchise trade logic

Super disappointing man. I wish enough people cared to get the devs to patch the logic

[JWDixon120]

Re: New franchise trade logic

Why do the A’s still have Matt Chapman in your game?


Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

Sorry it was the Blue Jays! A’s still on the mind lol.

[DelishattheDish]

Re: New franchise trade logic

Sometimes I think we get too wrapped around the axel with trade logic. Imagine the outrage if the Rockies traded Nolan Arenado for a middle of the rotation and a handful of mediocre prospects in a franchise. Or that the Cubs would trade Kris Bryant for two guys that weren't even among the Giants' top 20 prospects. Franchise players would be losing their mind over how unrealistic it would be, but teams actually make trades like this.

Or Donaldson being traded in his prime for Brett freakin Lawrie and a prospect with banjo hitter tools by every casual's moneyball idol.

I was just looking over the Bryan trade and I think it's a good deal for the cubs, regardless of what he did with the Giants. He performed pretty much as expected. Cubs got a 3 war player for their part of the 20 million, Giants got a player that that was worth 1 war over 50 games. They got one high risk high reward outfielder and a pretty interesting pitcher for 1 war. It's not a bad deal, people just freak out cause "omgersh Kris Bryant tho"

The majority of the trades that happen irl most guys wouldn't make with their Show franchise because they overvalue their guys, they seem to expect their trade counterparts to gut their organization to get one all star.

[Unlucky 13]

Re: New franchise trade logic

Or Donaldson being traded in his prime for Brett freakin Lawrie and a prospect with banjo hitter tools by every casual's moneyball idol.

I was just looking over the Bryan trade and I think it's a good deal for the cubs, regardless of what he did with the Giants. He performed pretty much as expected. Cubs got a 3 war player for their part of the 20 million, Giants got a player that that was worth 1 war over 50 games. They got one high risk high reward outfielder and a pretty interesting pitcher for 1 war. It's not a bad deal, people just freak out cause "omgersh Kris Bryant tho"

The majority of the trades that happen irl most guys wouldn't make with their Show franchise because they overvalue their guys, they seem to expect their trade counterparts to gut their organization to get one all star.

As a Cubs fan IRL, I'm really not excited about the return. But they should have moved him a year earlier when they could have gotten more, if they were never going to be able to extend him. Same with the rest of the core. Waiting until the very end of a guy's control to move him is stupid unless you're a top contending team.

[DelishattheDish]

Re: New franchise trade logic

As a Cubs fan IRL, I'm really not excited about the return. But they should have moved him a year earlier when they could have gotten more, if they were never going to be able to extend him. Same with the rest of the core. Waiting until the very end of a guy's control to move him is stupid unless you're a top contending team.

Baseball is the ultimate gamblers game imo. Would you have felt better about it if the Cubs sent over 10 million for those guys instead of Bryant? It still would've been a gamble either way but that's essentially what they paid for them, that's the market value for 1 win above replacement. They were playing with house money though because they already got above market value on Bryant's contract even in that season with his highest arbitration year.

The big big gamble though is I believe they felt they could still compete up until the last with their core. Lots of reasons why it didn't happen but what else could they do? Tearing it down early would've been way more of a PR nightmare than waiting, you don't wanna be Marlins North lol

[Unlucky 13]

Re: New franchise trade logic

Baseball is the ultimate gamblers game imo. Would you have felt better about it if the Cubs sent over 10 million for those guys instead of Bryant? It still would've been a gamble either way but that's essentially what they paid for them, that's the market value for 1 win above replacement. They were playing with house money though because they already got above market value on Bryant's contract even in that season with his highest arbitration year.

The big big gamble though is I believe they felt they could still compete up until the last with their core. Lots of reasons why it didn't happen but what else could they do? Tearing it down early would've been way more of a PR nightmare than waiting, you don't wanna be Marlins North lol

It wouldn't have been worse than what we have now, which is a roster with maybe two long term position players in MLB (Horner and Suzuki), and only one top prospect anywhere close. If you're going to blow the thing up, then just do it.

[Therebelyell626]

Re: New franchise trade logic

The logic is still pretty bonkers. The Padres offered me Mackenzie Gore for Mike Minor. Some would look at it as a “win now” move, but the padres weren’t even in contention in my franchise