2013 The Show Official Trade Discussion Thread

[Jcrome]

Re: 2013 The Show Official Trade Discussion Thread

So would wheeler + d'arnaud + nimmo + Flores + Davis work or maybe Murphy or nieuwenhuis instead of murphy

[ML]

Re: 2013 The Show Official Trade Discussion Thread

Royals give:

C Adam Moore
SP Noel Arguelles

Astros give:
Bud Norris

Thoughts? Maybe give RF David Lough instead of Moore?

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: 2013 The Show Official Trade Discussion Thread

Harvey won a Cy Young my first season with my Mets franchise I did a while back. If you sim the season, you're going to see different results.

^^^This. It's not like Harvey was Bruce Chen or Chris Volstad last year and is Cy Young this year. Guy was pretty good going into the dev cycle for MLB 13.

But you have to regard what's happening in the guys' franchise, too...? That's kinda more important than real life...?

You obviously have to take into account both real life and stats in game.

But, if Trout is hitting .180 in game, it's not like you will value him at a low C all of a sudden. The real life skill set is STILL the operative thing.

You may adjust a player's value up or down slightly based on stats in game, but stats in game are most certainly NOT the primary thing when evaluating a player.

If Bonifacio (I use Bonifacio because of your familiarity with him) was hitting .400 deep into your 'chise, is he then worth 3 A's? Of course not. That would be silly. So, to say the in-game stats are dominant isn't really correct.

As far as Harvey, seriously though it's not like this came out of nowhere. The guy's had the talent all along and scouting reports have been glowing. The guy pitched like an ace last year in 10 starts at 23 years old. He had a 2.73 ERA, 1.15 WHIP, and 10.6 K/9, so I think the SCEA devs had SOME idea Harvey had talent. It's not like his pitch repertoire changed drastically--the velos are almost identical to last year. His K-rate is also exactly the same as it was last year.

Granted his ERA, H/9, and WHIP (command) are much better--last year's stats strongly implied Harvey was a solid young pitcher with the potential to be great. But, c'mon, even if SCEA had Harvey in their stock rosters with all 99 ratings, his start would still be impressive/surprising.

My main contention is that if a guy is rated a certain way at the beginning of the season and breaks out in a massive way, then you should pay the new price in a trade--even with the "old" rosters. And let me tell you why. The potential for the player to break out was always there despite what the ratings may be. And especially if you play your own games, and don't do all simming, the player's ratings are only of some importance anyway. You could have more success with a 67 player than an 84 player--happens all the time.

Besides, paying what? A low A or whatever Trout would have been OD 2012, when he was in the midst of maybe the best rookie season ever is actually quite funny to me. That would be the definition of "cheesing" the AI. Nevermind the fact that a player who is *serious* about realistic value will have updated/edited the rosters by that point anyway, so this "opening day value" is a moot argument.

Royals give:

C Adam Moore
SP Noel Arguelles

Astros give:
Bud Norris

Thoughts? Maybe give RF David Lough instead of Moore?

I think you could get a bit more for Norris. Just my opinion.

[AC]

Re: 2013 The Show Official Trade Discussion Thread

You obviously have to take into account both real life and stats in game.

But, if Trout is hitting .180 in game, it's not like you will value him at a low C all of a sudden. The real life skill set is STILL the operative thing.

You may adjust a player's value up or down slightly based on stats in game, but stats in game are most certainly NOT the primary thing when evaluating a player.

If Bonifacio (I use Bonifacio because of your familiarity with him) was hitting .400 deep into your 'chise, is he then worth 3 A's? Of course not. That would be silly. So, to say the in-game stats are dominant isn't really correct.

I really disagree with 100% of everything you just said but I'm too sick and tired to really care enough to put effort into a response.

If Bonifacio would be hitting .400 in game, and .250 in real life, his value would still be up, because real life stats have nothing to do with video game stats.

If someone had started their franchise on OD last year with the spring training set, and Trout was hitting .230 at the trade deadline in their franchise, but he was setting records in real life, he wouldn't be as unrealistic to acquire, because he wouldn't have established his value yet. Now, though, even if he's hitting .230 at the deadline, he's established his value in 2012, which is taken into account by the game. It's a case by case thing. Harvey wasn't realistic to acquire before this season anyways, so the point is moot.

As far as Harvey, seriously though it's not like this came out of nowhere. The guy's had the talent all along and scouting reports have been glowing. The guy pitched like an ace last year in 10 starts at 23 years old. He had a 2.73 ERA, 1.15 WHIP, and 10.6 K/9, so I think the SCEA devs had SOME idea Harvey had talent. It's not like his pitch repertoire changed drastically--the velos are almost identical to last year. His K-rate is also exactly the same as it was last year.

Granted his ERA, H/9, and WHIP (command) are much better--last year's stats strongly implied Harvey was a solid young pitcher with the potential to be great. But, c'mon, even if SCEA had Harvey in their stock rosters with all 99 ratings, his start would still be impressive/surprising.

My main contention is that if a guy is rated a certain way at the beginning of the season and breaks out in a massive way, then you should pay the new price in a trade--even with the "old" rosters. And let me tell you why. The potential for the player to break out was always there despite what the ratings may be. And especially if you play your own games, and don't do all simming, the player's ratings are only of some importance anyway. You could have more success with a 67 player than an 84 player--happens all the time.

Yeah, I'm not arguing with that Harvey's unrealistic, I'm just saying that if a player hasn't put up those stats in the player's franchise yet, it probably shouldn't be taken into account.

BNevermind the fact that a player who is *serious* about realistic value will have updated/edited the rosters by that point anyway, so this "opening day value" is a moot argument.
.

.... What? Wouldn't a more realistic franchise player STARTING his franchise have the opening day set?

[ubernoob]

It's a pointless argument.

I've tried making the same points and have given up, ACM.

[AC]

Re: 2013 The Show Official Trade Discussion Thread

Meh, I see his point, I just disagree.

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: 2013 The Show Official Trade Discussion Thread

I really disagree with 100% of everything you just said but I'm too sick and tired to really care enough to put effort into a response.

If Bonifacio would be hitting .400 in game, and .250 in real life, his value would still be up, because real life stats have nothing to do with video game stats.

Yeah, if he was hitting .250 IRL, that's about what you'd expect, so that would have no bearing in his value. I agree.

Hitting .400 in the game would nudge his value upward by a little. But, my main point, that I think you're missing for some reason (maybe 'cause you're sick...feel better) or that I'm not expressing well enough--is hitting .400 in game does not make Bonifacio's value = Ted Williams' value. It makes him a slightly more valuable Bonifacio, so maybe up from mid to high whatever the letter value may be. He's still Bonifacio at his core, so his value will still be close to his skill level IRL. Again, the main point I am trying to make is the bedrock of a player's value is HIS REAL LIFE SKILL SET. Not what one random, isolated 'chise says a player's simmed stats should be. Even if those stats are from my 'chise's "universe," I would not hold them above the real life attributes of a player. In other words, what's going on in the game stat-wise is of some import, but not nearly as much as the skill set that the player has shown IRL.

If someone had started their franchise on OD last year with the spring training set, and Trout was hitting .230 at the trade deadline in their franchise, but he was setting records in real life, he wouldn't be as unrealistic to acquire, because he wouldn't have established his value yet. Now, though, even if he's hitting .230 at the deadline, he's established his value in 2012, which is taken into account by the game. It's a case by case thing. Harvey wasn't realistic to acquire before this season anyways, so the point is moot.

Disagree. If Trout's at .340 with 20+ HRs and 20+ SBs and counting (at some point last year), and the media's going nuts over him. And opponents and teammates IRL are raving. You're sitting there 'chising away, and you just throw all that out? I wouldn't do that. To me, his value would be current.

Yeah, I'm not arguing with that Harvey's unrealistic, I'm just saying that if a player hasn't put up those stats in the player's franchise yet, it probably shouldn't be taken into account.

Right, all younger players are seen with a bit more skepticism. But, Harvey was SOLID last year too, so his ratings given by SCEA probably justify a current value rather than a snapshot March 2013 value when he was comparatively lesser known.

.... What? Wouldn't a more realistic franchise player STARTING his franchise have the opening day set?

I suppose it would depend on when the person started their 'chise, right? There are plenty of people still RTTS'ing and holding out for the pitch edits, and hybrid versions...so it's not really all that mindblowing to think someone would have a roster set in which Harvey's ratings are more "up to date."

Responses in bold.

[ML]

Re: 2013 The Show Official Trade Discussion Thread

I think you could get a bit more for Norris. Just my opinion.

I'm KC and Duffy just landed on the DL with a torn finger ligament so I definitely have a strong need / want for Bud. Norris is 0-5 with a 5.37 ERA averaging around 1k per IP and .5 BB per IP.

I do understand though that this is the Stros, any idea what positions they extremely need (don't say all of them )

Also the spreadsheet says for Norris give two High C's . Does this mean current rating (i.e. 2 players in the 77-79 OVR range) or especially since they are rebuilding, 2 players that have a potential of high C even if they haven't reached that ceiling yet?

How about Pina, Lough and Arguelles for Norris?

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: 2013 The Show Official Trade Discussion Thread

But I guess what this debate really boils down to, is some do their thing one way, I do my thing a bit differently. Some will agree with your way, some will agree with me. Meh. To each their own. It's more of a philosophical difference than something that can be "agreed" on or "proven right." I was just a bit surprised to see people tossed out current events (current as in this season) when 'chising away, so that's why I reacted as I did.

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: 2013 The Show Official Trade Discussion Thread

I'm KC and Duffy just landed on the DL with a torn finger ligament so I definitely have a strong need / want for Bud. Norris is 0-5 with a 5.37 ERA averaging around 1k per IP and .5 BB per IP.

I do understand though that this is the Stros, any idea what positions they extremely need (don't say all of them )

Also the spreadsheet says for Norris give two High C's . Does this mean current rating (i.e. 2 players in the 77-79 OVR range) or especially since they are rebuilding, 2 players that have a potential of high C even if they haven't reached that ceiling yet?

How about Pina, Lough and Arguelles for Norris?

OK, thanks for the background...thought you were HOU for a second.

HOU doesn't need all positions, they are OK at 2B.

The values go by future potentials, not current OVRs.

So, yes pick out 2 high C's at positions of need for HOU and that should do it for fairness. I do not have the potentials handy, so I couldn't tell you.

For realism, it really depends on the timing and what HOU's record is.

[ML]

Re: 2013 The Show Official Trade Discussion Thread

Houston's sitting at an impressive 14-40 lol

Positions and potentials:

RF Lough High C
SP Arguelles High C
C Pina Mid C

I took it as that they could probably squeeze out grabbing Pina as well due to the fact that I am desperate for pitching, and he is a 73 OVR at age 25 with very little MLB experience

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: 2013 The Show Official Trade Discussion Thread

Houston's sitting at an impressive 14-40 lol

Positions and potentials:

RF Lough High C
SP Arguelles High C
C Pina Mid C

I took it as that they could probably squeeze out grabbing Pina as well due to the fact that I am desperate for pitching, and he is a 73 OVR at age 25 with very little MLB experience

I'd go with just Arguelles and Lough (though you can add more if you want, lol). The Astros are pretty bad at C, but horrible in the OF, so probably Lough > Pina for them. I think with Norris pitching so poorly in your 'chise and the Astros being the Astros record-wise, it's a perfectly fine trade and you wouldn't have to give as much as I originally was thinking.

[AC]

Re: 2013 The Show Official Trade Discussion Thread

But I guess what this debate really boils down to, is some do their thing one way, I do my thing a bit differently. Some will agree with your way, some will agree with me. Meh. To each their own. It's more of a philosophical difference than something that can be "agreed" on or "proven right." I was just a bit surprised to see people tossed out current events (current as in this season) when 'chising away, so that's why I reacted as I did.

Oh my God I just accidentally refreshed my post quoting your 'responses in bold' stuff and I'm not rewriting it. Hate that part about OS. Lost many a post that way.

I just don't see why YOU'RE throwing out individual franchiser's seasons, which kinda entirely defeats the point of the thread as a whole.

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: 2013 The Show Official Trade Discussion Thread

Oh my God I just accidentally refreshed my post quoting your 'responses in bold' stuff and I'm not rewriting it. Hate that part about OS. Lost many a post that way.

I just don't see why YOU'RE throwing out individual franchiser's seasons, which kinda entirely defeats the point of the thread as a whole.

Yeah, that sucks.

I'm not tossing in-chise stats out entirely though, but using them to modify the base value (from the real life skill sets). I mean, the spreadsheet would be meaningless if we didn't have a base, real life value to fall back on. Those values have nothing to do with in game stuff.

Example: Bud Norris is 2 high C's on spreadsheet--this is derived from his real life value. Situation: Bud Norris is pitching like an All Star in the 'chise. Outcome: Bump his value up to low B + high C or maybe even 2x low B. But, I don't go all crazy and deal him for 4 A's just because his stats in the game are off the charts. I tend to weigh skills/real life over goings on in-game. Some may not agree, but I think that better preserves the true value of a player. That's my official position.

[AC]

Re: 2013 The Show Official Trade Discussion Thread

Yeah, that sucks.

I'm not tossing in-chise stats out entirely though, but using them to modify the base value (from the real life skill sets). I mean, the spreadsheet would be meaningless if we didn't have a base, real life value to fall back on. Those values have nothing to do with in game stuff.

Example: Bud Norris is 2 high C's on spreadsheet--this is derived from his real life value. Situation: Bud Norris is pitching like an All Star in the 'chise. Outcome: Bump his value up to low B + high C or maybe even 2x low B. But, I don't go all crazy and deal him for 4 A's just because his stats in the game are off the charts. I tend to weigh skills/real life over goings on in-game. Some may not agree, but I think that better preserves the true value of a player. That's my official position.

Yes, but I never stated that Boni would = Ted Williams like you previously accused, that's pure hyperbole. I just think you're being too conservative. A .450 wOBA or whatever Boni is probably low A / high B or two. A >3 FIP Bud Norris is probably a mid/highB and a low/mid B.