The Brewster

Why You Should Never Trade With a Behemoth
(Or, if you do, why you should ask for more!)
I'm writing this after another (in this case small) dust-up after a trade in which a behemoth team linked up with a small-revenue brethren. I think it was a fine enough deal. Whatever. But I got to thinking about these kinds of trades, I figured I would jot a few notes on the subject of the mindset I'd suggest taking when it comes to dealing with big, behemoth teams.

Let me preface this with the fact that I have run big, behemoth teams before. In this league, and in others. With luck, I will run one again here sometime shortly. But you never know. It’s hard to get over the hump, you know? But when I do again, I’d suggest not trading with me. Or, if you do, I’d suggest always asking for more—or conversely always giving less, or both. This is because--to be absolutely clear--big, behemoth teams (like Nashville, Sacramento, and Charm City in today’s world, or like Yellow Springs back in the day, or Las Vegas on occasion) are not like you. Unless, that is, you are a behemoth team yourself.

These guys live in a different economic world than you do. By that word “economy,” I don’t mean financial. I mean organizational.

Finances are a part of it, of course. But it goes much, much deeper than that.

These big, behemoth teams are like the ten gazillion pound aircraft carriers on their way to wherever they are getting. Once they are set up at the major league level, and have a little time to fill in the minors, they are almost self-perpetuating. Meaning once the treadmill is running, the players flow upward in ways that just keep the wheels rolling … or, since we’re on a naval kick, the propellers turning. Bikini is clearly not there yet. And maybe we’ll never get there. It’s a slog to make this happen. But if we assume that I can get there with this crew, at that point, you really should not trade with me.

Why, you ask, do I say that.

Well … here we go.

Point Number 1: I’m Playing With House Money

Bottom line here is that once I’m running a behemoth, I (almost) never need to trade anyone. In fact, when I want to trade something/someone, it’s because I no longer have any interest at all in that asset. Once I’m a behemoth, the need to “win a trade” is totally meaningless, except for the idea that I can use it in order to pump more value into my organization.

Read that closely. If I only trade something when it effectively no longer holds value to me (i.e. its market value is true, but that that market value is surplus to me), but I’m able to get “market value” for that same something that I can use, then I’m actually not making a “fair” deal. Sure, I’m giving another team market value in that thing I don’t care about. But since I don’t care about it, I can basically ignore that, and just rake in the market value of what I get for it. This means that if you (who are not a behemoth) send me X Market value in return for X Market value, the net value of your team does not change. Me, on the other hand, gain in effective market value because what I gave up was effectively zero, and what I gained was actually useful to me. If it wasn’t, then I wouldn’t have made the deal (unless I was just on a basic charity mission, I suppose).


Point 2: I’m Going to Win Forever

If you spend any time thinking about this, you’ll realize exactly how powerful this position is in the trade market. If I never need to trade, and hence only trade when the deal will add value to my organization’s net worth, then if you trade with me, you are giving me the keys to the Carrier. Barring a few oddities and crashing against the salary cap (and ignoring that pesky history I have with my Monty-less trophy shelf), there’s a chance that I will win forever. This means you will need to face me during your championship round (yes, I get it. But I said to ignore my empty trophy chest because other behemoths have not been so unlucky…last I checked, Charm City, Nashville, and Sacramento have won five of the last seven championships).

If you trade with a behemoth, and you give them “fair market value” for those assets that are effectively useless to them, then you are simply enabling the carrier to drive on forever.

This is even more likely because…


Point #3: I Am Going to Win Forever, That is, Unless Finances Get Me

Realize also, that if i do ever need to trade something really valuable, it's because the league's financial structure (mostly the salary cap, combined with the end of arbitration for my best players) is making me. If I get in this position, then, again, there is more value to me to have the player off my team than to have them on my team. Which means that literally any value I get in return is a positive and will help me win forever.

THIS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A TEAM THAT IS TRYING TO COMPETE AND A BEHEMOTH. Guy's struggling to compete one more year, or whatever, might still have some value by holding onto that guy. Or might really need to get full value in order to keep competing. But when I am a behemoth and I'm dealing a real star, I'm doing it because I HAVE to. If I am doing that. The league should make me pay.

*** Aside, this is a hard one to hold for lesser teams, simply due to competition. If I'm a behemoth, dealing a star for salary purposes, unless time is an issue, I'm almost certainly going to find _someone_ to break solidarity and give me full value. Except, of course, that other teams have financial issues, too. So the market for a true star can be artificially low. Take that for what it's worth.


Point #4: I Will Only Trade You the Least Valuable Chip I’ve Got

Once you think about this, it’s obvious. Let’s say I’ve got a solid enough starter at second base. He’s into his prime, or maybe just a shade past it? Whatever. He’s “good.” He’s maybe got a year of control left, so he’s making $5M or whatever in arb. I’ve got another guy ready who is just as good, so I’m hoping to trade the “starter.”

Realize this is what I mean when I say that one of these guys has effectively no value…that’s “wrong”…I could use one or the other as a DH, maybe. Or not…depending. But if I do, then he’s not really surplus. It’s a little complicated, but I trust you’ll go with me here. In this example, the older starter is the lesser option, so he’s available. And in context of the whole team, he’s not valuable at all. In fact, he’s sucking up $5M that I might rather use to extend a player I really need. So moving him for absolutely zero would be an improvement to my team’s net value.

See what I mean.

In this world the starter and the kid are of equal performance on the field, I need to trade the original starter. And even if the kid’s performance on the field is a little worse, there’s a likelihood that in context of overall net worth of the franchise, I still need to move the starter. In this case, that starter is the least valuable of these two chips.

I will, of course, ask you for full market value—because, hey, that’s only fair.

But you should NOT give me that full market value. Instead, since I am a behemoth rather than a team of pure mortals, you should look me in the eye and say, shucks-darn, it looks like you’re in a bind there. Then proceed to extract more value.


Point #5: All Right, I’m Wrong. You CAN Trade With A Behemoth

As the subtitle to this piece said, and as I noted in that last bit, I’m actually thinking it’s fine to trade with me when I’m a behemoth. It's just that you really should work to understand where a behemoth stands and realize that the goal when dealing with me is not to find a deal where I get 50% of the value and you get 50% of the value. Instead, realize that even if I only get 10% or 25% of the value, that's a win-win for me. and if I truly get 50% of the value in a deal, it's effectively like I got 100% and you got 50%. Oddly.

In that example above, perhaps it’s true that my aging, but still useful solid second baseman would help you. And, if you were dealing for that same player from a different team, you would have to pair fair market value to make it worth that team’s time (50%/50% works when dealing with normal teams). But you, realizing you are dealing with a behemoth, should do a double clutch instead, and realize that you have the power here. You can ask for a discount. A major discount, at that. Or you can ask for a lot more.

Because in that scenario, it is actually worth it to my team to give that starter to you FOR FREE. Or even, possibly, to retain some of his salary, simply to clear him from the books and let me sign other players.

Because this is the economy of a behemoth. It is different from another team who is simply competing. I may well decide to eat that offer. I may decide not to give you, say, 75-80% of the value of a trade for only 15-20% in return. But then that’s on me. What that says, in reality, is that, as a behemoth, I think there’s another fish out there to trade with who doesn’t understand this dynamic, and who will, foolishly, give me “fair market value” for something I simply need to get rid of.


Point #6: The Rules of Thumb

So, here’s the rule of thumb for trading with Bikini if we ever become a self-perpetuating behemoth:

• Don’t.
• If you do, ask for more
• Or ask to pay less
• Or both

Because when you are making a deal with a behemoth, and both teams are getting “fair market value” the behemoth is winning hand over fist.

This, I think, is the cause of most trade dust-ups. There are a few outliers, but most have to do with behemoths either getting the best of a deal, or even breaking even. And at that point, the truths that I'm laying out here come to bear inside our hearts. Because we know all these things to be true. We know that a 50/50 trade in "raw value" greatly favors the bigger team. While our brain tries to look at deals as if they are about only the players on the trade page, our hearts understand the true nature of running an OOTP team.

Behemoths do eventually fade out. But in general, we understand down under our skin that every "even trade" that a behemoth can pull off extends the run of that behemoth, even if it's just a little while.

That's my story, anyway, and I'm sticking to it.

At least until Bikini is winning 95 games a year for a bit.

So THIS is why no one wants to trade with the Toledo Liberty. I get it!

well put! i should add this to the tips thread

Yup

This is well said. I can be quoted as saying multiple times that dynasties end when teams have to start paying for their players. It’s why I was opposed to the cap increase, though I figured the game would scale up, which has not happened.

In fact, from what I can tell salaries have scaled downward. Have you noticed the same?

Dude, I'm only 9 or 10 seasons away from reaching behemoth status, and now you gotta make this public?

I love this piece. One thing I'll add in taking my lumps dealing with behemoths coming up in the game is that I find them to be a good gauge of my own talent. In my other league, I started to realize that if either of 2 highly successful GMs liked one of my guys, that they were onto something. I started waving some prospects in front of them to see if they'd look. You know, young stud rightfielder bends down to hike up his stirrups and behemoth GM's eyes pop out of his head.

After a few seasons of parading prospects in front of these savvy GMs, I could track what turned them on and use that to my own advantage in assessing talent.

Jim is onto something here.

I'll take it one step further... When trading with a behemoth, and they actually want a guy that you never previously thought about, You ask yourself: shit, what did I miss??

I can name a few right now: Stan Lodge, Ricardo Capeles, Takashi Nakamura, Jeff Locke, hell, even back in the day with Feliciano Rafael and Blaine Tyler, whom I practically gave away.

The last two posts remind me of a league I used to be in. I stopped trading with the biggest behemoth in that league but had trade discussions with him all the time to try to figure out how he was valuing different types of players.

Another advantage of being a behemoth is the boost to development winning is. If you have a superstar laden major league team you have better players stacking up behind them. They are not good enough to make YOUR major league team, but they can dominate at AAA or AA. When your actual prospects reach that level and are surrounded by that much talent the team wins more often, makes the post season more often and that is a boon to development.

aaronweiner wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 04, 2024 5:47 am

This is well said. I can be quoted as saying multiple times that dynasties end when teams have to start paying for their players. It’s why I was opposed to the cap increase, though I figured the game would scale up, which has not happened.

In fact, from what I can tell salaries have scaled downward. Have you noticed the same?

I know people are always thinking that the game is driving to make players demands match money in the environment. I don't think that's really true. So, yeah, I think it was probably not right to think salaries would scale. I think (but do not know) that league-wide revenue is essentially a fixed thing that gets roughly distributed among the teams in various methods. But I think (but do not know) that player demands are moderated only by what the league uses as it's scale for schlunks-to-stars. In other words, salary asks in FA, or in extensions, for example, are adjustable on those settings and those settings alone.

All that said, I think (but do not know) that the OOTP code's decision about which players are in each category can change from version to version. My belief is that over the years, the "top end" has shrunk a little, and the "middle zones" have increased. Meaning that it feels to me like _some_ guys who used to ask and get ~20M are now asking and getting $15-$18M (and so on), but some other guys who were getting maybe $5M per are now asking for and getting $7-$10M per. So the middle is a little more expensive and the top is a little less.

I guess that's a long way of saying that, yes, I generally agree with your sense.

I still am not sure why the salary cap was raised. I've been looking around at times, and I see no real discussion about it. But it is my opinion (only my opinion, but an informed one at least) that the combination of raising the cap at the same time as we uncapped the media contracts gave the big teams a sudden mega-boost. In bringing Bikini into some respectability, I was very luck to grab a team that had been drafting in the top 5 or so for a decade. We didn't have any really great prospects, but we had a pretty fair handful of workable guys who could play cheaply enough that I could field a somewhat competitive team on a $85-$90M payroll.

JimSlade wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 04, 2024 8:50 am

Dude, I'm only 9 or 10 seasons away from reaching behemoth status, and now you gotta make this public?

Memory is short. Everyone will forget this exists by Tuesday.

After a few seasons of parading prospects in front of these savvy GMs, I could track what turned them on and use that to my own advantage in assessing talent.

Player evaluation is _probably_ the thing that separates good, workaday GMs from Elite GMs. I mean, there's a lot to unpack when it comes to that statement, because there are a wide array of skills that come to bear in managing finances and whatnot. But most of those are not rocket science. There's also a sense of sensing when it's time to take risks, and a certain sense of discipline for when not to go all-in to chase lost investments, and whatnot. But I've come to think of player evaluation as more art than science anymore.

The whole thing about how to judge ratings is always interesting. The conversation Aaron (JAX) and I had on Brooklyn's "80" IC prospect is a great example. I just don't see that "80" rating as proper. Ask me to justify that, and I'll give you words and thoughts, but at the end of the day I see RHB who can hit well, but can;t run, won't really walk a bunch, and can't field a lick at 3B, and I say looks like a "60" to me. But Arron (who is easily as experienced and a more successful GM than me) seems to feel the "80" is at least close to proper.

Who is right?

No one, and everyone.

Time moves on, though, and eventually the world teaches us what was right.

Realize that a "60" is still a very good and useful player. I would love to have a crapload of "60s" on my team.

But labeling a guy "80" is essentially saying he's going to be (or is) a Hall of Famer.

aaronweiner wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 04, 2024 5:47 am

In fact, from what I can tell salaries have scaled downward. Have you noticed the same?

Actually, I see the reason they have scaled down. Based on the images Matt posted in the "Engine Settings" post a few years back, and the one he posted in the "Salary Cap raised to $120M" post, the typical salary for "Super Star Quality Player" dropped from $14.5M to $11.5M. Seeing as asks are generally about 2x those numbers, the top salaries players will accept have dropped. Actually, they've dropped through most of the scale, so my gut reaction was probably wrong about the middle.

So, yeah. While cap rose, salaries have scaled down.

Earlier Settings

Current Settings

@recte44 - Was this on purpose, or did it come with a version roll-over?

I enjoyed reading the feature Ron.

Not to dismiss your theory, but what I think is that why would a team not choose to trade with another team at all just because they are good. Teams still trade with the Rays, even though they have a track record of winning a lot of those trades. Teams still trade pitching prospects to Cleveland, even though Cleveland has a track record of developing really good pitchers in their minor league system.

The Rays also aren't perfect. Some examples are the Tommy Pham for Hunter Renfroe trade. It's easy to forget that the Rays traded away Cronenworth in that deal. The Brewers are probably happy to have Adames when they swung the deal with the Rays. I know as a Twins fan that getting Joe Ryan for Nelson Cruz has been a good trade for the Twins. In other words, a trade with a behemoth doesn't mean that the non behemoth is destined to lose.

lordtoffee wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 04, 2024 8:30 pm

I enjoyed reading the feature Ron.

Not to dismiss your theory, but what I think is that why would a team not choose to trade with another team at all just because they are good. Teams still trade with the Rays, even though they have a track record of winning a lot of those trades. Teams still trade pitching prospects to Cleveland, even though Cleveland has a track record of developing really good pitchers in their minor league system.

The Rays also aren't perfect. Some examples are the Tommy Pham for Hunter Renfroe trade. It's easy to forget that the Rays traded away Cronenworth in that deal. The Brewers are probably happy to have Adames when they swung the deal with the Rays. I know as a Twins fan that getting Joe Ryan for Nelson Cruz has been a good trade for the Twins. In other words, a trade with a behemoth doesn't mean that the non behemoth is destined to lose.

My point wasn't really to say Don't...though that's a viable option. My point was to say that you should get a slam-dunk win on a deal with a behemoth. Because in the end, we will pay you more.