Ryan Braun

General player discussion. It is encouraged but not necessary to note the name of player and the date of the news in the subject.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
captgus
Major League Veteran
Posts: 156
Joined: January 3rd, 2009, 2:31 am
Location: Santa Barbara, CA

Ryan Braun

#1 Post by captgus »

Is anyone else getting a little skittish about keeping Braun with today's news that his name has been linked to another Biogenesis document?

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/blog/eye-o ... l-document
"How can we go on a beer run when we don't have any beer left?"

The General, Spring 1991

Captain Hook

Re: Ryan Braun

#2 Post by Captain Hook »

? quien sabe bro ....quien sabe?

User avatar
captgus
Major League Veteran
Posts: 156
Joined: January 3rd, 2009, 2:31 am
Location: Santa Barbara, CA

Re: Ryan Braun

#3 Post by captgus »

Well I suppose no one knows. It does bring up something that I'm sure has been discussed elsewhere but one that drives me nuts every year and that is what level of risk is justified when compiling a group of keepers? At what % of your total salary does it becomes a fool's errand to potentially absorb the risk of a 50 game suspension? When choosing a group of keepers, is it just another subset of your total roster, or it is best to attempt to control what little you might and opt for players with less question marks surrounding them in the upcoming season, at the expense of upside? I know there is no cut and dry answer, I'm just talking out loud and wondering how other people weigh these types of decisions every spring.
"How can we go on a beer run when we don't have any beer left?"

The General, Spring 1991

AllstonRockCity

Re: Ryan Braun

#4 Post by AllstonRockCity »

I am wrestling with the same conundrum right now.

To add to that - we all want to keep as much 'profit' as possible. But for what reason? To have more $$ to spend at auction, of course. But then really if half of your keepers are a great 'profit' and the other half are 'at value' or kept at 'about what they'd go for at auction', isn't this just as effective as having more $$ for the auction?? Is this not the exact same thing?

Said another way - we all agree that our keeper lists should provide us with profit, that goes without saying. The question we all must ask ourselves is, "what is the best way to use this profit"? Is it best to have the most funds at the auction or is it better to provide yourself with some cost control measures BEFORE the auction? There is no right or wrong answer here. As long as one is asking oneself this question and realizes that the answer can vary every year, you are a leg up on the competition. I hope.

User avatar
captgus
Major League Veteran
Posts: 156
Joined: January 3rd, 2009, 2:31 am
Location: Santa Barbara, CA

Re: Ryan Braun

#5 Post by captgus »

I like the flexibility I'm afforded by having a greater amount of money going into my auction but I suspect that the reality of the situation is that it's at best, a fleeting moment. At least in my long standing league, it's almost a given that the first handful of names tossed out are going to RD1 caliber players that will fetch a premium, especially when you factor in an inflation rate around 30%. Right, wrong or flawed, the question I ask myself when paring down my keeper list is, "...will I be able to acquire player x cheaper during the auction AND how will his accompanying stats fit into the composition of my team?"

Be that as it may, I always struggle with this question, if you have a number of keepers, say 6, is it best to try and limit risk with that 6, or in the grand scheme of things, are they really just 6 players out of 23 total and because anyone could get hurt, risk be damned. Put another way, is it better to start off with boring but steady producers and assume the risk during the auction? I guess the answer is right in front of me and that it matters very little, risk is risk but I do wonder how others approach this.
"How can we go on a beer run when we don't have any beer left?"

The General, Spring 1991

da_big_kid_94
Hall of Famer
Posts: 1574
Joined: January 3rd, 2009, 12:09 am

Re: Ryan Braun

#6 Post by da_big_kid_94 »

Over the years ...and though very many auctions ... a gut feeling started to develop that has blossomed into an almost certainty (at least in our league(s) ... and i know you're watching, Wolfie). In auctions, Braun, Verlander, Pujols, Fielder, Miggy ...the real top tier guys ... if those guys are available, why are they almost invariably the guys whose names are thrown out first? To get "money off the table"? Used to think so ... not any more. You aren't getting money off the table ... the money for those guys is already spent ... it's just a question of who winds up with them ...but SOMEONE has gone into that auction with the idea that "_____ is MINE!" So, why bother wasting your turn to throw out a name that will invariably lead to a predictable result?

The point is, why stop managing risk once your keepers are submitted? At auction you can continue to manage risk by not falling in line. Here's an example - take the 5 names I listed (let's say they're all available). First 5 names at at auction are these;
  • Ryan Braun
  • Albert Pujols
  • Miguel Cabrera
  • Justin Verlander
  • Prince Fielder
Not a lot of surprise there, right? And they'll go for a dollar amount appropriate in your league, right? But what if those five names were slightly different;
  • Ryan Braun
  • Albert Pujols
  • Corey Hart
  • Justin Verlander
  • Billy Butler
The coach and I have discussed this and we agree on one thing on auctions ... if you could control when names come out, auctions would be so much easier. But since we don't why not try and make them a little harder? If you decide on the name of a 2nd tier guy to throw out, you might make things more interesting - whether you actually want the guy or not. If you want him, there's a chance you may get him cheaper because folks are waiting for the "bigger guns" to be nominated ... and if you don't really want him, you throw him out at 1 ...no one's gonna say 2? At that point, you've done your job and now you HAVE gotten money off the table ... because the units are spent at a time no on thought they would be.

It's no guarantee but it is a potential alternative to maximize profitability while making several owners adjust their thinking on the fly.
These are my views based on my own opinions and observations - your mileage may vary.
"KNOW THY LEAGUE" - the Forum Funklord - 4/13/2009
Fantasy is managing stats ... roto is managing teams

SteveB
Major League All-Star
Posts: 327
Joined: January 1st, 2009, 4:28 am

Re: Ryan Braun

#7 Post by SteveB »

when to throw out names is huge Kid. I mean your not getting Braun for 5 bucks no matter but you COULD get him for 3-4 dollars cheaper depending on when he is thrown out. Typically when i have a keeper that is a great keeper....on a 260 budget say you have Paul Goldscmidt and Posey for 5 bucks going into to draft day. The name I ALWAYS throw out to start are ones of players i don't need or want but would be ok if i was stuck. So in this example i would throw out other C's hoping that with one of the bigger names off the table will go for a little bit more because players don't want the left overs.

I feel like it "saves" my cash for players i really need and it gives me more profit from the strength positions. If Posey is a 30 player that you have for 5 AND everyone else spends 10% more for the remaining high quality C it is like you are double dipping.

da_big_kid_94
Hall of Famer
Posts: 1574
Joined: January 3rd, 2009, 12:09 am

Re: Ryan Braun

#8 Post by da_big_kid_94 »

I'm not sure, Steve ... let's say you have a 12 team auction ... if Braun is available, can you envision any set of circumstances where his name is not one of the first 12 nominated? Don't get me wrong ...if that DOES happen, it's great. But most likely you'll pay full value for him ...and then some. What you have should have some influence on when you nominate certain players - but I find it's when some of the nominations go to the "wrong" winners that trouble starts.

If I have needs that some of the other guys don't, I don't care about getting their money off the table ... I want the money of guys who have the same needs as mine off the table. And that's where the "wrong" winner comes in. In keeper auctions, it would be nice if everyone was coming in with the same agenda - we tend to forget that they aren't always on the same page we are. Some are coming in for this year - some are rebuilding - some are looking at trade deadline deals - some already have an abundance at one discipline but are willing to add to it for whatever reasons.

It may save cash for some of your players ...provided that everyone who may be a competitor for that player is thinking along the same lines as you. if not? Uh oh.
These are my views based on my own opinions and observations - your mileage may vary.
"KNOW THY LEAGUE" - the Forum Funklord - 4/13/2009
Fantasy is managing stats ... roto is managing teams

aburt19
Major League Elite
Posts: 659
Joined: February 4th, 2009, 9:38 pm
Preferred Style: AL only 5X5 keeper auction

Re: Ryan Braun

#9 Post by aburt19 »

There is another reason for bringing up a stud player and that is that the outcome on the player guides the
direction of the auction. For example, an AL only league and you need an anchor for your pitching staff. Verlander
is available. Until Verlander is nominated, you wouldn't know whether to pass on other pitchers that aren't quite as
good an anchor as Verlander. In addition, without Verlander your #2 starter needs to be better than if you get
Verlander. I don't go into the auction with the idea that X player is mine no matter the cost. If I get down to the
last couple of alternatives, then my mindset may change. But if I need an anchor for my pitching staff, I want to
know whether I can roster Verlander at value in order to guide my auction regarding the other alternatives.

da_big_kid_94
Hall of Famer
Posts: 1574
Joined: January 3rd, 2009, 12:09 am

Re: Ryan Braun

#10 Post by da_big_kid_94 »

aburt19 wrote:There is another reason for bringing up a stud player and that is that the outcome on the player guides the
direction of the auction. For example, an AL only league and you need an anchor for your pitching staff. Verlander
is available. Until Verlander is nominated, you wouldn't know whether to pass on other pitchers that aren't quite as
good an anchor as Verlander. In addition, without Verlander your #2 starter needs to be better than if you get
Verlander. I don't go into the auction with the idea that X player is mine no matter the cost. If I get down to the
last couple of alternatives, then my mindset may change. But if I need an anchor for my pitching staff, I want to
know whether I can roster Verlander at value in order to guide my auction regarding the other alternatives.
The point to that is you wait to the last couple of alternatives, you have let the market drive you, not vice versa. Let's say you value Verlander at 38 units. OK - that means Verlander is going for a minimum of 38 units - so someone is already spending 38 units to get Verlander. The money's spent ...it's just a question now of who he goes home with. The outcome isn't really going to guide the auction ... there's only one Verlander and there's a lot of someone elses'. By waiting for Verlander, you may be letting better dollar for dollar value go by ...and, as you noted, as the supply dries up, the competition will drive up his price - again with guys you are in competition with for his services. However, if his name comes out 6th and someone says 40, now what? You're not getting him, the money's still been spent prior to auction and you are looking at those 2nd pitchers anyway.

What you have outlined is a strategy that seems to be single player dependent ... and that very rarely, if ever, works out.
These are my views based on my own opinions and observations - your mileage may vary.
"KNOW THY LEAGUE" - the Forum Funklord - 4/13/2009
Fantasy is managing stats ... roto is managing teams

aburt19
Major League Elite
Posts: 659
Joined: February 4th, 2009, 9:38 pm
Preferred Style: AL only 5X5 keeper auction

Re: Ryan Braun

#11 Post by aburt19 »

da_big_kid_94 wrote:
aburt19 wrote:There is another reason for bringing up a stud player and that is that the outcome on the player guides the
direction of the auction. For example, an AL only league and you need an anchor for your pitching staff. Verlander
is available. Until Verlander is nominated, you wouldn't know whether to pass on other pitchers that aren't quite as
good an anchor as Verlander. In addition, without Verlander your #2 starter needs to be better than if you get
Verlander. I don't go into the auction with the idea that X player is mine no matter the cost. If I get down to the
last couple of alternatives, then my mindset may change. But if I need an anchor for my pitching staff, I want to
know whether I can roster Verlander at value in order to guide my auction regarding the other alternatives.
The point to that is you wait to the last couple of alternatives, you have let the market drive you, not vice versa. Let's say you value Verlander at 38 units. OK - that means Verlander is going for a minimum of 38 units - so someone is already spending 38 units to get Verlander. The money's spent ...it's just a question now of who he goes home with. The outcome isn't really going to guide the auction ... there's only one Verlander and there's a lot of someone elses'. By waiting for Verlander, you may be letting better dollar for dollar value go by ...and, as you noted, as the supply dries up, the competition will drive up his price - again with guys you are in competition with for his services. However, if his name comes out 6th and someone says 40, now what? You're not getting him, the money's still been spent prior to auction and you are looking at those 2nd pitchers anyway.

What you have outlined is a strategy that seems to be single player dependent ... and that very rarely, if ever, works out.
I am not ever single player dependent. But if Verlander is plan A, then I'd like to know whether I will get him at what
I consider a reasonable market price. If I don't, I go to plan B. But I want to know early in the auction so I don't
pass up pitchers that fit plan B because I'm waiting for Verlander to be nominated. If no one else nominates him,
I will in the first round of nominations. That basically sets the parameters of the makeup of my pitching staff, because
in an AL only league there is no starter equal to Verlander.

I do sometimes have a problem with waiting so long because prices seem too high to me and get caught bidding
on the "last bottle of Bud Light".

Captain Hook

Re: Ryan Braun

#12 Post by Captain Hook »

aburt19 wrote:There is another reason for bringing up a stud player and that is that the outcome on the player guides the
direction of the auction. For example, an AL only league and you need an anchor for your pitching staff. Verlander
is available. Until Verlander is nominated, you wouldn't know whether to pass on other pitchers that aren't quite as
good an anchor as Verlander. In addition, without Verlander your #2 starter needs to be better than if you get
Verlander. I don't go into the auction with the idea that X player is mine no matter the cost. If I get down to the
last couple of alternatives, then my mindset may change. But if I need an anchor for my pitching staff, I want to
know whether I can roster Verlander at value in order to guide my auction regarding the other alternatives.
Well I partially agree with kid but your point is that you need to get Verlander out of the way to know how to proceed - my thought would be you do it When you have to and that should not be right away

Captain Hook

Re: Ryan Braun

#13 Post by Captain Hook »

There was a previous post about not going for the top guys but maybe adding a Billy Butler amongst the early nominations to see if the market would sag on him

I would say what would be even better is the Gene (Wiseguys Baseball) McCaffrey ploy - throw out a player that you would like to acquire cheaply but instead of waiting forever do it early as you may catch people not paying attention to a little player - say it's Will Venable and you think he is worth $6 so bring him out in the first or second round when people have bigger targets (or don't know they need his speed yet) for two or three dollars and see what happens - often you will sneak him by at your desired price - if not you have taken up a roster spot of an opponents team.

You can do the same with whomever you presume to be $1 catchers - bring one up and if you get them for a dollar, fine - if not someone used that spot and you move up the line not down the line

aburt19
Major League Elite
Posts: 659
Joined: February 4th, 2009, 9:38 pm
Preferred Style: AL only 5X5 keeper auction

Re: Ryan Braun

#14 Post by aburt19 »

Captain Hook wrote:
aburt19 wrote:There is another reason for bringing up a stud player and that is that the outcome on the player guides the
direction of the auction. For example, an AL only league and you need an anchor for your pitching staff. Verlander
is available. Until Verlander is nominated, you wouldn't know whether to pass on other pitchers that aren't quite as
good an anchor as Verlander. In addition, without Verlander your #2 starter needs to be better than if you get
Verlander. I don't go into the auction with the idea that X player is mine no matter the cost. If I get down to the
last couple of alternatives, then my mindset may change. But if I need an anchor for my pitching staff, I want to
know whether I can roster Verlander at value in order to guide my auction regarding the other alternatives.
Well I partially agree with kid but your point is that you need to get Verlander out of the way to know how to proceed - my thought would be you do it When you have to and that should not be right away
Here's my question. If Verlander is plan A and because of carryovers plan B is James Shields, R.A. Dickey or
Sabathia, how strongly do I bid on Sabathia if he is brought up at the end of the first round of nominations and
Verlander has not been nominated? If I bid strongly and get him, I may find out that I could have had Verlander
at what I consider to be market price. If I don't bid strongly on Sabathia and Verlander goes for more than my
estimate of market value, I have one less choice available to me for the "anchor" of my pitching staff. That's why
I've always thought that if I needed to know on a player to know how to proceed, it is better to do it early.

In an AL only league, Verlander is about the only player that can be said about because he's head and shoulders
above the other pitchers. On offense, M. Cabrera is best, but the differential isn't quite as pronounced.

Captain Hook

Re: Ryan Braun

#15 Post by Captain Hook »

aburt19 wrote:
Captain Hook wrote:
aburt19 wrote:There is another reason for bringing up a stud player and that is that the outcome on the player guides the
direction of the auction. For example, an AL only league and you need an anchor for your pitching staff. Verlander
is available. Until Verlander is nominated, you wouldn't know whether to pass on other pitchers that aren't quite as
good an anchor as Verlander. In addition, without Verlander your #2 starter needs to be better than if you get
Verlander. I don't go into the auction with the idea that X player is mine no matter the cost. If I get down to the
last couple of alternatives, then my mindset may change. But if I need an anchor for my pitching staff, I want to
know whether I can roster Verlander at value in order to guide my auction regarding the other alternatives.
Well I partially agree with kid but your point is that you need to get Verlander out of the way to know how to proceed - my thought would be you do it When you have to and that should not be right away
Here's my question. If Verlander is plan A and because of carryovers plan B is James Shields, R.A. Dickey or
Sabathia, how strongly do I bid on Sabathia if he is brought up at the end of the first round of nominations and
Verlander has not been nominated? If I bid strongly and get him, I may find out that I could have had Verlander
at what I consider to be market price. If I don't bid strongly on Sabathia and Verlander goes for more than my
estimate of market value, I have one less choice available to me for the "anchor" of my pitching staff. That's why
I've always thought that if I needed to know on a player to know how to proceed, it is better to do it early.

In an AL only league, Verlander is about the only player that can be said about because he's head and shoulders
above the other pitchers. On offense, M. Cabrera is best, but the differential isn't quite as pronounced.
Well as kid said if your draft revolves around only player - well you won't be successful very often - especially if others in your draft know or can figure it out.

In your example above you could bid Sabathia only to the point he would be an excellent buy and then move on - there have to be more than one SP1 in the draft - in fact we know Dickey has been added to the pool

But if YOU absolutely want to clear Verlander before making other decisions then bring him out at your first turn (if not already nominated)

da_big_kid_94
Hall of Famer
Posts: 1574
Joined: January 3rd, 2009, 12:09 am

Re: Ryan Braun

#16 Post by da_big_kid_94 »

aburt19 wrote:
Captain Hook wrote:
aburt19 wrote:There is another reason for bringing up a stud player and that is that the outcome on the player guides the
direction of the auction. For example, an AL only league and you need an anchor for your pitching staff. Verlander
is available. Until Verlander is nominated, you wouldn't know whether to pass on other pitchers that aren't quite as
good an anchor as Verlander. In addition, without Verlander your #2 starter needs to be better than if you get
Verlander. I don't go into the auction with the idea that X player is mine no matter the cost. If I get down to the
last couple of alternatives, then my mindset may change. But if I need an anchor for my pitching staff, I want to
know whether I can roster Verlander at value in order to guide my auction regarding the other alternatives.
Well I partially agree with kid but your point is that you need to get Verlander out of the way to know how to proceed - my thought would be you do it When you have to and that should not be right away
Here's my question. If Verlander is plan A and because of carryovers plan B is James Shields, R.A. Dickey or
Sabathia, how strongly do I bid on Sabathia if he is brought up at the end of the first round of nominations and
Verlander has not been nominated? If I bid strongly and get him, I may find out that I could have had Verlander
at what I consider to be market price. If I don't bid strongly on Sabathia and Verlander goes for more than my
estimate of market value, I have one less choice available to me for the "anchor" of my pitching staff. That's why
I've always thought that if I needed to know on a player to know how to proceed, it is better to do it early.

In an AL only league, Verlander is about the only player that can be said about because he's head and shoulders
above the other pitchers. On offense, M. Cabrera is best, but the differential isn't quite as pronounced.
Exactly ... and how many of your fellow owners would also labor under those impressions If Sabathia goes ahead of Verlander and you pass, won't that increase the price on Verlander to one possibly beyond your value tipping point? Again, since you can't determine when Verlander comes out, what is more likely in your league of these scenarios;
  • Sabathia goes at or below value because Verlander is still there. Verlander goes at or above value with one possible alternative now spoken for.
  • Sabathia goes above value and Verlander goes at value. Sabathia sets a ceiling - what chance is there that Verlander's value will decrease with the precedent of the Sabathia bid?
  • Sabathia goes at value and Verlander goes above value.
  • Edit: After thinking about it, I came up with one more scenario ... IMHO, not a likely one but it deserves consideration because it could happen - your value tipping point is 3-5 units above everyone else you are in competition with and he falls to you below value - in which case the minimum for Verlander falls between your value point and the highest of the low bids.
As I stated before, the minimum number of units are already committed to acquiring Verlander before any one says at word .. it's your value number ...that is the minimum he will go for. So how badly are your screwed if you open up the bid at your value point in an attempt to pre-empt and someone tops you? All it takes is one owner willing to say one more unit than your max bid and you have a decision to make if you wish to stick with Verlander.

BTW - Perry made an excellent point before about Billy Butler ... that name can just as easily be Venable or Viciedo or Heisey - someone whose name disrupts the "normal order of things" in a given auction.
These are my views based on my own opinions and observations - your mileage may vary.
"KNOW THY LEAGUE" - the Forum Funklord - 4/13/2009
Fantasy is managing stats ... roto is managing teams

aburt19
Major League Elite
Posts: 659
Joined: February 4th, 2009, 9:38 pm
Preferred Style: AL only 5X5 keeper auction

Re: Ryan Braun

#17 Post by aburt19 »

I guess I'm either not making myself clear or am not clear on what you are saying. I try to make this as clear as I can.

Verlander is one of several possible ways of starting a pitching staff as an anchor. But I'm not married to the idea of having
him. The sole reason I bring him up early is to resolve whether he will be the anchor or whether I go a different direction.
I really don't care whether it is Verlander, Sabathia, Shields, Dickey, etc. By bringing up Verlander early it gives me the
highest number of opportunities to fill the anchor, if I don't get Verlander, with whoever among the remaining options seems to be
at a decent market price. If I wait on Verlander and two of the four other names that I have are already gone because I was
waiting for Verlander and did not bid aggressively for those two, my options have dwindled to where I may be forced to bid
more than I think is market value. If Verlander goes to someone else, that's not a problem. I then can bid aggressively on the
next one nominated. Very seldom does the price for this type of pitcher turn out to be below inflated market value, so as long
as my estimate of the market value is close to reality, I'm okay with paying market value. The only reason I start with
Verlander is that he's the best. If I can acquire him at market value, then it may change the pitchers I go for to fill out the
remainder of the staff.

All I'm trying to do is give myself the most different options to bid on to fill the spot on the roster. I won't go above market
value for any of them until I have to.

User avatar
Todd Zola
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8260
Joined: December 25th, 2008, 12:45 pm

Re: Ryan Braun

#18 Post by Todd Zola »

I do exactly as aburt describes, but I do it with closers since I'm not likely to pay for he elite SP.

A few years back, I had the first nomination in the NFBC NL auction -- I opened Billy Wagner at $20, figuring he'd go for more and I wanted the best closer I could get for $20.

GOING ONCE

GOING TWICE

SOLD

I think Wagner was actually the highest priced closer, with the rest $17-$19, but I was just fine with the buy.

And I won the league #humblebrag
Catchers are like prostate exams -- comes a time where you can't put if off any longer, so you may as well get it over with and take it up the butt - The Forum Funklord

I'd rather be wrong for the right reasons than right for the wrong reasons - The Forum Funklord

Always remember, never forget, never say always or never. - The Forum Funklord

You know you have to seek therapy when you see one of your pitchers had a bad night and it takes you 15 minutes to find the team you have him on. - The Forum Funklord

Black Sox
Major League All-Star
Posts: 350
Joined: January 4th, 2010, 10:39 am
Preferred Style: 5x5 Mix

Re: Ryan Braun

#19 Post by Black Sox »

If it's me I throw out Verlander first and see where the bar gets set. If you feel the going rate is market value then lock him up. I understand what your saying you want an ace, once Verlander goes for let's say $38 I'd be pretty confident the next ace up is going between $35-$37, the only chance another ace goes for more than Verlander is if there becomes only 1 "ace" left, and 2 owners want one, that's the position you want to avoid.

Me personally I'm going to go a few extra bucks early and take Verlander. I feel he's head and shoulders above the rest and I don't mind spending a few dollars more at the start figuring I can adjust over the course of the draft. The one thing I know at the end of the draft I won't be kicking myself for spending a few extra bucks on a stud like Verlander, that's for sure :lol:
Boston Black Sox
Steve Le Blanc

Post Reply