My $1 players - the plan was 8 players / 8 dollars

[viper]

I just completed my first tewo of four auction league drafts. My plan going in was to have $8 left with 8 players to go. Because the leagues have no bench, you have to get $1 or higher players in the end game. For those like like value for their picks, it is really bulit in. Anyway here are the actual results of those late picks.

10-team NL Only
This draft was on Sunday. I actually ended up with 10 players to go with $10 left. My big error was where the missing players were positioned. Here are the $1 players
Jeff Baker, Col, 1B
Greg Dobbs, phi, 3B
Freddy Sanchez, Pit, 2B
Jerry Hairston, Cin, OF
Dexter Fowler, Col, OF
Ramon Castro, NYM, C
Kevin Correia, SD, SP
Micah Ownings, Cin, SP
Chai Seung Beak, SD, SP
JJ Putz, NYM, MR

Two mistakes were having too many $1 players and not having my Corner spots filled. I decided I would prefer 2C, 1MI, 2OF, 1UT, 2P if I had 8 & 8.

10-team AL only
This draft was held on the next day. I ended with 6 dollars for 6 players
Teagarden, Tex, C
Varatek, Bos, C
Lugo, Bos, SS
Byrd, OF, Tex
Rivera, OF, ANA (went to UT slot)
Perez, MR, Cle

In this second draft, The picks before I got down to the $1 players were, Pettitte at $4, Wakefield @ $2, Wheeler @ $2 and Purcey @ $3.. My $17 with 10 players to go gave me a little flexibility.

My conclusion is that you really cannot lose a lot a doing this and you actually can execute a little control by nominating players who will fill others rosters at positions you need spo that you can have a better chance to get a low valued player that you like. At the end game, you generally have just one or two people you actually compete with and maybe they have their eyes on another.

[Peeig]

I just did my first auction not too long ago and was wondering if I shouldn't have gone for more superstars and try more $1 gambles..........for AL and NL Only leagues, your gambles look pretty good.

[rotodog]

i cant believe you got Freddy Sanchez for a buck in an NL only league....

[Todd Zola]

Jeff Baker, Col, 1B
Greg Dobbs, phi, 3B
Freddy Sanchez, Pit, 2B STEAL
Jerry Hairston, Cin, OF
Dexter Fowler, Col, OF STEAL
Ramon Castro, NYM, C
Kevin Correia, SD, SP STEAL
Micah Ownings, Cin, SP
Chai Seung Beak, SD, SP
JJ Putz, NYM, MR COMPLETE AND UTTER STEAL

[CubFan]

10-team AL only
This draft was held on the next day. I ended with 6 dollars for 6 players
Teagarden, Tex, C
Varatek, Bos, C
Lugo, Bos, SS
Byrd, OF, Tex
Rivera, OF, ANA (went to UT slot)
Perez, MR, Cle

In this second draft, The picks before I got down to the $1 players were, Pettitte at $4, Wakefield @ $2, Wheeler @ $2 and Purcey @ $3.. My $17 with 10 players to go gave me a little flexibility.

My conclusion is that you really cannot lose a lot a doing this and you actually can execute a little control by nominating players who will fill others rosters at positions you need spo that you can have a better chance to get a low valued player that you like. At the end game, you generally have just one or two people you actually compete with and maybe they have their eyes on another.

Even in a 10 team league getting Lugo, Byrd, Rivera and Perez you've built in quite a bit of upside. Varitek could be a drain on BA if he gets 425+ ABs.

[cwk1963]

Overall, very nice job. Todd mentions the obvious but I also like Owings and Hairston for $1 in the NL and Rivera especially in the AL.

[Todd Zola]

FWIW -- this is a ploy I discussed on the recent First Pitch tour. I may have posted a piece on it, if not, it will be up soon.

[viper]

It was at the First pitch forum in Washington that I decided to go this way. Previously, there was one player in these leagues that always seemed to end up with 4-6 $1 player selections after everyone else was through. He typically did well with those picks as a few decent players always slipped. He claimed it wasn't planned but still you don't ALWAYS do something every time without some type of thought process. I had considered it but wasn't sure. Then the First pitch Forum added that final straw to the camel's back. I just decided to take it to its logical conclusion. I think the key it do make sure your collection of $1 players comes from positional pools your particular league undervalues and couple that with the actual depth in the player pools for corners, middles, outfielders, catchers and late pitchers. This year the end-game pool is probably weakest at the corners plus my league all but ignores middle relievers [I suspect because when it went from 4x4 to 5x5 about eight years ago, IP was used instead of Ks]. My experience has told me that the outfield is where late bargains can be had this yaer [and most years]. My bidding is based on leaving 1-2 pitchers, 2-3 OF/UT, 1 MI and 1C slots for $1 players. I spend the newly created dollars for corners and studs.

[rotodog]

It was at the First pitch forum in Washington that I decided to go this way. Previously, there was one player in these leagues that always seemed to end up with 4-6 $1 player selections after everyone else was through. He typically did well with those picks as a few decent players always slipped. He claimed it wasn't planned but still you don't ALWAYS do something every time without some type of thought process. I had considered it but wasn't sure. Then the First pitch Forum added that final straw to the camel's back. I just decided to take it to its logical conclusion. I think the key it do make sure your collection of $1 players comes from positional pools your particular league undervalues and couple that with the actual depth in the player pools for corners, middles, outfielders, catchers and late pitchers. This year the end-game pool is probably weakest at the corners plus my league all but ignores middle relievers [I suspect because when it went from 4x4 to 5x5 about eight years ago, IP was used instead of Ks]. My experience has told me that the outfield is where late bargains can be had this yaer [and most years]. My bidding is based on leaving 1-2 pitchers, 2-3 OF/UT, 1 MI and 1C slots for $1 players. I spend the newly created dollars for corners and studs.

An approach I have ridden for years....And it is exactly as you say....You do not ever know what dolalr days will throw at you.....But opportunity will always exist for the astute owner...

[steve9781]

In an auction I'm a BIG fan of Perry's theroy on an aution budget sheet, with a stars & scrubs approach. However I like to if possible go into it with $2 for my last spots, or if that's not possible, then at least an extra $1/$2 for that one guy someone nominates at the end for a buck, but overall it looks like you made out, nice end game picks especially Putz!

[da_big_kid_94]

It seemed to work out for you pretty well, viper. Good luck with it.

Now this strategy was discussed on the old boards under the piece on tells. I had not considered it until someone had mentioned that pursuing this strategy is almost the ultimate tell (I don't remember who brought it up). If you go in for dollar days (8 for 8, 5 for 5, etc.), you also have to be VERY careful about how much your league mates have left to bid and what they are looking for. At 8 for 8, for anyone you nominate, you are telling everyone you want that player. All it takes is one or two guys with a few bucks left and this strategy can go boom pretty fast. After all, who's going to waste a buck on a player they don't want for fear they may get him?

Me personally? Four of the players he got for a buck are players he would not get were I in the room and I'm very surprised no one said two on any of them - Putz, Sanchez, Fowler and Baker. So gauging the room's needs is almost a mandatory adjunct for this type of strategy to succeed to any degree. I think viper did extraordinarily well under the circumstances.

[Todd Zola]

In an auction I'm a BIG fan of Perry's theroy on an aution budget sheet, with a stars & scrubs approach. However I like to if possible go into it with $2 for my last spots, or if that's not possible, then at least an extra $1/$2 for that one guy someone nominates at the end for a buck, but overall it looks like you made out, nice end game picks especially Putz!

I believe I have added a couple of interesting concepts to the auction budget theory which is available for subscribers.

[Todd Zola]

It seemed to work out for you pretty well, viper. Good luck with it.

Now this strategy was discussed on the old boards under the piece on tells. I had not considered it until someone had mentioned that pursuing this strategy is almost the ultimate tell (I don't remember who brought it up). If you go in for dollar days (8 for 8, 5 for 5, etc.), you also have to be VERY careful about how much your league mates have left to bid and what they are looking for. At 8 for 8, for anyone you nominate, you are telling everyone you want that player. All it takes is one or two guys with a few bucks left and this strategy can go boom pretty fast. After all, who's going to waste a buck on a player they don't want for fear they may get him?

Me personally? Four of the players he got for a buck are players he would not get were I in the room and I'm very surprised no one said two on any of them - Putz, Sanchez, Fowler and Baker. So gauging the room's needs is almost a mandatory adjunct for this type of strategy to succeed to any degree. I think viper did extraordinarily well under the circumstances.

The genesis of the concept as relates to NOW is the present makeup of the player pool. Following auctions and drafts recently, it became apparent to me that we all consider the back end of the current player pool differently, to such an extent that we all have 4 or 5 guys that ONLY WE LIKE, hence they are $1 players FOR US.

I talked about it on the First Pitch tour and have received much feedback the past couple of weeks that my theory was indeed correct, including from Ron Shandler.

The point is you don't need that extra buck for guys in the end game as all it will take is a buck, do this with 5-6 players and you can pick up Hanley Ramirez instead of Jimmy Rollins or Mark Teixeira instead of Justin Morneau, something like that.

[da_big_kid_94]

The genesis of the concept as relates to NOW is the present makeup of the player pool. Following auctions and drafts recently, it became apparent to me that we all consider the back end of the current player pool differently, to such an extent that we all have 4 or 5 guys that ONLY WE LIKE, hence they are $1 players FOR US.

I talked about it on the First Pitch tour and have received much feedback the past couple of weeks that my theory was indeed correct, including from Ron Shandler.

The point is you don't need that extra buck for guys in the end game as all it will take is a buck, do this with 5-6 players and you can pick up Hanley Ramirez instead of Jimmy Rollins or Mark Teixeira instead of Justin Morneau, something like that.

Do you honestly believe that ANY of the four names mentioned were worth only a buck? Would you go into an auction and target ANY of these 4 for only a buck? If you honestly believe that these are the types of players you should be able to pick up for only a buck, then you're not getting Hanley or Texy for a buck or two more - because the money went somewhere and I'm willing to bet I know where. If this is indicative of the talent remaining at dollar days, just how much capital do you think the big boys ate up?

[CocoLaboy]

I did an interesting survey on our AL-only 12-team 4x4 keeper.

The last 3 years, splits between $1 picks were pretty even...

07 - 16 H - 16 P
08- 18 H - 16 P
09- 16 H - 14 P

Interesting notes, none of the $1 hitters really had a break-out season BUT Wang, Lee, Soria and Carmona were some of the P's that earned double-digits.

Bottom line is if you are going to speculate on $1 wonders, pitchers are where it's at.

JMHO.

[Todd Zola]

The genesis of the concept as relates to NOW is the present makeup of the player pool. Following auctions and drafts recently, it became apparent to me that we all consider the back end of the current player pool differently, to such an extent that we all have 4 or 5 guys that ONLY WE LIKE, hence they are $1 players FOR US.

I talked about it on the First Pitch tour and have received much feedback the past couple of weeks that my theory was indeed correct, including from Ron Shandler.

The point is you don't need that extra buck for guys in the end game as all it will take is a buck, do this with 5-6 players and you can pick up Hanley Ramirez instead of Jimmy Rollins or Mark Teixeira instead of Justin Morneau, something like that.

Do you honestly believe that ANY of the four names mentioned were worth only a buck? Would you go into an auction and target ANY of these 4 for only a buck? If you honestly believe that these are the types of players you should be able to pick up for only a buck, then you're not getting Hanley or Texy for a buck or two more - because the money went somewhere and I'm willing to bet I know where. If this is indicative of the talent remaining at dollar days, just how much capital do you think the big boys ate up?

I have had enough people tell me the ploy worked for them, as they were able to get the vast majority of the guys they wanted in the end game.

It doesn't have to be Hanley or Miggy, you can get a $20 player instead of a $15 player as well, and still get the same quality $1 player in the end game.

[aburt19]

The genesis of the concept as relates to NOW is the present makeup of the player pool. Following auctions and drafts recently, it became apparent to me that we all consider the back end of the current player pool differently, to such an extent that we all have 4 or 5 guys that ONLY WE LIKE, hence they are $1 players FOR US.

I talked about it on the First Pitch tour and have received much feedback the past couple of weeks that my theory was indeed correct, including from Ron Shandler.

The point is you don't need that extra buck for guys in the end game as all it will take is a buck, do this with 5-6 players and you can pick up Hanley Ramirez instead of Jimmy Rollins or Mark Teixeira instead of Justin Morneau, something like that.

Do you honestly believe that ANY of the four names mentioned were worth only a buck? Would you go into an auction and target ANY of these 4 for only a buck? If you honestly believe that these are the types of players you should be able to pick up for only a buck, then you're not getting Hanley or Texy for a buck or two more - because the money went somewhere and I'm willing to bet I know where. If this is indicative of the talent remaining at dollar days, just how much capital do you think the big boys ate up?

Edited to delete.

[aburt19]

I have had enough people tell me the ploy worked for them, as they were able to get the vast majority of the guys they wanted in the end game.

It doesn't have to be Hanley or Miggy, you can get a $20 player instead of a $15 player as well, and still get the same quality $1 player in the end game.[/quote]

My question is how having a league with up to 10 carryovers per team affects having five players budgeted at $1? It seems
to me that in some way that one change can have a profound affect on that strategy, particularly in a single league
scenario.

[Todd Zola]

i understand what Kid is saying, suggesting that you couldn't get Hanley at value and it is not smart to pay $5 extra just because.

All I am saying is that extra $5-$10 does not have to go to a top player. You can get 2 $5 catchers instead of 2 $1 catchers. You can get a second closer instead of speculating on a set up guy. What you do with that $5-$10 is completely discretionary.

Worst case is you get 8 $1 players for your $8. Best case is you are pleasantly surprised by the quality of player you get, based on how we each are viewing the tail end of the present player pool.

[cwk1963]

I understand what kid's saying and I'd like to add that viper was probably very fortunate to get the guys he did for $1. I don't think viper was counting on those specific players or that anyone should. But there is something that I can say with almost total certainty. In every auction there are players that are negatively valued that are paid for in the auction. For every one of those that are bought, there will be 1 guy in the positive valued pool that are not bought. The more of these guys that are acquired the more guys that are left in the positive pool for the endgame. All of them are not necessarily going to be worth $1. Some might be valued at $2, $3 or more. In one of my leagues (16 teams) 11 players were kept that are negatively valued.

[Todd Zola]

The other aspect of this, which unfortunately is on my laptop which is at the shop for 2 weeks is there are significantly more $1-$3 drafted than there are conventionally projected, so when combined with cwk's suggestion that others will dreaft guys you would not have in your draft-worthy pool, even if you don't get the guys "you want", you are assured of getting guys at value.

I just did an experts (oh how I hate that word) draft where the winner gets a cruise. I got Perkins, Laffey and S Shields for $1, can't complain about that in 12-team AL only 5x5.

[da_big_kid_94]

There are many valid points that have been made here, and I agree with a lot of them. There are guys who will go for a buck at the end of the draft that have more value than that but no one knows who they will be.

The reason they are going for a buck is because the money is already spent somewhere else. It's terrific to get talent like that at a cheap cost - but I also find in many instances (and I am not suggesting it is anyone here) that the guys who mention how successful this strategy was fail to mention that they may just have overspent on a couple of sausages or hope to be studs prior to this point.

It's nice that J.J Putz fell to you (and I mean the generic you, not viper or anyone specifically) at a buck - but are you in that situation because you went 40 on Corey Hart or Adrian Gonzalez or 22 on Pablo Sandoval.... and your league mates are in similar straights?

[viper]

An excellent question is how did I get to the $10 for 10 players. Yes, I did overplay for several higher quality players. I planned it and did it. Here are my $20+ players

Hanley bid $47 projected at $44
Lee bid $33 projected $31
Victorino bid $24 projected $28
McLouth bid $26 projected $24
Webb bid $28 projected $24

I went $2 to $4 over on 4 players and actually got Victorino at a discount.

[Hambowen]

What Viper just posted is exactly why it is a valuable strategy. you go a little extra on a few players and get some better players because of it.

While others are paying $5-$8 for $5-8 players because they did not go a little extra on top talent, you can spend $1 on that $5 talent.

The obvious downside to this is that you are unable to target end game talent you want and get them. So you may not get that guy projected at only $5 that you think can breakout and earn more but you still can get another guy that is projected at $5 that you think has no chance of earning more.

It really depends on what kind of player you are and what kind of league you are in. I play in some leagues that always has people at the end of the draft with more money then they can spend unless they severely overpay. In that league I just spend and get myself down to 5-8 $1 guys because I know high upside $5 guys will go for $10+ due to the money mismanagement.

[da_big_kid_94]

It really depends on what kind of player you are and what kind of league you are in. I play in some leagues that always has people at the end of the draft with more money then they can spend unless they severely overpay. In that league I just spend and get myself down to 5-8 $1 guys because I know high upside $5 guys will go for $10+ due to the money mismanagement.

May we play with this hypothetical for a moment? It seems to me this strategy only works if everyone is pretty much on equal footing in the end game. Let us put you at 7 for 7 in this situation and me at 12 for 6. Let us also say that you and I are competing for 4 positions - a MI, OF and two pitchers. And you call out before me.

Now - what do you do? Granted you may get value at this stage of the game ...but will you get who you want? Do you throw out a name at one of the three positions we aren't competing at - hoping I'll do likewise and spend more than a buck to do so? Do you throw out a name you want at one of the 4 positions and hope it's someone I have no interest in? You can't throw out the name of some one you don't want and hope I'll bite - I may not and you're stuck. And if it is a guy you like - and I like him too? He's mine. Also, if I then throw him out at a buck, he's mine there too.

It seems to me that getting $5 value for a buck is a great thing - but what is the value of it if it comes dressed up as players you didn't want? Do you wind up settling at this point because you didn't have enough money to freeze out your opponents on guys you really wanted? Or is just getting the value sufficient regardless of who it comes attached to?

To me, it's akin to Antiques Roadshow; "Mr. Shlabotnik, this dish is worth $32,000." "That's great!! Know anyone who's willing to pay it?" "Not my problem, I just tell you what it's worth, not who may want it at that price."

[Trav The Ump]

Kid, I think your overthinking it. Once you get into the endgame your generally looking at lets say 5-6 names on your list. Now once in a while there will be an obvious choice but most of the time the reason those guys are still there are injury concerns, playing time concerns, age, past performance etc. Your gambling on what you believe is the lowest risk OR possibly the highest reward. I might be the opposite, I might also prefer old guys with a playing time shot rather than the potential of a hot shot rookie coming out of the minors in September. So if your down to one guy, than maybe but generally in my experience when it gets down to it I can throw a guy who I won't mind getting stuck with or not be heartbroken when the guy with $21 left and 3 spots in the room goes $2. I don't think I'm zero'ing in on specific $1 guys at that point in the draft. (PS, I won't say my preference for players here in case there are league mates trolling. )

[da_big_kid_94]

Kid, I think your overthinking it. Once you get into the endgame your generally looking at lets say 5-6 names on your list. Now once in a while there will be an obvious choice but most of the time the reason those guys are still there are injury concerns, playing time concerns, age, past performance etc. Your gambling on what you believe is the lowest risk OR possibly the highest reward. I might be the opposite, I might also prefer old guys with a playing time shot rather than the potential of a hot shot rookie coming out of the minors in September. So if your down to one guy, than maybe but generally in my experience when it gets down to it I can throw a guy who I won't mind getting stuck with or not be heartbroken when the guy with $21 left and 3 spots in the room goes $2. I don't think I'm zero'ing in on specific $1 guys at that point in the draft. (PS, I won't say my preference for players here in case there are league mates trolling. )

There is that possibility, Trav - but if you take a look at they guys viper got at the beginning of this thread, I feel you may change your view somewhat. Don't really see anyone there who meets the criteria you specified. Also, it's not that you're down to one guy, it's that you're down to 6 or 7 guys and you have to fill 25% of your roster with players you can spend no more than a buck on ....and you don't know who they are. In Viper's case, some pretty talented names were available - I don't know WHY they were available - but they were. Now whether no one could say "two" or no one wanted to say "two" is something I don't know. What I do know is if I could have said two and didn't, I'd be pretty angry at myself for letting Viper get away with all of those names - and mind you ....this is an ONLY - not a mixed.

[Todd Zola]

Kid -- not to flog the horse any longer, but the reason I suggested this as a strategy is because the types of players viper picked up ARE READILY AVAILABLE in today's landscape, for whatever reason. It has not always been the case. It might not continue to be the case. And it might not be the case in every draft. A wise man once said "your mileage may vary" in instances such as these.

One guess as to why this is happening is owners are delving too much into the unknown, taking guys like Wieters, Hanson, Porcello, Gamel, Laporta, Cahill etc in the regular portion of their drafts, hoping to hit the home run, leaving the un-sexy but useful players at the end. You can leave yourself 17 bucks for 8 guys and walk away from the table with 6 guys you wanted, 2 not so much but still a good deal and leave $5 on the table.

[viper]

ROUND 2:

10-team AL-only with 7 of same 10 owners. The league only allows you to reserve players on the DL or sent to the minors after the season starts. Price and likely Wieters will either have to be dropped or hold down a roster spot gathering no stats. There is no bench. I can reserve McGowen and add a MR. He was the last player taken in the draft and there are many solid ratio MRs out there

Guys I paid for - in some cases overpaid
$36 - Sizemore
$28 - Markakis
$25 - Youkilis
$24 - C.Davis
$22 - Ichiro
$19 - V. Wells
$18 - Paps
$18 - Slowey

The middle group of players were:
$15 - Sonnenstine
$14 - Gil Meche
$13 - Mike Jacobs
$4 - C. Izturis
$8 - Andy Pettitte
$5 - Morrow

I had $11 for 9 players this time
$2 - Wheeler
$2 - Mark Ellis
$1 - Alberto Callaspo
$1 - Rocco Baldelli
$1 - Ryan Sweeney
$1 - Gio Gonzalez
$1 - Dustin McGowen
$1 - John Buck
$1 - Mike Redmond

As catchers were all going for premiums, I decided to just take what the fates gave me. I took the 20th & 21st catchers as some team actually took Shoppach as a UTIL.

Reading all the posts, one thing to realize is that you can probably draft one additional $20+ players when they are being taken based on the savings at the end. For all players taken, this league had very similar values for players in both drafts. The exception was in the middle of the draft when people hwo hoarded money early had several bidding contests for "last available" type players.

[da_big_kid_94]

Kid -- not to flog the horse any longer, but the reason I suggested this as a strategy is because the types of players viper picked up ARE READILY AVAILABLE in today's landscape, for whatever reason. It has not always been the case. It might not continue to be the case. And it might not be the case in every draft. A wise man once said "your mileage may vary" in instances such as these.

One guess as to why this is happening is owners are delving too much into the unknown, taking guys like Wieters, Hanson, Porcello, Gamel, Laporta, Cahill etc in the regular portion of their drafts, hoping to hit the home run, leaving the un-sexy but useful players at the end. You can leave yourself 17 bucks for 8 guys and walk away from the table with 6 guys you wanted, 2 not so much but still a good deal and leave $5 on the table.

Point taken ... I saw Viper's good fortune as the exception rather than the norm - it can happen .... but I liken it more to catching lightning in a coca-cola bottle. The point about leagues who allow minor league speculative picks is a good one.

[Hambowen]

Kid - I think the point I was trying to make was it is not for everyone because you HAVE to be ok that you may not get your #1 guy at the end. People with money can and will take them from you at times. There is so many players at the end with positive value however because everyone has different projections. $6 guy to me could be negative value for others and vice versa.

Example of this is my 12 team mixed league with 11 keepers per team. 8 players kept have a negative value based on my projections. Another 5 have value of only $1. So before the draft has even started 10% of the keepers have $1 or less value for me. This will only increase at the draft so there is very little chance I will not get players I value at $5 or more for $1 at the end. Again I may not get my #1 choices but I will get good production for $1.

[viper]

Never thought about this that much but clearly you have to be able to accept the fact that you can always be outbid. Talking after today's draft, two people said they just had to have the ability to make a second bid on a player they nominated or make a $2 bid when a $1 player was nominated. It was also clear that several other could never even consider this way of drafting - I hesitate to call it a strategy. I guess the proof will be in the pudding when the results of the league come in. If this fails miserably, then I would need to reconsider. If I win or even if I lose, i will need to see if it was the draft plan or my in-season play.

A good article would be on nominating strategy once you were down to dollar players. Obviously you need to nominate players you are willing to get but there are many options in nominating. It is good if you are the only one who can bid on a certain position. The question is how to get into that position. Today, my last five players were made without opposition. It's not like I got steals but I had a choice between multiple $2-$5 players on three of the picks.

[roche]

$8 for 8 seems excessive.

Consider this. Getting down to $8 for 8 means that you can only buy a player that you yourself nominate. So it would take a minimum of 8 rounds of nominations for you to fill your rosters. It will take more rounds if anyone overbids on a player that you nominate. Each owner nominates once in a round. In a 10-team league, this means that for the last 80 players (approximate) bought in the pool, you did not have the opportunity to overbid. 10 teams x 23 players roster = 230 players total. Therefore, you were out-of-action for 35% of the players bought in the pool.

Looking at this in another way, if at the start of an auction, you were told that you would have to leave the room for the last 35% of the players bought, wouldn't you think that you would be at a major disadvantage?

[Tampa Bob]

Getting down to $8 for 8 means that you can only buy a player that you yourself nominate.

I believe Perry advocates having $2 per player for the endgame for this very reason.

I think the concept is extremely useful. The idea would be to have (using OF as an example) 3-5 candidates for 1 slot. If the competition takes 1 or 2 you still have options. Retaining $2 per slot would allow you to better prioritize your options (ie: outbid someone) but it still works out.

As a final note, while it not be statistically smart, I'd much rather have a .260 hitting Redmond that a .230 hitting Varitek. Frankly, I'd prefer a catcher that wouldn't play over the average-killing version. I just cannot stand watching those guys' at-bats.

[Trav The Ump]

$8 for 8 seems excessive.
Looking at this in another way, if at the start of an auction, you were told that you would have to leave the room for the last 35% of the players bought, wouldn't you think that you would be at a major disadvantage?

Well I guess I go in Viper's second group than, cause honestly I'm fine with that. I'd rather dominate the early portion where there is less forecasting, prognasticating and outright guessing. Knowing I can roster say Miguel Cabrera and than at the end be left with the whoever comes to me out of say Travis Buck or Ryan Sweeney doesn't really matter to me. In my mind you've knocked the percentages of hitting a great guy down enough that you may as well take the more productive guys earlier.

Now on a complete side note to this, a lot of this theory will have to depend on what your leagues IR and Minor's rules are. As well as how active you are trading etc. If you are handcuffed in moves or are not an aggressive in season manager than you may not want to let the dice fall where they may end game. Myself, I know I'll be able to swing 3 for 3 deals etc mid-season and I can start culling some of that dead wood off of my team. Does it work every time? Nope. But I'd rather have the extra $20 player and some buck guys rather than a bunch of $5er's. BTW, draft is in 13 hours...so we'll see what happens cause looking at the available guys I'm shooting for $5 and 5 guys, I have already kept 3 guys at a $1 each.

[Trav The Ump]

Well here is my team below, in addition to the 3 guys I already had at a buck I got another 6. By no means did I win the league today but I'm not out of it. Might be light on homeruns but I should be able to fix that trading SB's. It'll be interesting.

[Todd Zola]

$8 for 8 seems excessive.

Consider this. Getting down to $8 for 8 means that you can only buy a player that you yourself nominate. So it would take a minimum of 8 rounds of nominations for you to fill your rosters. It will take more rounds if anyone overbids on a player that you nominate. Each owner nominates once in a round. In a 10-team league, this means that for the last 80 players (approximate) bought in the pool, you did not have the opportunity to overbid. 10 teams x 23 players roster = 230 players total. Therefore, you were out-of-action for 35% of the players bought in the pool.

Looking at this in another way, if at the start of an auction, you were told that you would have to leave the room for the last 35% of the players bought, wouldn't you think that you would be at a major disadvantage?

Here's the counter for this argument. In the recent AL Tout draft, there were 44 @ $1, 19 @ $2 and 12 @ $3 for a total of 75 players $3 or less. This is representative of most auctions and part and parcel to the emanation of the theory, as projection/valuation methods only assign this value to about 45-50 player, meaning even if other did not draft player from the outside of the draft-worthy pool, you would STILL get value in the end as there are SIGNIFICANTLY more $q players drafted than there are $1 players according to raw value.

Using your 35% example, 8 rounds of players is 96 in AL Tout. So having $1 for 96 players (granted with a handful going earlier, but not many) is not nearly as daunting when 75 of them went for $3 or less, almost HALF of them going for $1.

[da_big_kid_94]

$8 for 8 seems excessive.

Consider this. Getting down to $8 for 8 means that you can only buy a player that you yourself nominate. So it would take a minimum of 8 rounds of nominations for you to fill your rosters. It will take more rounds if anyone overbids on a player that you nominate. Each owner nominates once in a round. In a 10-team league, this means that for the last 80 players (approximate) bought in the pool, you did not have the opportunity to overbid. 10 teams x 23 players roster = 230 players total. Therefore, you were out-of-action for 35% of the players bought in the pool.

Looking at this in another way, if at the start of an auction, you were told that you would have to leave the room for the last 35% of the players bought, wouldn't you think that you would be at a major disadvantage?

Here's the counter for this argument. In the recent AL Tout draft, there were 44 @ $1, 19 @ $2 and 12 @ $3 for a total of 75 players $3 or less. This is representative of most auctions and part and parcel to the emanation of the theory, as projection/valuation methods only assign this value to about 45-50 player, meaning even if other did not draft player from the outside of the draft-worthy pool, you would STILL get value in the end as there are SIGNIFICANTLY more $q players drafted than there are $1 players according to raw value.

Using your 35% example, 8 rounds of players is 96 in AL Tout. So having $1 for 96 players (granted with a handful going earlier, but not many) is not nearly as daunting when 75 of them went for $3 or less, almost HALF of them going for $1.

I would disagree - I think this example only enhances the point. 31 players went for more than one unit. Did these players start off as someone's one unit throw out and they were simply outbid? Did someone scout the remaining units and bid 2 only to be out bid? Did someone bid 3 units at throw out because no one could say 4? The real question is, of the 31 players who went for 1 or 2 units, how many of them were won by their original nominator? How many were left at a buck in the bidding if other owners had more? And, did the majority of them go off the board prior to everyone getting down to dollar days?

There will be one unit players - it's the nature of the game - but do they come when mostly everyone is down to a single unit per open position - or prior to that? One can say that there were 44 guys who went for a buck ... but it's not so impressive if they were the last 44 names thrown out.

[Todd Zola]

I guess I need to keep beating on this poor horse.

The phenomena I originally suggested might happen in February and has since been borne out in many (again, not all, but many) instances is one gets the VAST MAJORITY of their desired end game players.

In the past, the play is to leave more than $1/player to insure one gets these exact players.

My contention is that if you are so inclined, THIS SEASON (we'll take this on a season to season basis), you can try leaving yourself with a buck a player as you very well may end up with the exact same set of end gamers, and not leave anything on the table, as you would if you set aside more and it only took your $1 bid.

I am not guaranteeing, or even virtually guaranteeing 100% of the players you want you will get. I am suggesting you will get a majority of them, and the worst case scenario is the others are still draft-worthy according to your projections. And for every player someone else takes from outside of your draft-worthy pool, that knocks off the lowest ranked draft-worthy player from your list, provided positions work out.

Inherent in this thinking is you are not getting too greedy with your end gamers. They should projected for $3 or less originally, maybe $4 but that is pushing it. If you liked leaving $15 for 8 players, a common ploy to be able to go $2 on players others nominate, I am suggesting you very well might end up with leaving $4 or $5 on the table, as others will not nominate the guys you want.

So there is a trade-off.

SITUATION A

Leave $15 for 8 (or whatever)

OUTCOME 1 -- need the $15 to get the 8 players you most want
OUTCOME 2 -- leave some money on the table to get the guys you want

SITUATION B

Have $8 for 8 players (or whatever)

OUTCOME 1 -- get most of the guys I most wanted
OUTCOME 2 -- get few of the guys I wanted

A 1 -- my argument is fallacious, at least for this league and you made the right call, congrats
A 2 -- could you have used that extra few bucks elsewhere?
B 1 -- my argument was true, at least for this league
B 2 -- did the player(s) I get earlier with the extra money balance out the players I missed in the end game?

Personally, and this is just me, others may differ, I just want them to understand the reasoning is all, I prefer the outcomes with Situation B. Even if I don't get all 8 or my intended end gamers, they are still not that bad and I prefer the better players up top than I would have gotten if I had fewer a lower budget for the top players.

I am beginning to wonder if using $8 for 8 players is the root of the discussion, and if I had said $5 for 5 or $6 for 6 if this would be more "believable" or even plausible. The exact number is somewhat arbitrary. Obviously, saying $14 for 14 isn't reasonable. So where is the reasonable line? Maybe all that is happening is there is some haze over that reasonable line. I probably wouldn't get an argument if I said do this with $3 for 3 players. And I wouldn't trust it with $10 for $10 players. Perhaps I am more willing to push this line towards 10 than I am leave it close to 3, and that is the real difference in opinion in this concept. Perhaps, anyway.

If I am taking offense, and apparently I am because I am continuing to post in this thread, it is to the notion that the thinking for situation B is WRONG. Too many have thanked me for suggesting this, while no one has cursed me (at least for this, I am getting cursed, deservedly, for other stuff).

[da_big_kid_94]

To me, the root of this discussion is what Viper originally put up - there are going to be one dollar players - he just so happened to hit the jackpot. The fallacy I see is the qualifier of "players I want" that seems to be assumed here. These are players you're going to get ... because you're limited in scope. How is anyone going to say I thought I'd get these 5 or 7 or 8 players for a buck apiece going into the auction and I did? When you go 8 for 8 or 5 for 5, you are now in rationalization mode - in most cases, you are going to take your best "worst" alternative and hope no one outbids you. You may have lucked out and got some talent, as Viper did, and there was some true talent available ... but you sure didn't plan on that type of endgame talent being there when you went into the auction.

[Todd Zola]

OK, I see that.

So with the caveat of where the "end game" line is drawn, what I believe is happening is one can get more of the last 75 or so players than one thinks.

If we played a game when we were $6 for 6 players and wrote down 6 names of who we wanted from what is available at that time, what is happening is most are able to get 4-6 of those 6. In previous seasons, the result was only 1, 2 or 3.

So to bring it up to 4,5, or 6, you keep extra money, say $10 for 6.

Here's a BIG CATCH!!!

I don't want Mat Laporta or Buster Posey or Mat Gamel etc. I want MLB players to help out when the inevitable injury hits. So a big bias to this ploy is who I target, or perhaps the type of player.

[da_big_kid_94]

Here's a BIG CATCH!!!

I don't want Mat Laporta or Buster Posey or Mat Gamel etc. I want MLB players to help out when the inevitable injury hits. So a big bias to this ploy is who I target, or perhaps the type of player.

Exactly, which is why I had said previously that noting about leagues who allow minor leaguers to be auctioned was an excellent point.

[viper]

To be honest, I was not aiming at any specific players at all. My thoughts were that I would get, by definition, more than $8 of value for the $8 I spent. I feel the key it to target those positions that have the best possibility to generate maximum value.

To that end, I ran CRVC with all non-catchers set of OFs. I wanted the pure value of non-catchers. The player pool that resulted was 15 Catchers, 32 Middles, 28 Corners and 65 Outfielders. This was in line with my own observations that the corner pool was shallow. I was a bit surprised that all UT could/should come from the Outfield

Clearly, you can find a RP whose value is more than $1, especially in my league which does not value them
adequately. But you don't want more than two at that position. This leaves me with about $6 remaining players for position players. My prior analysis, couple with many other drafts, caused me to fill the corners and leave openings at Middle and the Outfield. Where I overpaid was at the corners. I tried to get catchers at value [or $1 or $2 over] but +$3 was probably the lowest for all the catchers over $3.

A couple questions pop into my mind.

Do most people think they get the same stats for a $37 player coupled with a $1 player compared to a pair of $19 players? The fact is they do but my guess is that some think differently. Maybe not away from the draft table but at the table they change their mind.

Todd brought this up. We all know we will get some number of $1. How many are you willing to accept? I decided 8 was enough but, more importantly, not too many. To wit, I bid towards having 8 for 8. It never happened that way but life/drafts seldom goes as planned.

I don't feel I got lucky or unlucky in my eventual selections. I do think I used a strategy, suggested by others, and confirmed in my mind. I'm stubborn but once I have a belief and it seems to bear fruit, I clearly jump into that pool's deep end.

This has been an interesting thread especially given so many have shared their ideas. God, that's what is great about this place.

[Hambowen]

I think Viper said it correctly that you do not even target people. You just know you are going to get value based on your projections because so many people not value by you are valued by others.

In my 12 team mixed from this past weekend I ended up getting Scott Baker for $1, everyone grunted and groaned that I got him at such a discount but they obviously had someone else in mind or they would have bid. I was not on $ days at the time because I did not go with that strategy due the league situation(keeper league, no stars out there to overspend on etc.)

Notable $1 players or reserve round picks
My team
Baker
Cameron
Span
Sandoval
Purcey
Kawakami

Granted this is a 12 team mixed but at any level there will always be good value for $1.

[roche]

I am beginning to wonder if using $8 for 8 players is the root of the discussion, and if I had said $5 for 5 or $6 for 6 if this would be more "believable" or even plausible. The exact number is somewhat arbitrary. Obviously, saying $14 for 14 isn't reasonable. So where is the reasonable line? Maybe all that is happening is there is some haze over that reasonable line. I probably wouldn't get an argument if I said do this with $3 for 3 players. And I wouldn't trust it with $10 for $10 players. Perhaps I am more willing to push this line towards 10 than I am leave it close to 3, and that is the real difference in opinion in this concept. Perhaps, anyway.

That was my point. There have always been $1 players at the end of every auction. In fact, the last few rounds in an only auction when some teams don't participate because their rosters are full are mostly of $1 players. It's not unusual for fill your last 3-4 slots at the end of the auction uncontested because everyone else is done or can't overbid. The trouble with targeting too many $1 players is that you become helpless too soon. There are lots of little bargains in the end-game. For example, LABR AL this year, Sheffield for $4. DH only, late in the draft when money is tight, these are the guys that end up being bargains. Last year, Vidro was a "bargain", a potential 500 AB for $1. You miss out on all of them when you leave yourself no wiggle room.

I also think that our discussions have been colored by the quality of the bargains that Viper ended up with for his 10 team NL auction. A 10 team NL league is 69 players more shallow than the usual 13 teamer. I suspect that many of these players would be gone if the league was buying an extra 69 players. The reality of an only auction is that there is no quality left at the very end. My last 2 position players in a 12 team AL auction were Nomar $1 and Brendan Harris $1. It's a miracle if these two earn more than a buck this year.

[Trav The Ump]

but you sure didn't plan on that type of endgame talent being there when you went into the auction.

One of my favorite lines from Pulp Fiction "CORRECTUMUNDO!", I think what I and in turn Todd are arguing is that this year it seems the end gamers ARE there. One of those funny years where the last spot positions are still worth taking. OF is a great example of this. My last guy was Marlon Byrd for a buck, I most certainly didn't mind this. He won't be worth $20 but its more than reasonable to assume he can bring me back $4-$5. In my mind thats a good investment. And earlier I grabbed Arod, Crawford, and Markakis cause I figured there would be some sort of value at the end.

This definitely cannot be applied in a vacuum by any means and I have NO idea about the NL since I pay zero to no attention to it. But it seems this year the end game isn't that bad. Your not getting stuck with Deivi Cruz (which I did on more than one occasion. Lol.)

Even a handful of pitchers are available that are worth the gamble, so as Todd mentioned earlier if your still to draft. It'll be okay to think $5 for 5 or $6 for 6 rather than at the lower end of that scale.

[roche]

I think what I and in turn Todd are arguing is that this year it seems the end gamers ARE there. One of those funny years where the last spot positions are still worth taking. OF is a great example of this. My last guy was Marlon Byrd for a buck, I most certainly didn't mind this. He won't be worth $20 but its more than reasonable to assume he can bring me back $4-$5.

You are in a keeper league which is a whole different kettle of fish. Because of inflation and how the inflation money is applied, the prices for players can be very different than start-over leagues. In both of my AL only auctions (12 teams, non keeper), Marlon Byrd went for $4, Travis Buck went for $7 and $6.

I've noticed a trend in the past 3 years that the auctions have become more competitive. Nowadays, with the internet, everyone comes to the auction with good prices. Most importantly, the prices are very similar. Tex went for the same $33 in both auctions. Because people are not making mistakes and overpaying, the trickle down effect is that there is no quality left at the end and just enough money left to make the end game tricky. The bidding wars for at bats in the end game is getting fierce.

I do agree that this year is a boom year for $1 pitching gambles. In the AL, with all of the unproven and/or crappy rotations (especially the back end), there are lots of $1 starting pitching available. Middle relievers are also always at a dollar.

So far, my experience has been that the supply of decent $1 position players in a deep only league is very limited (like it is in most years).

[cwk1963]

I think what I and in turn Todd are arguing is that this year it seems the end gamers ARE there. One of those funny years where the last spot positions are still worth taking. OF is a great example of this. My last guy was Marlon Byrd for a buck, I most certainly didn't mind this. He won't be worth $20 but its more than reasonable to assume he can bring me back $4-$5.

You are in a keeper league which is a whole different kettle of fish. Because of inflation and how the inflation money is applied, the prices for players can be very different than start-over leagues. In both of my AL only auctions (12 teams, non keeper), Marlon Byrd went for $4, Travis Buck went for $7 and $6.

I've noticed a trend in the past 3 years that the auctions have become more competitive. Nowadays, with the internet, everyone comes to the auction with good prices. Most importantly, the prices are very similar. Tex went for the same $33 in both auctions. Because people are not making mistakes and overpaying, the trickle down effect is that there is no quality left at the end and just enough money left to make the end game tricky. The bidding wars for at bats in the end game is getting fierce.

I do agree that this year is a boom year for $1 pitching gambles. In the AL, with all of the unproven and/or crappy rotations (especially the back end), there are lots of $1 starting pitching available. Middle relievers are also always at a dollar.

So far, my experience has been that the supply of decent $1 position players in a deep only league is very limited (like it is in most years).

I'm a little lost in that I don't know if you think Byrd for $4 is good or bad. It seems like you're saying you think that's too high. But according to the projections here (and I hope I'm not giving much away) Byrd is valued at $12 or $13 depending if it's a 4x4 or 5x5. Buck went just over his value.

The bottom line is this. If everyone is paying the same very similar prices, there is a group of people at the end that will go for $1 as long as value is always paid on the higher players. If not, then you jump in and get your bargains in the beginning. The very nature of valuations is the total amount of money allotted equals the amount of money the league as a whole has to spend. There are always a bunch of players valued at $1. As a matter of fact, there are 11 in both the AL 4x4 and AL 5x5 hitter projections. On the pitching side there's 14 $1 players in each format. Since the amount of money available to spend is finite, if everyone goes for value as was said, there will be at least that many people going for $1 at the end. They may not be the players you want but they are positively valued players.

[roche]

There are always a bunch of players valued at $1. As a matter of fact, there are 11 in both the AL 4x4 and AL 5x5 hitter projections. On the pitching side there's 14 $1 players in each format. Since the amount of money available to spend is finite, if everyone goes for value as was said, there will be at least that many people going for $1 at the end. They may not be the players you want but they are positively valued players.

Projecting values at the $1 level is mostly about projecting at bats and innings. $1 players in deep only leagues are all backups or MR/starting pitching gambles. The backups play once a week depending on the schedule or if there is injury. It's impossible to predict injuries so I don't put a lot of faith in these projections. Guys at $1 are barely better than guys at 0 or -1. The curve is real flat at this part of the player pool.

If you reread the original post, the strategy was that by buying lots of $1 players, you would actually make lots of mini-profits. The strategy is not about buying $1 players for $1. The strategy hinges on picking up $2-4 players for $1.


Regarding Byrd, I'm worried about his at bats. I don't see him getting 400 AB this year which knocks his value down a lot. I would love to see him repeat his last 2 years but I'm skeptical.

[viper]

My thought process of the original post was that projections only account for 15-20 $1 players. In fact, every redraft league has a lot more, sometimes upwards to 40. Plus there are a number of $2 players who either had a single offering at $2 or a single $1 bump. If this premise is true, then there is value to be had in $1 players. How much depends on your individual league. Whether a player like Byrd is really worth -$1 or $5 isn't the point here. The point is that there will be a number of players whose projections indicate they are worth more than $1 but at the actual draft, they will go for $1. The reasons are many but it just happens all the time. Now if you feel the projections for those $1 to 43 players are essentially worthless, then I guess I ask what is your alternative in projecting. I can't believe someone can actually drfat top level players and still have enough money to get everyone else at over $5 in projected value. Being the king of the end game when guys like Byrd are being nominated isn't my personal cup of tea. Would you want Teixeria and $1 as the end game approaches or Youkilis and $6? This might not be a good example but you get he point. Some people need control and others don't. I think you could analyze this thread and divide the posters into those two groups. I'm not even sure which group is more correct but I know I fall into the "not needing end-game control" group. Nothing from my three drafts has changed my mind. My only correction was after the first auction when I decided I would absolutely fill my corners with quality players and I would definitely leave 2-3 slots open at OF/UT. I still don't know what catcher strategy I like. I accepted the butt end of the draft and will see how that plays out.

[CubFan]

I think what I and in turn Todd are arguing is that this year it seems the end gamers ARE there. One of those funny years where the last spot positions are still worth taking. OF is a great example of this. My last guy was Marlon Byrd for a buck, I most certainly didn't mind this. He won't be worth $20 but its more than reasonable to assume he can bring me back $4-$5.

You are in a keeper league which is a whole different kettle of fish. Because of inflation and how the inflation money is applied, the prices for players can be very different than start-over leagues. In both of my AL only auctions (12 teams, non keeper), Marlon Byrd went for $4, Travis Buck went for $7 and $6.

I've noticed a trend in the past 3 years that the auctions have become more competitive. Nowadays, with the internet, everyone comes to the auction with good prices. Most importantly, the prices are very similar. Tex went for the same $33 in both auctions. Because people are not making mistakes and overpaying, the trickle down effect is that there is no quality left at the end and just enough money left to make the end game tricky. The bidding wars for at bats in the end game is getting fierce.

I do agree that this year is a boom year for $1 pitching gambles. In the AL, with all of the unproven and/or crappy rotations (especially the back end), there are lots of $1 starting pitching available. Middle relievers are also always at a dollar.

So far, my experience has been that the supply of decent $1 position players in a deep only league is very limited (like it is in most years).

Roche brought up an excellent point on keeper leagues. I wanted Byrd in the end game but he got brought up earlier, at about the 2/3 point of the draft....he went for $6. Still there was some value in the dollar bins but not to the point of picking more than a couple of players who would return positive numbers. The inflation this year in our keeper league was the highest ever....averaging around 35% for any player who went over $30. They came down some in the middle rounds with a few value picks but inflation was still running around 20%. About half of the owners needed 3-5 players to come out of the dollar pool.

[roche]

Some people need control and others don't. I think you could analyze this thread and divide the posters into those two groups. I'm not even sure which group is more correct but I know I fall into the "not needing end-game control" group.

I think that you may have misunderstood the thrust of my argument. It's not about control. Todd hit it bang on when he said it's about how many $1 guys to take.
I have always left the last 3 pitchers slots as $1 slots. I usually will leave UT as a one dollar slot and maybe also an OF or MIF for a buck. I fill these 4-5 slots after the teams with money have completed their rosters so I don't have control either.
I am questioning the wisdom of going $8 for 8 (or $11 for 9 as you did in another league). In my opinion, the extra three $1 slots put you at a disadvantage because you are down to dollar days during the middle of the auction instead of in the end-game. As the money and position slots dwindle, there are always opportunities to scoop a bargain. It's unpredictable but the teams with money may have filled their 2B slots so that you can scoop a Mark Ellis for cheap. Ellis is just a serviceable player. Give anyone 500AB though and you'll get some counting stats. If you are down to $1 per player, you have no shot at guys like Ellis if they happen to slip.

[Trav The Ump]

Completely off topic...

THIS THREAD IS WHY I LOVE MASTERSBALL!

51 posts and almost 500 views...come on...

[viper]

Shandler's weekly post addressed this yesterday. He sort of thought Todd was off his rocker when he was saying this at the initial First Pitch forum [may be a bit exaggerated]. After a draft or two, he did a complete 180. At the Washington forum, he all but suggested it as a way to draft. I must admit, the best part of the article was his flying experiences. Todd should get his OK to post that part here. It was really amusing and sad and true. I hope Todd had better luck. Anyone who thinks that traveling a lot must be fun should see it.

[cwk1963]

I just finished an auction over the weekend. While I didn't do $8 for 8, I had $10 for 6 players. I needed a SS, MI, CI, DH and 2P. I wound up getting Fontenot ($3), Pettitte ($2), Winn ($2), Betancourt ($1), Lowell ($1) and Saito ($1).

[Todd Zola]

I flew 4 of the past 6 weekends, SF/LA, Phoenix, Cle/Chi and Vegas.

One more trip and I would have gotten my pilot's license but I drove the Wash/NY/Bos leg of the First Pitch Forums and also drove to NYC for Tout Wars.

Three of the 4 weekends were fine, no issues.

The trip to Cleve and Chicago rivaled Ron's experience.

We had a seminar in Cleve on Sat, Chi on Sunday. Last year I drove the 6 hrs back and forth, this year I decided to fly to save time as I am now in charge of a web site and had work to do

The itinerary called for Bos to Chi early Fri morning, Chi to Cleve that afternoon, arriving at 3:00 and meet the HQ gang for dinner that night, stay in Cleve Fri and Sat night, early morning Sun flight to Chi in time to make the noon seminar (hour time difference helped).

The flight to Chi was fine. The Chi to Cleve was first delayed at the gate an hour, no problem, I could still make dinner. We boarded and proceeded to sit for 2 hours as they tended to an engine issue. The pilot then explained only one engine would start, but there was a way to start the second while we were taking off. I wondered aloud if the plane was standard and if he wanted few of us to push it so he could pop the clutch and start it. The pilot was right, the second engine started but I landed at 6PM, the time the group was heading out to eat. My hotel pizza was pretty good

The venue was downtown, across the street from the ballpark, about a 15 minute walk from the RAPID, their subway system which passes right through the airport. I stayed by the airport, so I took the hotel shuttle back and caught the RTA to Terminal Tower, the closest stop and right in the middle of a nice mall. I asked the best way to get to the hotel, said it was near the ballpark and was directed to an underground tunnel that goes directly to the park. Except the door was locked. I went and asked someone else for directions and they pointed me to the same tunnel, I explained it was closed and they said it never closes. So figuring I was in the wrong place, I went back and it was indeed closed. I asked a mall cop and he also started to tell me about the tunnel, I said it was closed an politely asked him the fastest way to get my ass outside as I was cutting it close on time. I waddled over and barely made it. I was telling the story after the talk when a kind HQer offered me a lift back to the hotel, as he was going that way. I accepted. We get to his car -- or should I say his wife's car and lo and behold -- flat tire. And he was clueless as to how to change it so I earned my ride.

The flight to Chicago was delayed 2 hours so I missed the attendee breakfast gathering, but at least we didn't have to jump start the plane.

During the seminar, I got word my return flight to Boston was cancelled, big Noreaster on the way. Problem is I had a major job interview on Monday, and even though it likely would have been postponed anyway, I would have preferred if they called me instead of vice versa, but I couldn't take the chance.

So I figured I would stay another night and catch the first available flight out Monday and hope they would reschedule.

I rented my car about 10AM, so if I kept it overnight, it would still only be 1 day, so I booked a cheap place by the hotel. I get to the rental and it won't start -- dead battery. 90 minutes later I get a jump, but am concerned if this happens again in the morning, I would miss the flight so I took the car back and figured on cabbing it to the hotel.

Keep in mind I had a lot of work to do for the site while this is all happening

Anyway, I finally got home late that Monday, had the interview the next day.

They must have understood, as I started working last week, ending over a year of unemployment, so there is a happy ending.

[msugray]

Anyway, I finally got home late that Monday, had the interview the next day.

They must have understood, as I started working last week, ending over a year of unemployment, so there is a happy ending.

Congratulations!

Finding new employment is not the easiest task in the current economic environment.
It's still possible for those that have skills and keep looking, but definitely more difficult than trying to figure out the endgame picks!

[cwk1963]

Anyway, I finally got home late that Monday, had the interview the next day.

They must have understood, as I started working last week, ending over a year of unemployment, so there is a happy ending.

Congratulations!

Finding new employment is not the easiest task in the current economic environment.
It's still possible for those that have skills and keep looking, but definitely more difficult than trying to figure out the endgame picks!

Absolutely! Congratulations on the new job.

[da_big_kid_94]

Anyway, I finally got home late that Monday, had the interview the next day.

They must have understood, as I started working last week, ending over a year of unemployment, so there is a happy ending.

Congratulations, sir ... I can relate.

As to this thread, I'm going to try and add my actual perspective to it sometime next week. Our auction/drafts take place this Friday and Saturday (AL & NL only). I will post the guys who went for a buck for each auction - but it will be a blood bath. Without giving too much away (right, Wolfie?) - one of our league's inflation rate is running at 22%, the other at a whopping 46%.

[CubFan]

Fantastic news on getting the job!!! Congrats.

Our 12 team 5x5 AL only keeper auction was held March 29th. We could keep up to 6 players from the previous year. Typical inflation ~25%......this year the first 1/3 of the auction ~35%!!!!!

$1 bin
Hitting....(non-catchers) Wise, Kapler, Matthews (since dropped), Santiago, Crosby, Everett, Bautista, Carroll, Inglet, Melky Cabrera (since dropped).

Pitching.....Braden, Accardo, Jensen Lewis, Crain, Marte, Gallagher, Blevins, Cordero, Lowe, Niemann, Hill, Mosely, Casey Jensen, Harrison, Gio Gonzalez (since dropped), Bannister, McCarthy, CJ Wilson.

[Todd Zola]

FWIW, I am liking Crosby as an end game MI in deep leagues, he has been taking balls at 2B and 3B and could get a few hundred at bats as Chavez and Ellis are both health risks.

[roche]

They must have understood, as I started working last week, ending over a year of unemployment, so there is a happy ending

congrats. I'm sincerely happy for you.

[Todd Zola]

Thanks everyone!!!

The dirty little secret is I don't do this baseball thing full-time. I actually had a couple of opportunities do make it my job the past year, but I am still passionate about science so I was not ready yet to give up my chemistry career. I love science as my job and I love fantasy baseball, I was somewhat concerned that if I made baseball my job and hobby, I would end up hating them both -- not a good thing.

Dirty little secret #2 is I had a consulting gig the past year that was supposed to go full time last fall but we never go the funding we expected. I hung on as log as I could, waiting for the funding to come through, but once the unemployment extensions ceased, I had to say goodbye and actually got the first and only position I applied for, so it was not as bad as it may have seemed from the initial comment. Plus I was able to get in a routine and dropped some much needed weight, though I still have a long ways to go in that regard.

I am completely convinced the process is now more 'right time right place' than it is a measure of one's talent or skills.

[da_big_kid_94]

As promised, this is the list of $1 unit players from each of my auction drafts' this past weekend:

AL Only

Miner Zach
Molina Jose
Casilla Santiago
Marte Damaso
Richard Clayton
Treanor Matt
Chavez Eric
Perry Ryan
Aybar Willy
Carter Chris
Crosby Bobby
Reyes Anthony
Lillibridge Brent
Millar Kevin
Washburn Jarrod
Wuertz Michael
Kapler Gabe
Zumaya Joel
Quinlan Robb
Bautista Jose
Jepsen Kevin
Anderson Brian
Betancourt Rafael
Redmond Mike
Blevins Jerry
Everett Adam
Wakefield Tim
Perkins Glen
Barrett Michael
Harrison Matt
Wilson C.J.
Zaun Gregg
Mc Donald John
Kottaras George


NL Only
Hill Koyie
Ohlendorf Ross
Moyer Jamie
Zito Barry
Owings Micah
Petit Yusmeiro
Dickerson Chris
Hernandez Anderson
Dobbs Greg
Reyes Dennys
Glavine Tom
Weathers David
Morales Franklin
Coste Chris
Snell Ian
Freese David
Campillo Jorge
Michaels Jason
Renteria Edgar
Sheffield Gary
Mota Guillermo
Wagner Billy
Tatis Fernando
Blanton Joe
Ruiz Carlos
Diaz Matt
Duke Zach
Hudson Tim
Buchholz Taylor
Gload Ross
Miles Aaron
Martis Shairon
Affeldt Jeremy
Feliciano Pedro
Aurilia Rich
Green Sean
Gonzalez Alex
Floyd Cliff
Rauch Jon
Uribe Juan
Blum Geoff
Rodriguez Luis
La Rue Jason
Johnson Nick
Bard Josh


There are a few guys in there I wouldn't mind having, but not a great deal of talent.

To put things in additional perspective, same color = same owner.

[Todd Zola]

This is interesting and is really EXHIBIT A for the credo KNOW THY LEAGUE, as I agree, I don't want to be shopping in the $1 store here either.

There are several reasons for the makeup of these pools, most likely having to do with

1. Eligibility rules
2. Timing of the draft
3. Philosophies of the owners

As is usually the case, it is likely a combination of all three.

[Todd Zola]

Thought I would share this for kicks. It is mostly expected, though the extent is somewhat surprising.

We just finished the reserves for the subscriber league via lists. There are 13 teams, 23 rounds, 4 reserves. We did the first round of reserves via e-mail, then used lists for the final 3 picks. Two owners did not submit lists. Here are the choices the guys got. 1,2,4 means he got the top choice, second choice and 4th choice on his list. Remember, there were 33 players picked

1,2,3
1,3,4
1,2,3
2,3,4
2,3,4
1,2,3
1,2,3
1,3,4
1,2,3
1,2,3
1,4,7

basically, even though we distributed 33 players, 3 players to 11 owners....

6 of the lists needed only 3 names
4 of the lists needed only 4 names, 2 getting their top choice
1 needed 7 names, but he got his top choice

9 of 11 got their top choice

Not very scientific, more just for shits and giggles.