Auction cost versus production/value

[da_big_kid_94]

Have there ever been any studies done as to what percentage over cost a player generally has to produce at to consider him a bargain, steal, sleeper ...whatever the terminology? This question seemingly can only apply to auction leagues because those are the only types of leagues where you actually have to put up something in order to get the player. I was going thought some old posts and I came upon some auction strategy posts, some of which concerned getting money off the table. More I read, more I started thinking and I came up with two points ...which may or may not be related;

• The team with the most value over cost on their entire roster is more likely than not an in the money finisher
• The teams with the big ticket items after auction or keepers are not as likely to perform well barring trades.

This is just a rough notion ... as I mull it over it seems to have merit but I'm not sure, hence the post.

[Todd Zola]

Maybe this is what you're looking for, maybe not but on average, a league champion's roster accrues about $325 of value. Obviously it depends on the stat distribution, so it's a little more than that, but as a jumping off point, $325 is what it takes.

One of the more popular services used to preach never buy a player unless you were getting a 20 percent discount - which would mean buying $325 of talent. I was just starting out in the industry, I didn't understand that then and I still don't. It's just not feasible to do that with every player, but when asked, the response was "I can."

To be honest, I'm finding stars and scrubs, or a modified approach is working better in deeper leagues than spread the wealth. I'm stubbornly not going that route -- yet, but may next time around.

[CubFan]

kid....I'm assuming you meant projected value over their cost. That implies one believes in the projections one is using which we all know is not infallible. But I get what you're trying to say. I think in leagues where dump trading is allowed as well as FAAB many teams are able to increase their team's value over their initial costs this way.

I also remember reading the same thing Todd brought up about never buying a player unless you can get them at a 20% discount. In practice, at least in our keeper league, that's not going to happen with any of the top tier talent unless they are injured. So, one would be left picking through the 5 & dime store to build one's roster and leaving mucho dinero on the table. Would love to see this guy in action in our league. Wonder if he's using his own inflated projections and thus able to say he got his players at a 20% discount to HIS projections?

[da_big_kid_94]

No , CubFan ...I was alluding to real value over cost. When I first get him, he has no value ...he hasn't done anything for me yet ... therefore he only has cost. I'm looking more towards deep into the season when his accomplishments have pretty much been determined for the year and then establishing value vs. cost based on that.

It's like your situation last year ...you acquire Trout. You would like him at 45 ... at that price you probably see him providing $55 - $60 of value so that would be a great profit margin. But even though he's Trout, he's human. Now let's say someone snags him for $55. At that price, he's lucky if he provides you with 10% profit on return. That's not a bargain and that pretty much screws up stars and scrubs .... I mean how many more stars are you going to get at 22 for 205? Scrubs they'll be a plenty ... but maybe you have room for two more players at $30 ...then what? 20 for 150? and what stars do you pick up. What I guess I'm asking is at what price does Trout become a detriment and he's only being picked up at that price to be traded later on in the season.

This year, my AL only team has crapped the bed. But, there is a trade I will make before our deadline. I have Mookie Betts in the final year of his contract. I will get offers but they will be to my liking or I'll simply hold on to him. i WON'T do the "At least you'll get something for him" routine. I got a championship from him last year ...that's quite enough. If someone wants him, that owner perceives a need. i won't mug him, but I won't take a bag of balls either ...because of Mookie's value to certain teams ...and possibly as a preventive measure to ensure certain teams DON'T get him.

[Trav The Ump]

Kid, I feel like you're ignoring the fact that you banked $55 of value with Trout (and presumably more this year). His lack of profit margin using your example is offset by the fact that he's the highest earner and barring injury bankable?

From my experience you'll have to hit on a few $10-$20 guys and a couple of $5-$10 to get in the money. Hit on a $1 player or two and you'll be in the Championship running. Maybe the question should be is $325 still the target or does that change depending on the quality of your league and the MLB breakdown?

I'm going to follow along with this, interesting thought process.

[da_big_kid_94]

Not ignoring it, Trav, but there are two points of consideration ...there's no guarantee he produces that $55 worth of value, and yes, I've banked a possible $55 worth of value ...but I had to spend $55 to get it. This is why I say throwing out names like Altuve and Trout at auction to get money off the table is simply an exercise in futility. The money is spent..just a question of who picks up the check at the end of the night. In order for me to win, I have to get more value than what I've expended. Breaking even accomplishes nothing. I'd rather have Altuve at $30 than Trout at $55. Trout's maxed out at that price and is close to becoming a detriment. Altuve, at such a price, has an excellent chance to return a profit. Now I am NOT saying I expect to get an Altuve at 30 ... but when it comes down to relative auction costs, who do you think is happier right now ...the Trout owner or the J.D. Martinez owner?

[Todd Zola]

Players like Trout lay a foundation. The whole 20 percent profit on every player is BS. I don't want a ROI with Trout, I want him to come close to cost then I'll rely on the rest of my team to provide positive earnings.

[da_big_kid_94]

I don't dispute the foundation ideal .... but when your are looking at 22 for 205 (or possibly worse in a keeper league when it comes to units), the eaves better be damn sturdy ...and you need a lot of them. Kershaw's the same way ...these are the type player you use to counter balance stiffs you are bound to pick up at auction when you have to gamble. But you still have to pick up the pace somewhere. Trout's a nice foundation ... for your offense ....he doesn't address 50% of the game.

[Trav The Ump]

So I think this is where the "auction" part of the equation becomes the great randomizer. Depends on the room you're in, the day you draft, whether or not you know historical tendencies of the league, what your target split of dollars is versus outcome.

This year I came out of my auction with 4 closers for a combined $34 in AL only, most people thought I was insane. I even posted about it on the boards right after it happened. But Rodney and Soria both well out performed the $7 bids I placed. Herrera and Diaz at $10 each also worked out as (albeit keepers) great values. Diaz is having a ridiculous season, even the biggest optimist wouldn't have said 32 saves before the All-Star break. Herrera I flipped early for Jordan Montgomery...both sides of that deal have now lost. However, I guess my point...and I'm getting to it, honest...is that I use a little bit more of a football valuation thinking. By buying Trout (which I did) I give myself the greatest opportunity of banking those stats plus a possible upside but I've also removed him from 9 other teams equations. Yes, those dollars are spent but to me I also value the roster spot. I could spend (using $55 as the thread has) $57 on Trout and two schlubs or $19 on three guys each I still feel I have a better chance of outperforming the value on Trout and two lottery tickets which I can flip for the flavor of the week as needed over the three middle guys.

However, 9 other teams now look at their boards and realize the top OF is gone. Perceived value of those three middle guys should go up, $1 guys do not as we see when you build out inflation. Always skew to higher priced players. However in an auction those dollars don't have to goto OFers. I ended up coming out of my draft with 4 starters and 5 relievers. It's where I felt the value was in my draft.

The question has maybe turned from how to get increased value instead over to how much risk do we take trying to gain that increased value? For me yes Trout could get hurt like last year and sink me, however he's also the only guy that could have a season for the ages and carry me to glory. The rest of my roster construction continues throughout the auction, I try and take the value where I see it.

(Sorry that got long, but I'm enjoying this topic a lot.)

[da_big_kid_94]

This is sort of my point. You pay for Trout, you're hamstrung in pitching. Now you were extremely fortunate in being able to get what you got for 34 units, but let's face it ...you bought Trout before any of those 4 relievers, right? This is what I mean about actual value versus cost. You DID prevent 9 other teams from getting any of them ... but at the numbers you paid, there is indication that your fellow owners didn't value them too highly either. This is what I was making reference to when I wrote about the eaves being damned sturdy and one needing a lot of them. Now they may realize the top OF is now gone, but so what if he went beyond a price they were willing to pay to get him? They may not have even considered him in their pre auction plans because they knew he'd be out of their price range before the auction started.

All of the facets you cited are true when it comes to randomizing to a point. But,Trout type players are the exceptions to that theorem. He has a price point before a single number gets thrown out and it turned out it was 57. Now, for your fellow owners to see this unfold in front of them and NOT price enforce on you is simply not paying attention... especially when it comes to pitching. You should raise a glass to the heavens on that one (may i suggest and old family recipe? Four fingers bourbon, four cubs, glass...enjoy).