Mastersball Fantasy Forum

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

? quien sabe bro ....quien sabe?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.