What to do with blocked, but promising AAA players?

[BlueSkull]

Once I end up building a strong organization, I end up with the problem of having some pretty good AAA players ~ 24-26 yo who are blocked by more talented MLB players. Say a hitter who is 3-3.5 stars out of 3-3.5 stars.

AI teams seem not to want to trade anywhere near equal value even when they are wide open at the position (trading difficulty = high).

What to do? Since I have no interest in their 29 yo 2 star reliever, I just end up letting them waste away for a few years in the minors until t they start to decline and/or become minor league free agents.

Aside from completely destroying the dreams of these digital players, is there a better way to go about this?

[Zeth]

Well, I for one have no compunction about keeping them in Triple-A until they're out of options and/or I need 40-man roster space.

When that time comes, though, you just gotta trade them for whatever you can get. Even on high trading difficulty, if you put time into it you'll usually find good value on trading your 25-year-old 50/80-rated outfielder for a couple of good younger prospects.

Also if this is a common problem for you then you may want to consider starting over with a poorer team and/or some kind of self imposed challenge.

[diamond3017]

Originally Posted by Zeth

Also if this is a common problem for you then you may want to consider starting over with a poorer team and/or some kind of self imposed challenge.

I don't think this is something you can edit in OOTP, but the rule changes to the Rule 5 draft in the 2006 CBA gave rise to more of the situations the OP is describing, in real life and not just OOTP.

Moving back the eligibility limits by one year wiped out the majority of the value of the Rule 5 draft. The current limits allow teams to protect most prospects with any intrigue, and then subsequently stash them in the minors for up to three option years. I'd be in favor of bringing the old rules back IRL.

[ThePretender]

Originally Posted by BlueSkull

Once I end up building a strong organization, I end up with the problem of having some pretty good AAA players ~ 24-26 yo who are blocked by more talented MLB players. Say a hitter who is 3-3.5 stars out of 3-3.5 stars.

AI teams seem not to want to trade anywhere near equal value even when they are wide open at the position (trading difficulty = high).

What to do? Since I have no interest in their 29 yo 2 star reliever, I just end up letting them waste away for a few years in the minors until t they start to decline and/or become minor league free agents.

Aside from completely destroying the dreams of these digital players, is there a better way to go about this?

If you have older players who play the same positions, why don't you trade them to open a spot for the 24-26 year olds?

[NoOne]

i'm definitely a proponent of always exhausting "going younger" in any situation. even more so when the AAA guy is *mostly developed. that doesn't preclude other options. at least 2-3 years needed of high quality return to go older.

i'll live with 1/2 -1 season of sub-potential ratings current ability. if i can stash them 7-8-9 in order i'd go ~2+ years without a 2nd thought when needed.

trade that older player in front of him before they lose value. you bring in a couple prospects and promote the AAA guy... or trade both for an upgrade on the AAA guy etc etc.

always have to pay more in trades... still better to consolidate duplicate players into upgrades or less-developed, good prospects. you pay extra but it's a 100% loss when they simply leave for FA or rule 5 etc.

[ThatSeventiesGuy]

Originally Posted by ThePretender

If you have older players who play the same positions, why don't you trade them to open a spot for the 24-26 year olds?

This. If the guy you have is on the wrong side of 30 - and especially if he's on the wrong side of, say, 33 - trade him.

[BlueSkull]

Totally agree with trading older players. What sparked my question was a situation where it wasn't that the 'older' players were even a few years older. In some cases, the incumbents are younger! Or a couple of years older but below 27 in any case. Otherwise, I'd totally swap out the 'older' guys.

[Curve Ball Dave]

You also have to consider how your big league club is doing. If you're contending for a championship with the guys you have there's no reason to cut them loose and bring up the young guys. If you're not contending there's no reason to keep the veterans. You can not contend with them or without them. Might was well not contend with a young team that can get better over time than an old one that won't.

[ThePretender]

Originally Posted by Curve Ball Dave

You also have to consider how your big league club is doing. If you're contending for a championship with the guys you have there's no reason to cut them loose and bring up the young guys. If you're not contending there's no reason to keep the veterans. You can not contend with them or without them. Might was well not contend with a young team that can get better over time than an old one that won't.

That's...not true at all. If you have older expensive players who are likely to decline, you flip them at peak value so you get more assets, and then you promote the younger players who are likely to have similar production. What you're suggesting is exactly how you limit your competitive window.

[Danius]

Originally Posted by ThePretender

That's...not true at all. If you have older expensive players who are likely to decline, you flip them at peak value so you get more assets, and then you promote the younger players who are likely to have similar production. What you're suggesting is exactly how you limit your competitive window.

Exactly. Watch for "plateaued" players in your starting lineup that have piqued the interest of other teams and have a blocked player at the same position. Yes, in trading them away, you might lose a bit at that position, but you might be able to make that up with a larger gain somewhere else. It might be a starter at another position where you are weak, or depth in your pitching ranks.

Trading away a older player doesn't even have to be about raising the level of play on the field in the short-term. Trading away an older player to replace him with the view of promoting a slightly less effective younger one might give you the opportunity to get rid of an oft-injured player, or one who is bad for team morale. It can be a financial gain; trading away a starter for a much more popular player to raise fan interest and boost ticket sales. You might even flip that older player for a couple of draft picks.

[Curve Ball Dave]

Originally Posted by ThePretender

That's...not true at all. If you have older expensive players who are likely to decline, you flip them at peak value so you get more assets, and then you promote the younger players who are likely to have similar production. What you're suggesting is exactly how you limit your competitive window.

If it's the start of Spring Training and I have a veteran lineup that can contend that year for the championship, I'm not trading guys away so I can call up guys who might be as good if they pan out. If the team is not contending come the All Star break, then I can flip them but I'll be darned if going to trade guys who are taking me to the championship whether they've peaked or not.

[ThePretender]

Originally Posted by Curve Ball Dave

If it's the start of Spring Training and I have a veteran lineup that can contend that year for the championship, I'm not trading guys away so I can call up guys who might be as good if they pan out. If the team is not contending come the All Star break, then I can flip them but I'll be darned if going to trade guys who are taking me to the championship whether they've peaked or not.

I guess it's a matter of philosophy, then. If the players have similar ratings I'll 100% trade the expensive vet to let the rookie play. And I do that whether I'm aiming to win 55 games or 115.

Heck I just won a WS in my league by benching my vets in favour of the rookies, in the middle of the playoffs, some of whom had 0 major league at bats lol. Would have lost if I didn't do that. But yeah, if it's the offseason and the rookies have similar ratings to the vets, I'm moving the vets if I'm contending. My goal is to win every year for a sustained period of 20-30 years (if not longer), and it's difficult to do that if I don't flip vets at peak value and use similarly talented younger players.

[Curve Ball Dave]

Originally Posted by ThePretender

I guess it's a matter of philosophy, then. If the players have similar ratings I'll 100% trade the expensive vet to let the rookie play. And I do that whether I'm aiming to win 55 games or 115.

Heck I just won a WS in my league by benching my vets in favour of the rookies, in the middle of the playoffs, some of whom had 0 major league at bats lol. Would have lost if I didn't do that. But yeah, if it's the offseason and the rookies have similar ratings to the vets, I'm moving the vets if I'm contending. My goal is to win every year for a sustained period of 20-30 years (if not longer), and it's difficult to do that if I don't flip vets at peak value and use similarly talented younger players.

If your rookies are actually that good, then you can do that. If they are prospects who might be as good as your veterans that's a different matter entirely.

[vladdy16]

In my experience ootp18 has done a nice job of simulating real life scenarios regarding talented but unproven youngsters vs. established veterans.

There are plenty of times I see a guy develop 'fully' in the minors, say my scout has him at 68ovr/71pot, but when he finally gets his shot, he struggles to get up to speed and within 6-18 months my scout will have him more accurately rated as a streaky bench player @ 48ovr/pot.

For the playoffs especially, I think it's important to have experienced players in your lineup.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Curve Ball Dave

If your rookies are actually that good, then you can do that. If they are prospects who might be as good as your veterans that's a different matter entirely.

That's my position too. I rarely have any sure things via draft because I draft 25th to 30th every year. Maybe I don't draft well.

My MO is to spend what I need to contend. I replace inconsistency with better options. My favorite activity is finding late bloomers 24-28 via trade, minor league FA signings and international FA signings. I hold on to players who are consistent and sometimes have to deal with the decline of a veteran, which is so immersive in terms of the real world.

I won the division at 93-69 last season but my AS LF 35 and AS RF 34 were injured early and I had two late bloomers step up big time. Both made the AS team. I traded one in the offseason.

FWIW the injured players had 4.5 WAR and 2.7 WAR in their short seasons

[ThePretender]

I only draft 25-30 too. The point is you trade vets for prospects, and use your younger players to fill in for the vets. My young players are either better or equal to the vets.

If you wait around for the draft you won't get high level talent. Which is why I've said multiple times you create the cycle yourself, by flipping vets, and filling in spots with rookies. If your rookies aren't good enough to replace the vets, then you're doing something wrong.