Trading silliness

[injury log]

OP - the point is that the team doesn't want Hairston. So it doesn't matter how bad the player you request is; they don't want to pay Hairston $2.5 million, because he isn't worth that much to them. That's not an AI failing.

snepp has a good suggestion above, and I was going to suggest the same thing when I saw Markus' reply.

[SirMichaelJordan]

I find I see better trades especially with salary dumps when I favored prospects.

[ChrisG]

Originally Posted by injury log

OP - the point is that the team doesn't want Hairston. So it doesn't matter how bad the player you request is; they don't want to pay Hairston $2.5 million, because he isn't worth that much to them. That's not an AI failing.

snepp has a good suggestion above, and I was going to suggest the same thing when I saw Markus' reply.

But they did want Hairston....that's the thing. That's why I tried negotiating with the Tigers.

Here are my offers:



They're all offering me guys who are either having good seasons in the game or are rated highly. Adam Lind, for example, has an .888 OPS. But if I try to touch any of these teams' minors, even lotto-ticket low minors guys, I get summarily rejected.

I agree with the point-scale suggestions. I think that would be good for making a difficulty between "Normal" and "Hard".

I do use "Hard" because I think it's the best and most realistic setting for most trades -- it's just for stuff where you try to trade a major league roleplayer type where it kind of runs into some problems IMO. Guys like Hairston get traded for low-level prospects all the time, but it's difficult to do that in the game.

I'd like to stress that I don't think trades in general should be easier to do, that's not what I'm saying at all. I just think the ability to trade certain types of players may need to be tweaked.

[sc_superstar]

IIRC all of those guys make more money than Hairston, thay may not want to deal for a player that would need to be on their roster without moving a roster players. So it looks like the AI wants to dump salary on you to take hairston not that they actually want him

[ChrisG]

Originally Posted by sc_superstar

IIRC all of those guys make more money than Hairston, thay may not want to deal for a player that would need to be on their roster without moving a roster players. So it looks like the AI wants to dump salary on you to take hairston not that they actually want him

I guess so. I looked at Moseley's salary, he only makes $490K. But most of those other guys do make more.

[ChrisG]

Originally Posted by mpejkrm

I think the single best change to trading AI would be more trades (including AI to AI controlled teams) near the trade deadline where contenders ship off some good prospects for veterans (and their salaries) that can help right now. Activity peaks near the trade deadline in OOTP, but most trades are not of this type. In real life, they are. Can't argue with a 10 point scale for trade difficulty if that is doable, too.

This is exactly what I mean. You just worded it better.

Go take a look at the OP's dynasty report. Some of the trades in there downright don't make any sense at all.[/QUOTE]

Yep. I agree with this 100%.

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by HH20xx convert

I think the single best change to trading AI would be more trades (including AI to AI controlled teams) near the trade deadline where contenders ship off some good prospects for veterans (and their salaries) that can help right now. Activity peaks near the trade deadline in OOTP, but most trades are not of this type. In real life, they are. Can't argue with a 10 point scale for trade difficulty if that is doable, too.

Isn't there a setting for AI trade frequency? Or are you specifically talking about trades of veterans for prospects?

Also, on a side note that may be related to the OP, I've gotten trade offers from teams and when I click on the "Discuss" option in the e-mail, it takes me to the trade page with the offered trade already set up, and the AI's response is that he's not interested and I'll have to do better. Yet it's the AI's trade offer that is shown in the trade screen (and I still have the option to accept via the e-mail).

[dkgo]

its pretty obvious that teams dont want to take on so much salary (plus use a 40-man roster spot) for a crappy outfielder while giving up a minor leaguer not on the 40-man. seems realistic to me, just because you want to get rid of a guy doesnt mean other teams should have to want him.

[SunDevil]

Markus,

The ai still does not look at dollar amount when dealing with trades. Whether you enter $1 or $4,000,000 dollars for a trade, the ai just looks to see the if the dollar amount in the trade window is greater than $0. I can pull off many trades with a the hard/neutral setting and by adding a $1 to the offer. I have tested through numerous seasons and trades with different teams.

I can get close to the GM agreeing on a trade and by adding $1 the deal can be accepted. Also when you are trying to feel out other teams by clicking on the make trade happen, and returns a list of players that you could add to the deal to get the ai to accept the trade, if you just add $1 to the trade window and click on the make trade happen button, the list of players the ai would accept usually gets longer, meaning somehow $1 will make the ai accept a less player than when the dollar trade field said $0. And if you instead replace the $1 dollar with $4,000,000 no different players are on the list of acceptable players to trade then when it said $1.

[pumph]

As the Nationals, I had a very difficult time ridding myself of Jayson Werth. First, he had a no-trade that he refused to waive to ANYONE.

But after 2 months on my bench, he finally got fed up enough to allow a trade. Problem was his salary was so high that I basically had to give up players and cash just to get someone to give me a mediocre A-ball player to get him off my books.


The thing I don't like about trading is that I played out an entire season, game by game, and the offseason that followed. I got one trade offer from the CPU in that time. Yet the computer basically made about a trade a day from opening day until the deadline, and averaged more than that in the offseason.

It was too much. I know I could turn it down (It is set on normal), but then I figured I'd get even fewer trade requests. I would hope that my team would receive as many offers as any other team, and that there wouldn't be so much trading overall. I started with a real-life 2013 opening day roster set, and by the all-star break, I had no clue who was on anyone's team.

[mpejkrm]

Originally Posted by dkgo

its pretty obvious that teams dont want to take on so much salary (plus use a 40-man roster spot) for a crappy outfielder while giving up a minor leaguer not on the 40-man. seems realistic to me, just because you want to get rid of a guy doesnt mean other teams should have to want him.

It's $2.5MM in a modern MLB league for a solid reserve. That isn't that much. These teams have loads of money. Giving up a non-top-20 prospect is very realistic. Hell the Nationals just did it and Hairston is hitting WORSE IRL.

I think the real issue is that the AI NEVER wants to take on money in trades. The Tigers, a big market team, won't even do it.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by pumph

As the Nationals, I had a very difficult time ridding myself of Jayson Werth. First, he had a no-trade that he refused to waive to ANYONE.

But after 2 months on my bench, he finally got fed up enough to allow a trade. Problem was his salary was so high that I basically had to give up players and cash just to get someone to give me a mediocre A-ball player to get him off my books.


The thing I don't like about trading is that I played out an entire season, game by game, and the offseason that followed. I got one trade offer from the CPU in that time. Yet the computer basically made about a trade a day from opening day until the deadline, and averaged more than that in the offseason.

It was too much. I know I could turn it down (It is set on normal), but then I figured I'd get even fewer trade requests. I would hope that my team would receive as many offers as any other team, and that there wouldn't be so much trading overall. I started with a real-life 2013 opening day roster set, and by the all-star break, I had no clue who was on anyone's team.

Were you dominant? Put another way did your team have few weaknesses? The AI cannot offer players to a team with few or no weaknesses.

[pumph]

Originally Posted by RchW

Were you dominant? Put another way did your team have few weaknesses? The AI cannot offer players to a team with few or no weaknesses.

I had a great season, but I certainly had holes. Still, for a power-hitting outfielder, who draws walks and plays a good right field, why can't I get a minor leaguer or two?

The CPU never offers prospects. Even if they are a "win now" team, and you're giving them a major leaguer at a position of need. There needs to be some variety in the market. The CPU should look at rebuilding teams and potential playoff teams and allow the trading AI to adjust for "the plan".

[mpejkrm]

Originally Posted by pumph

The CPU never offers prospects. Even if they are a "win now" team, and you're giving them a major leaguer at a position of need.

THIS is what needs to be fixed. Not even a horrible prospect hitting .050 at A-Ball will get moved.

[SirMichaelJordan]

To be fair, wouldn't acquiring prospects be apart of negotiating? I mean why would a team just up and offer a player that is not being paid by the team without the other team asking for them to make a deal worth making?

[ChrisG]

Originally Posted by mpejkrm

THIS is what needs to be fixed. Not even a horrible prospect hitting .050 at A-Ball will get moved.

Exactly -- this is the problem. It's not that trading per se needs to be made "easier", it's that teams are tight-fisted with even the lowest-level of prospects.

Trades that include only established major league players are so much rarer than trades that include one team giving up a prospect for a major leaguer, no matter how lowly the prospect may be.

[dkgo]

Originally Posted by mpejkrm

It's $2.5MM in a modern MLB league for a solid reserve. That isn't that much. These teams have loads of money. Giving up a non-top-20 prospect is very realistic. Hell the Nationals just did it and Hairston is hitting WORSE IRL.

I think the real issue is that the AI NEVER wants to take on money in trades. The Tigers, a big market team, won't even do it.

to me this says the problem is that the AI is better than real gms. dont forget he has another 2.5m next year too

hairston right now is a below replacement level player who is 33, cant field and isnt hitting. in a standard ootp game you could find his production as an aaa call up or free agent.

dont get me wrong the trade AI can always be improved and I would like to see prospects offered when you shop around (even though you can get them if you try), but no team wanting scott hairston is far from "silliness". ive definitely managed to dump salary before too, if you are looking for just prospects you might be running into 40-man roster issues for the other team and will have to take someone with a ML contract back.

[ChrisG]

Originally Posted by dkgo

to me this says the problem is that the AI is better than real gms. dont forget he has another 2.5m next year too

hairston right now is a below replacement level player who is 33, cant field and isnt hitting. in a standard ootp game you could find his production as an aaa call up or free agent.

dont get me wrong the trade AI can always be improved and I would like to see prospects offered when you shop around (even though you can get them if you try), but no team wanting scott hairston is far from "silliness". ive definitely managed to dump salary before too, if you are looking for just prospects you might be running into 40-man roster issues for the other team and will have to take someone with a ML contract back.

In the game Hairston is a 1.5 (my scout) / 2.5 (OSA) star player with a 92 OPS+ and 0.5 WAR and he can be had for a year and a half essentially for $3.5M or so (or less when I offer to kick in cash)...There's no value in that whatsoever?

Those stats won't set the world on fire but that's a solid major league roleplayer for a very low price.

[pgjocki]

Originally Posted by dkgo

but no team wanting scott hairston is far from "silliness". ive definitely managed to dump salary before too, if you are looking for just prospects you might be running into 40-man roster issues for the other team and will have to take someone with a ML contract back.

I agree 100% on this last statement, the 40-man roster factor is huge and most likely overlooked when the human is trading against the AI. 40 slots is 40 slots so this most likely is hard coded in the logic algorithm because the AI is not going to take a trade to end up with 41 players with a major league contract.

I would suggest going for an NBA type trade where you try and acquire an expiring contract at years end and a prospect. IMO the shop player is merely a starting point and not the final word on what the AI will agree to in the end.

[injury log]

A few things:

- different teams view players differently, in real life and in OOTP. That the Nationals thought it worthwhile to give up a longshot arm with fringey stuff for Hairston in real life does not mean that in OOTP the Tigers specifically ought to feel the same way. The Nationals might be one team in 30 in real life who were willing to give up something for Hairston.

- we don't even know what the Hairston trade is yet, by the way, since two players to be named later were involved.

- Hairston in real life is obviously different from Hairston in OOTP. Maybe in your game he's taking a ratings slide that your scout just hasn't picked up on yet, but that AI teams have. He might not be as good as you think, and if he's even slightly worse than your scout thinks, he's a horrible player to trade for, what with his $2.5m salary next year. He's overpriced as is.

- It was a huge step forward, in OOTP13, for the trade AI to recognize which players have negative value because they are paid more than they produce. Hairston seems like one of those players; most teams should have someone in AAA they can pay min-wage who will give them roughly the same production. It would be a big step backwards to change things so that the AI started giving up young talent again for those kinds of fungible players. If you want it to be easier to trade Hairston, you can change your trade settings in game setup (to 'easy' or 'very easy', and to 'favor veterans').

- a trade AI is an absurdly complicated thing to do right. It has improved in OOTP immeasurably over the last couple of years, but there are still some obvious issues, especially when trying to make very minor deals. But from my point of view, it's better to have an unexploitable trade AI that is hard to rip off than an AI willing to make all kinds of lopsided trades.