Fair Deal?

[PSUColonel]

Is it a fair deal? This is a trade I proposed on "Very Hard trade difficulty (AI Eval 65/20/10/5)

[PurpleHaze34]

I don't like the $10M. I try to only use cash if it's a "paying a portion of their salary" deal, but that's more of a house rule of mine. The players seem fair to swap you giving up a CF and a prospect for a C, all around the same level of stats.

[Lockdog]

I think you got the better end of the deal. You traded five years of an everyday center fielder for six years of a young catcher, which is reasonable. That being said, you essentially got $10 million for a questionable third base prospect in rookie ball.

[injury log]

You're trading a 2.7 WAR guy for a 0.8 WAR guy, two wins are worth $10m, and the guy you're trading away has potential for borderline plus-plus contact (the ratings are relative, 65 is outstanding), whereas Swihart is almost maxed out. You're also giving up a fringe prospect. I think the deal is bad for you, not for the AI.

[Charley575]

Originally Posted by PurpleHaze34

I don't like the $10M. I try to only use cash if it's a "paying a portion of their salary" deal, but that's more of a house rule of mine. The players seem fair to swap you giving up a CF and a prospect for a C, all around the same level of stats.

I also don't understand the $10M. Based on what's in front of us here, it doesn't look like you need it. You're giving up more than you are getting in terms of talent. I don't know what your long term plans are, but given that catchers seem to flame out faster than other position players you would probably get more mileage out of Herrera in the long run. Bad deal for you, in my opinion.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by PurpleHaze34

I don't like the $10M. I try to only use cash if it's a "paying a portion of their salary" deal, but that's more of a house rule of mine. The players seem fair to swap you giving up a CF and a prospect for a C, all around the same level of stats.

that's why I included the "A.I. embarrassment" option. Say what you want, but the AI accepted this trade.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by injury log

You're trading a 2.7 WAR guy for a 0.8 WAR guy, two wins are worth $10m, and the guy you're trading away has potential for borderline plus-plus contact (the ratings are relative, 65 is outstanding), whereas Swihart is almost maxed out. You're also giving up a fringe prospect. I think the deal is bad for you, not for the AI.

ratings are in fact relative

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by Charley575

I also don't understand the $10M. Based on what's in front of us here, it doesn't look like you need it. You're giving up more than you are getting in terms of talent. I don't know what your long term plans are, but given that catchers seem to flame out faster than other position players you would probably get more mileage out of Herrera in the long run. Bad deal for you, in my opinion.

I do have these two CF and my top catching prospect:

[BIG17EASY]

I think we've seen that if you put enough money in a trade, the AI will eventually accept it. As others have said, you're losing out in terms of talent by a somewhat wide margin. So the AI values that talent discrepancy at around $10M. The AI accepting that kind of deal is not an embarrassment; it's just a limit to artificial intelligence. AI can only act logically up to a point, and you've crossed that point.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by BIG17EASY

I think we've seen that if you put enough money in a trade, the AI will eventually accept it. As others have said, you're losing out in terms of talent by a somewhat wide margin. So the AI values that talent discrepancy at around $10M. The AI accepting that kind of deal is not an embarrassment; it's just a limit to artificial intelligence. AI can only act logically up to a point, and you've crossed that point.

Actually, I think the AI would even give me more money if it had it. I have drained Boston of it's cash.

EDIT: Now I can go do this in another trade, with another team....rinse, repeat. The real purpose of this thread is to illustrate that something must be done about the AI in cash trades. There should be the option to only receive what a player's contract is worth by percentage of each individual year. 20,40,60,80,100 percent options on each year of an incoming contract.

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

Actually, I think the AI would even give me more money if it had it. I have drained Boston of it's cash.

Exactly my point. That's not logical, but the AI is willing to give up as much cash as it can for the upgrade in talent.

[bigsmooth]

I wouldn't make that deal - for the Red Sox perspective. Giving up $10 million dollars for an average/slightly above average CF; and giving up a young C prospect - Decent/good C don't grow on trees. Bad deal for the Sox!

[NoOne]

depends on team needs of both teams.

i only use money if the other team cannot afford the deal. so, i can't comment much on that portion. in my experience if i initiate the trade i get a little less than what i pay for with my settings... if position needs fit, this would be a rare sight to see a close trade.

swihart is okay, but nothign special in ootp17. he is great defensively, but he had better offensive ratings in previous years. i'd only go after him if my catcher was below average and giving up nothing of expected current/future use in the trade. if i am buying a catcher i start with the most coveted and move down from there.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by BIG17EASY

Exactly my point. That's not logical, but the AI is willing to give up as much cash as it can for the upgrade in talent.

right, which to me, is an issue. I realize people will say "well, just don't do that", or "don't go there"...but my contention is the feature exists, but is not implemented well. The problem is, cash is included in real deals all the time. There is no real way to use this feature responsibly, as you just don't know where the threshold should be. How much is too much? How much is too little? I don't know.

The best thing to do at this point (and I'd like to see this hard coded until something better can be done) is to only be able to trade cash up to equal to total value of a contract for one year. So int his case, the most amount of cash should be willing to part with, is $518,500.

I could be wrong, but how hard would that be to code as a quick fix?

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by NoOne

depends on team needs of both teams.

i only use money if the other team cannot afford the deal. so, i can't comment much on that portion. in my experience if i initiate the trade i get a little less than what i pay for with my settings... if position needs fit, this would be a rare sight to see a close trade.

swihart is okay, but nothign special in ootp17. he is great defensively, but he had better offensive ratings in previous years. i'd only go after him if my catcher was below average and giving up nothing of expected current/future use in the trade. if i am buying a catcher i start with the most coveted and move down from there.

I have Carlos Ruiz. So he is an upgrade for sure...Herrera is certainly a player with maybe a little more upside, but as shown, I have a player who can play CF well defensively, while my AAA prospect continues to develop. So it's not a terrible trade from a needs perspective. Herrera is NOT the starter anyway...my manager is using Borjous instead.

The real issue here, is the cash. I can take ten million here, and ten more there from teams, and just go out and buy whatever players I like. It's a horrible exploit within the game, and I just feel it needs to be tightened up. This was simply a way to illustrate how bad the AI is when it comes to cash. If some "ground rules" were hard coded it would be a good thing for competative play, even if it's not quite as realistic as the actual MLB.

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

right, which to me, is an issue. I realize people will say "well, just don't do that", or "don't go there"...but my contention is the feature exists, but is not implemented well. The problem is, cash is included in real deals all the time. There is no real way to use this feature responsibly, as you just don't know where the threshold should be. How much is too much? How much is too little? I don't know.

The best thing to do at this point (and I'd like to see this hard coded until something better can be done) is to only be able to trade cash up to equal to total value of a contract for one year. So int his case, the most amount of cash should be willing to part with, is $518,500.

I could be wrong, but how hard would that be to code as a quick fix?

That's not realistic. Teams often trade players with multiple years left on a contract and include money in the deal that covers more than one year's worth of salary.

There's no fix to this, if that's what you're looking for. Like I said before, AI cannot function 100% logically, so there's always going to be a dollar amount that will result in a trade being accepted. Coding in a fixed limit is not realistic because trades can take on so many different forms. It's not an issue unless the user chooses to exploit it, just like commissioner mode. If you don't want unfair things to happen in your game, don't intentionally do unfair things.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by BIG17EASY

That's not realistic. Teams often trade players with multiple years left on a contract and include money in the deal that covers more than one year's worth of salary.

There's no fix to this, if that's what you're looking for. Like I said before, AI cannot function 100% logically, so there's always going to be a dollar amount that will result in a trade being accepted. Coding in a fixed limit is not realistic because trades can take on so many different forms. It's not an issue unless the user chooses to exploit it, just like commissioner mode. If you don't want unfair things to happen in your game, don't intentionally do unfair things.

fair enough...what if it could only be a percentage, up to 100 percent of a contract...but no profit making?

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

fair enough...what if it could only be a percentage, up to 100 percent of a contract...but no profit making?

That would certainly be fair, as I don't think the MLB commissioner's office would ever approve a trade that exceeds that. Teams in real life include money in trades to help pay for the contract(s) that's switching hands. Your example clearly is one where money was included to get the AI to accept the deal. I think this suggestion is a good way to curtail that.

[PurpleHaze34]

I'd like to see a better cash system in trades. Like I said I do a house rule, but I'd also like to be able to deal a "bloated veteran" if I'm willing to pay half his salary for the remainder of the contract rather than a lump sum. I believe I read somewhere on here though that the AI can't grasp next year's finances which is why we have the system we have in place.

I'd love to see on the salaries screen a misc. row at the bottom for cash you are paying for players no longer around out into the future.

[shipfb21]

i think it is a fair trade, until u factor in the money. the 10 million makes the deal totally unrealistic in my opinion. i see no way a real mlb team would throw in that much money, unless it was to pay portion of a salary dealt, which is not the case here...