Are all trade offers garbage?

[Mike1294]

I really do wish this would improve. It would be nice to atleast open the email every once in awhile and atleast think about the offer.

[Matt Arnold]

Whenever this comes up, I always like to turn the table. How often do you go to the AI with deals and their reply comes out with the "this is the worst deal in the world"?

It's a starting volley. Sure, they could probably be a little better more of the time, but it's a bigger problem if they sent you an offer that you immediately went to accept.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

Whenever this comes up, I always like to turn the table. How often do you go to the AI with deals and their reply comes out with the "this is the worst deal in the world"?

It's a starting volley. Sure, they could probably be a little better more of the time, but it's a bigger problem if they sent you an offer that you immediately went to accept.

My main problem with trading is that there doesn’t seem like much communication between user and AI. I would like to eventually see two way negotiating. Sure we can go into a trade to ask for more or even click on “make this work” but the user is doing most of the work here. I would love to see the AI come back with counter offerers and even present package deals instead of a list of players that they will accept from me.

I would like the AI to make it clear on team needs. We can do this so it would be useful to see what the AI is actually looking for. Position strength is a good feature but it’s not very good at pointing out a need. A team could have a good young SS but not much deep at the position and that creates an illusion that the team needs a SS.

I also would like the AI to make use of who is untouchable and available for trade. A similar feature like MVP baseball when designating players as indispensable, etc...

[Mike1294]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

Whenever this comes up, I always like to turn the table. How often do you go to the AI with deals and their reply comes out with the "this is the worst deal in the world"?

It's a starting volley. Sure, they could probably be a little better more of the time, but it's a bigger problem if they sent you an offer that you immediately went to accept.

Very true.

Originally Posted by SirMichaelJordan

My main problem with trading is that there doesn’t seem like much communication between user and AI. I would like to eventually see two way negotiating. Sure we can go into a trade to ask for more or even click on “make this work” but the user is doing most of the work here. I would love to see the AI come back with counter offerers and even present package deals instead of a list of players that they will accept from me.

I would like the AI to make it clear on team needs. We can do this so it would be useful to see what the AI is actually looking for. Position strength is a good feature but it’s not very good at pointing out a need. A team could have a good young SS but not much deep at the position and that creates an illusion that the team needs a SS.

I also would like the AI to make use of who is untouchable and available for trade. A similar feature like MVP baseball when designating players as indispensable, etc...

I second this. I'd like to be able to see where there is some back and forth with the AI. Something I'd also like to see is where it would be easier to trade prospects. For example it is really alot of work trying to swap minor leaguers. For example I have a crap ton of outfielders in my minor league system right now that are ready for the major league but not much pitching. I'd like to be able to have the option to trade a young prospect but only get offers for other prospects. I know I can shop them around but it doesn't work so great. I'll be trying to trade a 4 star 20 year old outfielder but usually only get offered 1 star players in return.

[torpidbeaver]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

Whenever this comes up, I always like to turn the table. How often do you go to the AI with deals and their reply comes out with the "this is the worst deal in the world"?

It's a starting volley. Sure, they could probably be a little better more of the time, but it's a bigger problem if they sent you an offer that you immediately went to accept.

This excuse irks me a little because these god awful offers contribute to destroying my suspension of disbelief.

If it were actually a starting volley, thatÂ’d be okay. But itÂ’s not; itÂ’s the one offer youÂ’ll get from a potential trade partner. ItÂ’d be like if you were the GM of your favorite baseball team, you need upcoming ace, Petey Pitcher, gotta get him by way of trade, you have one chance at this for whatever reason, and you offer Johnny Numbnuts. No? Darn.

If thereÂ’s no follow-up, it just seems like the game is incapable of making reasonable offers. And itÂ’s an unwelcome reminder that IÂ’m playing against what seems in that moment to be a fairly limited AI.

I want to live and play in a world where trades arenÂ’t wholly dependent on me. Dependent on me rolling my eyes at a terrible offer for my most valuable pieces, and then cycling dozens of players in and out of a field until I figure out some trade.

Another problem is that it never seems like the AI is targeting a specific player, or even a specific need. It feels like there’s just some hidden trade value bar that fills up as enough pieces get tossed on the pile. A trade “proposal” that started with them asking for Mike Trout ends up with a bunch of C-prospects. It’d help, in many ways, if instead of some idiotic trade proposal, we got an email saying, “team X is very interested in player Y” or “... is very interested in sorting up their bullpen.”

Anyway, my 2Â¥

[dward1]

This is a shame. No improvement on computer AI is frustrating

[PepeSylvia]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

Whenever this comes up, I always like to turn the table. How often do you go to the AI with deals and their reply comes out with the "this is the worst deal in the world"?

It's a starting volley. Sure, they could probably be a little better more of the time, but it's a bigger problem if they sent you an offer that you immediately went to accept.

Sure, a starting volley is a good way to look at it, but the offers are so hilariously bad that it just doesn't make sense. I can't count how many times I've been offered a 32-38 year old average/below average player for two of my top 5ish prospects.

Imagine a GM offering Jose Iglesias for like, MacKenzie Gore and CJ Abrams. That's not a first volley, that's a joke.

[Fronzizzle]

A lot of great responses in this thread. Thanks to all who have contributed.

I'd also like to point out that as a rebuilding team, I'm really only interested in prospects, even low end ones. When I shop a player around, however, and check only the "Prospect" box and not "Veterans" or "Regulars", I have yet to receive a single offer, and I've done that about...15 times?

Just as an example, I'm the Tigers and have SP Ivan Nova - not great, but he's a solid #5 and makes barely any money. Around the trade deadline, I shopped him 6 times and did not get one offer of a prospect back. That seems...incorrect. Seems that a team in contention would at least offer some 18 year old, one-star lottery ticket, right? Look at real MLB around the deadline.

In general, I feel like any sports games (OOTP, Madden, NBA2K, etc.) struggle with trading - how to set it up, how to make it fair but realistic and even how to handle the mechanics. It's great to see some games make strides by instituting things like team needs, being able to ask for prospects and that sort of thing, but then that just makes it doubly frustrating when none of that seems to be considered when the AI makes offers.

[AlpineSK]

Originally Posted by PepeSylvia

Sure, a starting volley is a good way to look at it, but the offers are so hilariously bad that it just doesn't make sense. I can't count how many times I've been offered a 32-38 year old average/below average player for two of my top 5ish prospects.

Imagine a GM offering Jose Iglesias for like, MacKenzie Gore and CJ Abrams. That's not a first volley, that's a joke.

I've played games before, EHM maybe? I forget, it might have been one of the NHL games from EA, but as time went on, when you made terrible offers to another GM his opinion of you personally soured making it more difficult to make deals with that particular team.

Improvement has been needed for some time, at least the last 3 versions.

[jumpin_james]

Originally Posted by Fronzizzle

A lot of great responses in this thread. Thanks to all who have contributed.

I'd also like to point out that as a rebuilding team, I'm really only interested in prospects, even low end ones. When I shop a player around, however, and check only the "Prospect" box and not "Veterans" or "Regulars", I have yet to receive a single offer, and I've done that about...15 times?

Just as an example, I'm the Tigers and have SP Ivan Nova - not great, but he's a solid #5 and makes barely any money. Around the trade deadline, I shopped him 6 times and did not get one offer of a prospect back. That seems...incorrect. Seems that a team in contention would at least offer some 18 year old, one-star lottery ticket, right? Look at real MLB around the deadline.

In general, I feel like any sports games (OOTP, Madden, NBA2K, etc.) struggle with trading - how to set it up, how to make it fair but realistic and even how to handle the mechanics. It's great to see some games make strides by instituting things like team needs, being able to ask for prospects and that sort of thing, but then that just makes it doubly frustrating when none of that seems to be considered when the AI makes offers.

Yep. Same here. I will shop a good veteran at the deadline (Nelson Cruz) and won’t get one single prospect offer back.

I’m not expecting a top prospect. But a 3 star prospect maybe? But I don’t get anything in response. Seems very odd.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by dward1

This is a shame. No improvement on computer AI is frustrating

That’s a hot take. There are improvement to the AI every year. The trading mechanisms have been a problem for a while (AI does smart trades between itself)

The limited trading functions are sticking out more then ever this year because the game itself improved in many areas.

[Curve Ball Dave]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

Whenever this comes up, I always like to turn the table. How often do you go to the AI with deals and their reply comes out with the "this is the worst deal in the world"?

Now that you put it that way, I guess that changes my perspective. I make some pretty ridiculous offers to the AI so I guess turnabout is fair play.

[Amazin' Blue]

Reviving this discussion.

What about shopping players? My experience is that when I shop a player I get a list of really ridiculous options. Like I give up Eduardo Nunez and I get Daniel Murphy or Giancarlo Stanton.

Any thoughts here?

[Biggio509]

Originally Posted by jumpin_james

Yep. Same here. I will shop a good veteran at the deadline (Nelson Cruz) and wonÂ’t get one single prospect offer back.

IÂ’m not expecting a top prospect. But a 3 star prospect maybe? But I donÂ’t get anything in response. Seems very odd.

The problem with Cruz is probably his age and contract. Teams don't really change mode depending on standings and close to the deadline. If it is mid July and you suck there should be a team in the playoff hunt who will take a chance on a guy like this even if he is an overpaid veteran. Teams kind of go with their set strategy and don't switch to maybe this guy gets me the division or the wildcard.

If he has multiple years left I can understand we don't want an aging high paid veteran unless you trade for ours. Still if his stats are good and he is short term that is the kind of trade teams make all the time. Even multi-year sometimes. The Astros did it for Verland to win the WS. In 2017 he wasn't a scrub at Detroit but he was still the kind of old "overpaid" guy the AI would just offer an older overpaid guy for not. It is hard to get someone who might can use him as the last piece for a run at the World Series to bite for a prospect.

The real problem I think is the game has a universal setting for favor prospects, neutral, favor veterans. This is something that should be dynamic. If a team is a certain number of games out from the WC or division title in July they should switch to favor veterans and switch to favor prospects if they are more than X games out. The focus should shift in the season to. A rebuilding team might switch to win now if they are in the hunt in July. I don't know how team focus affects but I don't think it changes over the seasons. The engine hasn't changed much on this from the first OOTP. Maybe I am exaggerating on the last setting I played the first version but it has been so long but it has been so long I hardly remember what it played like.

Maybe someone has suggestions for player development and trade settings that might help with this. The problem is might just reverse the problem if you favor or highly favor veterans. Then the teams trying to rebuild and out of the playoff chase might want that aging star they really shouldn't be paying for. The universal setting for evaluating trades is the likely culprit. I think AI evaluation of players could affect this too if teams are waying potential too much and not current stats. Again this could reverse the problem by changing to where everyone wants good performing players even if they are rebuilding.

I am also not sure how the individual GM settings on favor prospects vs. veterans affect the trade AI. Again that should probably change depending on when in the season it is and where you are in the standings. Something like a short term goal based on standings that kicks in after the draft until the trade deadline and a longer term goal that somehow affects the decisions too. I don't have a good idea of how to implement that but it sounds great on the internet.

I can see most teams balking at Cruz but someone needing a power hitting DH may overlook he is 39 and highly paid if they think it is the last piece needed to go deep in the playoffs. Years left on the contract might kill it though. I really don't how many years are left on the contract or his exact salary.

[WIUPIKE]

Originally Posted by Amazin' Blue

Reviving this discussion.

What about shopping players? My experience is that when I shop a player I get a list of really ridiculous options. Like I give up Eduardo Nunez and I get Daniel Murphy or Giancarlo Stanton.

Any thoughts here?

The computer doesn't know the players names. They see players like Murphy or Stanton as players they need to unload money for future success so they are happy to trade those contracts away.

I think the Yankees IRL would trade Stanton for a bucket of balls if someone took on that whole contract due to the injury history

[ThePride87]

When I set my team needs (I'm only interested in young, cheap prospects who have at least good potential), I find myself getting loads of fair deals, teams follow the needs I set. Some people here in the forums swear by very hard trade difficulty and highly favor prospects....I wonder if that could be causing some of your ****ty offers. I keep my settings on default, I find the devs have done a great job making trades reasonable on default.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by Biggio509

The problem with Cruz is probably his age and contract. Teams don't really change mode depending on standings and close to the deadline. If it is mid July and you suck there should be a team in the playoff hunt who will take a chance on a guy like this even if he is an overpaid veteran. Teams kind of go with their set strategy and don't switch to maybe this guy gets me the division or the wildcard.

If he has multiple years left I can understand we don't want an aging high paid veteran unless you trade for ours. Still if his stats are good and he is short term that is the kind of trade teams make all the time. Even multi-year sometimes. The Astros did it for Verland to win the WS. In 2017 he wasn't a scrub at Detroit but he was still the kind of old "overpaid" guy the AI would just offer an older overpaid guy for not. It is hard to get someone who might can use him as the last piece for a run at the World Series to bite for a prospect.

The real problem I think is the game has a universal setting for favor prospects, neutral, favor veterans. This is something that should be dynamic. If a team is a certain number of games out from the WC or division title in July they should switch to favor veterans and switch to favor prospects if they are more than X games out. The focus should shift in the season to. A rebuilding team might switch to win now if they are in the hunt in July. I don't know how team focus affects but I don't think it changes over the seasons. The engine hasn't changed much on this from the first OOTP. Maybe I am exaggerating on the last setting I played the first version but it has been so long but it has been so long I hardly remember what it played like.

Maybe someone has suggestions for player development and trade settings that might help with this. The problem is might just reverse the problem if you favor or highly favor veterans. Then the teams trying to rebuild and out of the playoff chase might want that aging star they really shouldn't be paying for. The universal setting for evaluating trades is the likely culprit. I think AI evaluation of players could affect this too if teams are waying potential too much and not current stats. Again this could reverse the problem by changing to where everyone wants good performing players even if they are rebuilding.

I am also not sure how the individual GM settings on favor prospects vs. veterans affect the trade AI. Again that should probably change depending on when in the season it is and where you are in the standings. Something like a short term goal based on standings that kicks in after the draft until the trade deadline and a longer term goal that somehow affects the decisions too. I don't have a good idea of how to implement that but it sounds great on the internet.

I can see most teams balking at Cruz but someone needing a power hitting DH may overlook he is 39 and highly paid if they think it is the last piece needed to go deep in the playoffs. Years left on the contract might kill it though. I really don't how many years are left on the contract or his exact salary.

I have no problem getting rid off vets for some prospects when trading to a win now team. AI doesn’t have a problem buying vets or offloading them when they are on win now or rebuild.

Team focus isn’t as dynamic but I’m not sure if it should be especially after witnessing my Phillies try to win now when they obviously should have been rebuilding in the last days of Amaro. So I disagree that a team should focus on prospects if they have a bad year up to the deadline.

The thing that’s wrong with trading is lack of communication from the AI. It’s a lot of trial and error when trying to get things to work. Trading should be a two way communication . We should be getting counter offers and the AI should list their team needs.

[Leo_The_Lip]

Some of the things I've learned to do with the AI trade offer emails and shop player results is to compare these to hone in on the team(s) that are giving me the best offers. These teams have the scouts that are consistently over-valuing my players and, therefore, are likely to respond to my offers with the best results.

I've found taking an offer email from one of these teams and 'discussing it' in conjunction with the 'make this happen now' button will quite often give me a road to completion that I had not thought of. This happens because the other team's scout overvalues one of my players/prospects. I add a player I'd like from the other team, get the 'you're kidding' message, hit "make this happen now" again, and often I get a deal done.

IRL, this is definitely why trades happen. Different opinions concerning current and future value bring player movement.

In summation, if you spend time tinkering with the trade option, (consider these the 'back-and-forth' so many of you think is not in the game) you can reach a very satisfactory result as well as achieve realistic management simulation.

Just a suggestion.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by Leo_The_Lip

Some of the things I've learned to do with the AI trade offer emails and shop player results is to compare these to hone in on the team(s) that are giving me the best offers. These teams have the scouts that are consistently over-valuing my players and, therefore, are likely to respond to my offers with the best results.

I've found taking an offer email from one of these teams and 'discussing it' in conjunction with the 'make this happen now' button will quite often give me a road to completion that I had not thought of. This happens because the other team's scout overvalues one of my players/prospects. I add a player I'd like from the other team, get the 'you're kidding' message, hit "make this happen now" again, and often I get a deal done.

IRL, this is definitely why trades happen. Different opinions concerning current and future value bring player movement.

In summation, if you spend time tinkering with the trade option, (consider these the 'back-and-forth' so many of you think is not in the game) you can reach a very satisfactory result as well as achieve realistic management simulation.

Just a suggestion.

Yup this is exactly how I trade. I use shop now and the email offers as a starting point and use “make this work” to get somewhat of a counter offer.

The User is still doing the bulk of the work here though and that lacks immersion. Also someone with not much knowledge of this or lack of patience would definitely be turned off having to do this.

Setting team needs also help with some of the offers you get. And if you have a player that you have no interest in trading, set him to unavailable to further filter the trade offers you are getting.

[Amazin' Blue]

Originally Posted by WIUPIKE

The computer doesn't know the players names. They see players like Murphy or Stanton as players they need to unload money for future success so they are happy to trade those contracts away.

I think the Yankees IRL would trade Stanton for a bucket of balls if someone took on that whole contract due to the injury history

Stanton makes sense. Murphy a little more confusing (he's only making $8m per year).

I think my concern is that I've jacked up the settings in some way. Does anyone know what user setting impact this? I'm running a "stats only" league with scouting and coaching turned off... could that be impacting things?