Fair Trade

[Orcin]

No, we aren't talking about economic policy here. We are talking about what constitutes a fair trade in OOTP between the player and the AI... how to judge if you are exploiting the AI or doing something that might be also done in the real world.

Assuming you care about this, how do you decide if your trade is fair? Of course, in a situation where you are trying to beat the AI at its own game, you wouldn't care one bit. I get that. But if you do want to somewhat mimic what might happen between human GMs, how do you judge the equity of a trade?

I think the "average" setting is too easy and prefer "hard". The "neutral" setting vs. favor prospects or veterans doesn't seem to alter the deals much, but it might make a difference if you were in a position to pursue one or the other. Do you consider "average" to be fair or do you require a tougher setting?

I find that the AI does much better in a one-for-one trade. If I put a player in the trade screen and press "make this work now", the list that I get back is pretty reasonable. I occasionally see a one-star player in the list, and I would not consider that reasonable instead believing that the AI is making a mistake. In general, I feel pretty comfortable in one-for-one deal where the total stars changing hands is even between the two sides.

If you have to add a player to make the deal work, then the AI begins to lose its ability to judge the deal IMO. Still it can be fair, but it is also easier to sneak a dud player past the AI in this circumstance. Beyond three players in the deal, the AI seems to become very easy to fool. Do you see this in your deals?

I would be interested in other opinions on trading in general. I know a lot of people play with house rules or use a "smell test" to decide on the fairness of a trade. I would prefer to avoid the "I can't define it but I know it when I see it" test and try to develop something more quantitative to decide if I am scamming the AI or not.

[Reed]

I play historical with very hard, neutral setting. My house rule I will not seek a trade but will respond to a trade offer. Usually it is lopsided against me so I will just reject. Sometimes it seems to be fair and if it is for a position I need, I will make the trade. Sometimes I will get an offer that seems lopsided in my favor and even though I am tempted to accept, I reject. For instance, last night the AI offered me an all star caliber pitcher with 4 years playing time left and was asking for 2 of my subs that had one year left each. My assistant said it seemed like a good trade to him but It was to lopsided in my favor.
Since I play historical, the way I determine if it is fair is to get a since of future WAR value and if about equal, then I may deal.

[RchW]

Simplest rule I have: If I was the GM of the other team would I make the trade? If not, no deal.

This very often causes me to sweeten deals to meet the criteria.I consider that to be the cost of being human in OOTP.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by Reed

I play historical with very hard, neutral setting. My house rule I will not seek a trade but will respond to a trade offer. Usually it is lopsided against me so I will just reject. Sometimes it seems to be fair and if it is for a position I need, I will make the trade. Sometimes I will get an offer that seems lopsided in my favor and even though I am tempted to accept, I reject. For instance, last night the AI offered me an all star caliber pitcher with 4 years playing time left and was asking for 2 of my subs that had one year left each. My assistant said it seemed like a good trade to him but It was to lopsided in my favor.
Since I play historical, the way I determine if it is fair is to get a since of future WAR value and if about equal, then I may deal.

Thanks for the response.

In your specific example, I think the "smell test" is pretty easy to apply. In a less obvious circumstance, I think future WAR value is a good measure in a historical league, particularly if you are using recalc and you consider the years of control and salary in the equation.

I am curious... how do you proactively improve your team if you only respond to AI trade offers and don't solicit trades? Do you just build through the draft and free agency (if applicable in your era)?

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by RchW

Simplest rule I have: If I was the GM of the other team would I make the trade? If not, no deal.

I like this concept, but I find it hard to quantify. I can understand the general situation where you are trading good vets to a "win now" team for prospects, but what about a one-for-one trade of veteran players?

Do you consider the needs of the other team and try to fill them? Do you look at their budget situation and try to improve it? How do you decide if you would take it from their perspective, when you cannot know their owner goals or even GM personality traits?

I am not trying to criticize your method. I am just trying to better understand your thinking.

[ovccsteve]

I've found I have to have some personal rules. For instance, I won't trade with a competing team in my division, even if they make a great offer. I also check to make sure they actually need the player. Can't tell you how often one of the teams making a good offer for my 2B is already set at that position--or how many times I've made a trade thinking maybe the other team has a plan, only to see they didn't and just traded real talent to get a guy they won't play.
On the flip side, sometimes I'll force a trade, especially if I have a player that can (and usually does) help the other team, but they refuse to make any offer for him. For instance, I'll have a guy's who's ready to play full time but can't crack my lineup and no one will make me any offer but a salary dump. I'll pick a bad team that is weak at that position, and select a poor, low-level prospect. Their GM will turn down the trade but I'll force it anyway, and next day the guy is batting #3 in their lineup, closing in their bullpen, or their #2 starter. I always get burned in those trades, but I have a thing about letting my imaginary players play when they are ready. ; )

[Orcin]

I agree about the other team needing the player, and I think that would be an important element that should be present in Rich's method of justifying the trade from the other GM's perspective.

[Brad K]

I don't feel guilty about a computer GM making a bad trade if it's in a game where I am significantly limiting my payroll. I mean, they can't have everything their way.

[Dorfmann]

I ran into this issue for the very first time last night. I play on challenge mode and have generally found the trade AI to be pretty decent and have never felt like I fleeced the other team.

Then last night, I go to shop Joey Rickard, who is a 2 star, 4th outfielder at best. The best I was expecting was some just-in-case AAAA bullpen depth. Well, the Red Sox offered me Andrew Benitendi straight up. Yes, they had a terrible year in 2020 and may be unloading contracts, but no way was this fair. I couldn't refuse it though, so I threw in three prospects to balance it out.

I still feel kind of dirty about it. It's too late though, I didn't back up.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by Brad K

I don't feel guilty about a computer GM making a bad trade if it's in a game where I am significantly limiting my payroll. I mean, they can't have everything their way.

Originally Posted by Dorfmann

I couldn't refuse it though, so I threw in three prospects to balance it out.

I still feel kind of dirty about it. It's too late though, I didn't back up.

Interesting that these two posts are back-to-back. It shows that the concept of a fair trade is a personal thing.

I was in the guilty stage and feeling dirty about a couple of trades when I started this thread. I can't know what is going on under the AI hood though. Maybe it had some internal calculation that said the deal was beneficial to the overall state of its franchise. Regardless, a trade has to feel "fair" to me in order to keep the game fun. If I were playing against a human, I wouldn't have the same reservations.

[Westheim]

I sure hope the OOTP AI reads this thread so it will finally give me a break after not letting me win a lick for four and a half actual, real life years with the game.

[Charley575]

I play with the trade settings neutral-neutral and 95% of the trade offers I get from the AI are some team wanting to dump their overpriced declining 35-40 year old veterans on me in exchange for my top prospects.

Personally I think the dev team has done a really good job tightening up the trade AI over the past couple versions. It's pretty hard to get any non-rule 5 eligible players out of the AI though trades, in my experience.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by Westheim

I sure hope the OOTP AI reads this thread so it will finally give me a break after not letting me win a lick for four and a half actual, real life years with the game.

I know you are at least partially kidding, but you must take into account that you have only played one scenario.

Try fictional with a larger market. Try a 2018 start with the Mets. Try a historical game with recalc on... or off. Try almost anything else before you make a judgment based on a sample of one.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by Charley575

I play with the trade settings neutral-neutral and 95% of the trade offers I get from the AI are some team wanting to dump their overpriced declining 35-40 year old veterans on me in exchange for my top prospects.

Personally I think the dev team has done a really good job tightening up the trade AI over the past couple versions.

I agree that the AI is certainly improved over prior versions. However, you can’t judge the difficulty based solely on offers you receive from the AI. You can shop players to see who’s available, use the trade block, or just go team by team in the trade screen. There’s where the problems lie.

[Orcin]

The idea of this thread is to understand how you decide if you are getting, and more importantly giving, a fair trade. If you think all of the trades are fair, so be it. I don’t think a trade where I give Tommy Pham for Mike Trout straight up would pass most of your smell tests. Try it in a 2018 test league if you don’t think it happens. I made that one, and later it felt dirty. I want to avoid doing that again, and I am asking for your opinion on how to implement self-control.

Rich said to just decide if the other GM would make trade. That’s the best idea that I have heard so far, but it is hard for me to get into the AI’s head when some things from its calculations like team chemistry and owner goals are not known to me. I am looking for additional ways to quantify the deals, such as total stars or WAR value.

Thanks for participating.

[NoOne]

i basically do what richw said, except would 'any' gm make that trade.

i play with neutral and normal difficulty. the odds of an unbalanced trade are quite long. i think they should happen on a rare occasion in the game, because they do happen in real life too. so, i don't feel too guilty about it either. it just doesn't happen that often.

i pay through the nose for high-end prospects in my experience.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by NoOne

i basically do what richw said, except would 'any' gm make that trade.

This certainly appears to be the best solution. I still wonder how you decide if any GM would make trade. A bad GM might make a bad trade, and that isn’t my idea of fair. I understand it happens in real life, but it is too easy to pile a bunch of bad trades up and get a superstar team.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by NoOne

i pay through the nose for high-end prospects in my experience.

Yes, the AI does a very good job of protecting the best prospects. Maybe one way to insure a challenging game is to only pursue trades for non-roster prospects, i.e. players not yet on the 40-man. Players with 40-man status have to be acquired via free agency or offered to you in a trade (in which case you know the AI wants to move the player). This is the kind of rule that I could easily follow and feel like any trade that I can get is probably fair from the AI's view.

[ovccsteve]

My other criteria (and they all tend to be subjective) is: Does it violate my "I'm pretending this is real" setting. It's very similar to the "would any GM make this trade", but slightly different.
I don't play this game just to win, like say Skyrim or Mario Cart. I play this game to pretend that I really run a major-league team. I won't make a trade if it could help me win but is a glaring reminder that I'm not really a GM. That's just the way I play, not necessarily the way anyone else should play it.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Orcin

I like this concept, but I find it hard to quantify. I can understand the general situation where you are trading good vets to a "win now" team for prospects, but what about a one-for-one trade of veteran players?

Do you consider the needs of the other team and try to fill them? Do you look at their budget situation and try to improve it? How do you decide if you would take it from their perspective, when you cannot know their owner goals or even GM personality traits?

I am not trying to criticize your method. I am just trying to better understand your thinking.

I can make an assessment of the other teams needs from history finances performance and state of the roster. Team goals can't help if their All Star 3B is out for the season and they have a playoff spot to get. I'll take a contract from an AI team that they probably wouldn't unload otherwise. As I said I probably overpay for most of my acquisitions but rationalize it by understanding that I can take a chance on the future and remember the past unlike the AI.