Trade ethics

[jim255]

I'm playing the 1957 season, and a player I really could use is listed as being on the trading block, even though he is the team's top hitter and his team is very close to first place and mine isn't.

The trade I'm proposing is being accepted by the other team, but it doesn't seem right to me. This being 1957, a "salary dump" is not a likely issue. So why does this team want to unload their best hitter for a less illustrious first baseman and an unproven pitching prospect? The ages of the two hitters are similar, as is their defense.

Seems like another flaw/blind spot in this otherwise fantastic game. Such as the game recaps that ignore the fact that all three runs were unearned in a 3-0 game, or that the "player of the game" was someone who had a so-so game for the losing team whereas one or more players for the winning team had much more noteworthy achievements.

Any thoughts on this? I feel like I'm taking candy from a baby if I make this trade, even though it is supposedly legit.

[Bobfather]

Sometimes GMs make bad trades IRL & OOTP. Go for it, don't overthink it.

[Reed]

Sometimes the AI just makes dumb moves. It also could be a combination of settings. Is your trade difficulty on hard?

[jim255]

No, midway between easy and hard.

[JerseyPirate]

Is he a troublemaker in the clubhouse? That's often a reason good players wind up on the trading block.

[brotherblues]

Also the ai places premium value on pitchers. And sometimes their scout has a higher grade on one of your prospects than your scout. Shop that prospect around to get an idea of his value around the league.

[brotherblues]

Oh and maybe the guy is a free agent at season's end?

[Syd Thrift]

In the offseason of 1959-1960 the Tigers traded Rocky Colavito, one of the best HR hitters in the game, for Harvey Kuehn, who'd led the league in average the year before but who wasn't, overall, anything near the hitter that Colavito was. Kuehn did play a more demanding position but was also 4 years older and I don't think it surprised anyone when Colavito wound up being the much, much better player from 1960 onwards.

My point is, sometimes teams just don't make smart trades. FWIW though I do prefer playing stats-only for exactly situations like this: is the AI undervaluing this guy because they know something about him that I don't? I prefer not knowing the answer to that question.

[ohiodevil]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

In the offseason of 1959-1960 the Tigers traded Rocky Colavito, one of the best HR hitters in the game, for Harvey Kuehn, who'd led the league in average the year before but who wasn't, overall, anything near the hitter that Colavito was. Kuehn did play a more demanding position but was also 4 years older and I don't think it surprised anyone when Colavito wound up being the much, much better player from 1960 onwards.

My point is, sometimes teams just don't make smart trades. FWIW though I do prefer playing stats-only for exactly situations like this: is the AI undervaluing this guy because they know something about him that I don't? I prefer not knowing the answer to that question.

Indians traded Colavito to the Tigers for Kuehn and so began the string of terribe trades made by Frank "Trader" Lane.

I know it is not baseball related, but back in the early 80s, the Cleveland Cavaliers were owned by Ted Stepien.....you want to see some truly awful trades, go back and look at some of the moves he made. He is the reason NBA teams cannot trade 1st rounders in successive years, they made a whole bunch of rules based around his terrible deals.

[Bobfather]

Jeff Bagwell for Larry Anderson
Babe Ruth for cash.
Frank Robinson for Pappas, Baldschun, and Simpson.
If you're not forcing trade there is no ethical problem, that I see.

[Dave Stieb II]

Originally Posted by Bobfather

Jeff Bagwell for Larry Anderson
Babe Ruth for cash.
Frank Robinson for Pappas, Baldschun, and Simpson.
If you're not forcing trade there is no ethical problem, that I see.

Agree wholeheartedly.
But if the OP is concerned - or wants to make things a little more challenging - I recommend moving the trade slider up three notches to 8 out of 10 (if you will).
I toyed with the slider in several standard games early on and found that this is where trades were difficult to negotiate but still manageable.
At that level, if I make what appears to be a lopsided trade, I can convince myself that the GM/scout of that particular team just sees things differently.
But beware! As pointed out in an earlier post, maybe the AI just knows something I don't (and can't) know (unless I peak under the hood and I won't do that....it's just a game after all). But it wouldn't be the first time that has happened.
Bottom line: If you're comfortable with the trade settings you are working with, I say go for it.

[jim255]

As I said at the outset, this is the 1957 season.

[jim255]

I hear you, but I don't want to feel queasy about my team overtaking the other team just because the system said I could fleece the other team. Where's the satisfaction in that? Just because the real world sometimes operates that way doesn't mean that I want to. Winning is rewarding when it happens, but how it happens matters a lot--at least to me. This may come off as sounding "holier than thou," but that's how I roll.

[Dave Stieb II]

Originally Posted by jim255

I hear you, but I don't want to feel queasy about my team overtaking the other team just because the system said I could fleece the other team. Where's the satisfaction in that? Just because the real world sometimes operates that way doesn't mean that I want to. Winning is rewarding when it happens, but how it happens matters a lot--at least to me. This may come off as sounding "holier than thou," but that's how I roll.

Hmmm. Not "holier than thou" but perhaps missing the point.
You asked for "thoughts" in the OP.
I think you should set the trade slider a lot higher than the mid-level point given what you outline above. That was my only point.
It's confusing that you feel as strongly as you say you do, but do not make trading more difficult by simply moving the slider up at least three notches.
As for 1957 vs. a standard game. I don't understand why that would make any difference regarding increasing trade difficulty.

[brotherblues]

I have a feeling it's not as much of a fleecing (if at all) as you think. We can't know unless we see a screenshot of each player involved, with their ratings, contract info, ages, etc. Is the guy you're getting a half season rental? Is the kid an actual good prospect?

[BirdWatcher]

Originally Posted by Dave Stieb II

Hmmm. Not "holier than thou" but perhaps missing the point.
You asked for "thoughts" in the OP.
I think you should set the trade slider a lot higher than the mid-level point given what you outline above. That was my only point.
It's confusing that you feel as strongly as you say you do, but do not make trading more difficult by simply moving the slider up at least three notches.
As for 1957 vs. a standard game. I don't understand why that would make any difference regarding increasing trade difficulty.

Obviously this is for the OP to answer, but I got the impression the restatement about it being 1957 was meant as a response to someone who suggested that the player might be a free agent at the end of the season. It was a bit confusing as the OP seemed to be responding to individual points in this thread without referencing which comment in particular was being responded to.

[jeffw3000]

In the middle of 1953 the Pirates traded Ralph Kiner and 3 others to the Cubs for 6 mediocre players and cash. Kiner was coming off his 7th straight season of leading the NL in home runs. He was asked to take a pay cut and would not, so he got dealt. It wound up working out for the Pirates, but only because Kiner developed back problems ending his career, but in the year the Pirates dealt him he would still hit 35 HRs.

In 1927 the Pirates traded Kiki Cuyler to the Cubs because he had issues with the manager. He was coming off of 3 seasons where he hit .354, .357, and .321, and he was only 28 at the time.

It does happen. The reasons for the deals might be different, but before free agency even Hall of fame players still got traded, and did not always spend their time the same team.

[Brad K]

In my current historical game I have been offered several players whose real life performance was better than indicated potential. These were players who although not always young had mostly minor league playing time.

With my settings - 3 year recalc with TCR and dev on - they wouldn't always perform in the game as in real life. However in the context of my other game settings I think its fair for me to occasionally accept an offered player who might turn out to be a super deal.

I started in 1951 with free agency on, trading on hardest setting, self imposed payroll restrictions to well under the league half way point, and historical rookies so I can't use knowledge of real life to game the draft. If I couldn't get an occasional deal in trade, I'd allow myself a little more money.

https://forums.ootpdevelopments.com/...d.php?t=329868

[Bobfather]

Originally Posted by jim255

I hear you, but I don't want to feel queasy about my team overtaking the other team just because the system said I could fleece the other team. Where's the satisfaction in that? Just because the real world sometimes operates that way doesn't mean that I want to. Winning is rewarding when it happens, but how it happens matters a lot--at least to me. This may come off as sounding "holier than thou," but that's how I roll.

Then don't make the trade, or add another player to make it more even. Just wondering why did you propose it in the first place then?

[brotherblues]

Originally Posted by BirdWatcher

Obviously this is for the OP to answer, but I got the impression the restatement about it being 1957 was meant as a response to someone who suggested that the player might be a free agent at the end of the season. It was a bit confusing as the OP seemed to be responding to individual points in this thread without referencing which comment in particular was being responded to.

I thought money was always a factor no matter the year. Babe Ruth did get sold after all.

Edit: But yeah, free agency was still 17 years away in 1959, my bad on that.