Shop A Player

[jdw31158]

Wondering if anybody else uses house rules when using this. In my Cubs sim,since I'm deeply in last place at the trading deadline, I shopped .185 hitting Ian Happ and was offered Kyle Schwarber, who's leading the league with 39 homers.

Since that would never happen in real life, I traded him for a young, cheap reliever with 4 star potential. If I'm rebuilding, I only trade with teams that are in win now status. If I'm contending, I'll only trade with teams rebuilding looking to get rid of expiring contracts.

It's too easy to game the system with shop a player. Does anybody else have house rules when using this?

[jimmysthebestcop]

No house rules ever. I dont want to have to police myself.

[LansdowneSt]

Philly is trading you the salary (dollars and years). The AI has perpetual buyer's remorse. I don't police myself - but if I were rebuilding I wouldn't take the salary/years on because the 39 HRs hit and the ones yet to be hit by him this year won't do you any good in last place or as you rebuild, so objectively, for where you are, it's not in your best interest to make the trade (so you aren't really gaming the AI imo) regardless of how much you are paying mind to Kyle S's HRs this season.

It's a sound financial play not bad trade AI. The problem imo is more how the AI thinks about its budget & player contracts shortly after loading up after free agency.

[MikeS21]

Don’t expect the AI to “think” with human emotions. The AI is using many settings (owner personality, finances, GM characteristics, team chemistry, position needs, etc.) to make decisions. Those AI decisions sometimes present as wacky and “no one would ever do that.” It’s a game, and we need to remember that.

Besides, “in real life” Kyle Schwarber would never have 39 HR’s at the trade deadline, either.

[HoustonGM]

I don't have any specific rules, but I just use my own sense to determine if I could see such a trade happening IRL or not and if I can't, then I don't make it.

[BarneyRubble]

MikeS21 summed it rather well.

I thought I ripped off the AI once and the pitcher I traded ended up winning a Cy Young. The 'star' I received ended up an everyday player, but not a star. It was my Jake Arrieta moment. The O's traded Machado for 4 or 5 prospects and I don't think any of those prospects has made it to the majors yet. It's part of the game of baseball. You could write a book about bad trades.

I only use shop a player during winter meetings and only one a day.

I don't view it so much as an AI trade issue. The issue is 'shop a player'. It is not realistic and it's the quickest way to find lopsided trades. It's also a 'tool' the AI GMs don't have. When I get an email telling me a GM is shopping a player, please submit a response, I might change my mind.

I use the trade block (hope it's fixed) or manually make a trade. There are two reasons to make a trade. 1) I want a particular player or 2) I want to see what I can get for a particular player. I'm skeptical about trading a particular player because I've never had a AI GM tell me he isn't interested in that player. It might happen, I've just never seen it. It seems the GMs are willing to take ANY player. Certain players I'll just release and not even try to trade. There are players the AI tries to trade to me and I don't want them under any circumstances. I expect to see the same behavior from the AI.

I haven't played 23 enough to know where it stands. I have my fingers crossed.

[oldfatbaldguy]

The rulebook of "house rules" in my brain is thick and hard-bound.

Highlights:

I can only shop each player once during a calendar year, with the day after the trading deadline defined as "New Year's Day" for this purpose.

I can't shop a player until it's been a full calendar year since I traded for him, signed him as a free agent or gave him an extension. Minor-league free-agent contracts count if I actively signed the guy myself, but not if he just appeared because one of my minor-league managers signed him. Same with minor-league extensions ... if I participated in it, I can't shop the guy for a year, but if it just showed up in the transactions log, I can.

I can add players to a deal on either side, but if I'm adding my guys to send away in the trade, they have to be guys I've shopped who have drawn an offer from the team I'm trading with. Sometimes that means the team is actually interested in the guy and sometimes it means I shopped him when they were trying to unload a contract for a bag of peanuts, but I can't police that precisely, so I don't try.

I hardly ever just make the one-for-one deal that is offered. It's a starting point for negotiations. But both the guy I shopped and the guy who was offered for him have to be part of the final deal -- they are non-deleteable. This also applies to offers that come in from other teams, but it's just one guy on each side (chosen by me) who is locked in, not everybody in the original offer.

I also have the trade difficulty slider all the way to the right, and I still think it's a little too easy, even with my self-imposed restrictions. I'm in the first season of a fictional league on 22, and I'm past the deadline, and I think I'm down to eight players on the 25-man active roster who were on the team when I took the job. Also, the preseason predictions widget said we'd go 46-116, and we're 54-59. I dunno, if you play the way I do and manage smaller-market teams, I guess it needs to be a little easier than real life, or you wouldn't get anywhere. I'm having fun. My trade negotiations feel fairly realistic. The thing about this save that feels the stupidest is that we're the Anaheim Firebirds and we play in a non-retractable dome, in SoCal.

The first season in a fictional league is also a little easier because there's no history. I don't start the year with anybody I can't shop because of my rules, and early in that first season AI GMs who rely heavily on stats rather than ratings are vulnerable. They'll give you that guy who is really good but hasn't caught fire in the first week of the existence of this world in exchange for that guy who is mediocre and happens to be hot. It's about sample sizes. I don't worry about it because I'm handicapping myself by avoiding big-market, big-budget jobs.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by oldfatbaldguy

The rulebook of "house rules" in my brain is thick and hard-bound.

Highlights:

I can only shop each player once during a calendar year, with the day after the trading deadline defined as "New Year's Day" for this purpose.

I can't shop a player until it's been a full calendar year since I traded for him, signed him as a free agent or gave him an extension. Minor-league free-agent contracts count if I actively signed the guy myself, but not if he just appeared because one of my minor-league managers signed him. Same with minor-league extensions ... if I participated in it, I can't shop the guy for a year, but if it just showed up in the transactions log, I can.

I can add players to a deal on either side, but if I'm adding my guys to send away in the trade, they have to be guys I've shopped who have drawn an offer from the team I'm trading with. Sometimes that means the team is actually interested in the guy and sometimes it means I shopped him when they were trying to unload a contract for a bag of peanuts, but I can't police that precisely, so I don't try.

I hardly ever just make the one-for-one deal that is offered. It's a starting point for negotiations. But both the guy I shopped and the guy who was offered for him have to be part of the final deal -- they are non-deleteable. This also applies to offers that come in from other teams, but it's just one guy on each side (chosen by me) who is locked in, not everybody in the original offer.

I also have the trade difficulty slider all the way to the right, and I still think it's a little too easy, even with my self-imposed restrictions. I'm in the first season of a fictional league on 22, and I'm past the deadline, and I think I'm down to eight players on the 25-man active roster who were on the team when I took the job. Also, the preseason predictions widget said we'd go 46-116, and we're 54-59. I dunno, if you play the way I do and manage smaller-market teams, I guess it needs to be a little easier than real life, or you wouldn't get anywhere. I'm having fun. My trade negotiations feel fairly realistic. The thing about this save that feels the stupidest is that we're the Anaheim Firebirds and we play in a non-retractable dome, in SoCal.

The first season in a fictional league is also a little easier because there's no history. I don't start the year with anybody I can't shop because of my rules, and early in that first season AI GMs who rely heavily on stats rather than ratings are vulnerable. They'll give you that guy who is really good but hasn't caught fire in the first week of the existence of this world in exchange for that guy who is mediocre and happens to be hot. It's about sample sizes. I don't worry about it because I'm handicapping myself by avoiding big-market, big-budget jobs.

See, to me this is a good reason for eliminating “shop player” and augmenting the trading “block”. If you put a player on the “block” you simply field offers as they come in. Why can’t the AI offer you players this way? Instead of all at once in the “shop player feature”.? Why can’t you negotiate trades at a slower pace? Make this work now is just as bad…it just opens the door to cheese the AI. Why not design things in such a way so that the player cannot go down that rabbit hole?

[LansdowneSt]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

See, to me this is a good reason for eliminating “shop player” and augmenting the trading “block”. If you put a player on the “block” you simply field offers as they come in. Why can’t the AI offer you players this way? Instead of all at once in the “shop player feature”.? Why can’t you negotiate trades at a slower pace? Make this work now is just as bad…it just opens the door to cheese the AI. Why not design things in such a way so that the player cannot go down that rabbit hole?

I think the reworking of the Trading Block is a great point but I don't think Shop A Player or Make It Work are going anywhere. I think casual and many experienced players rely on them a great deal. They are also real world concepts. If one doesn't trust oneself to not use them (and for this to be the case, the other point, improving the Trading Block is essential), then it is one more toggle in the game set-up. If the Trading Block is improved and gives a player the game experience they are looking for, then turn off both Shop a Player & Make It Work at the outset of the game.

All three of these are already built in and relied upon game elements, the problem is that many players only use two of them - and neither of those two is the Trading Block. (Though I do look at it as a Craigslist of other GM salary dumps - but it's never been useful for me as a GM to use).

[locuspc]

Honestly I think the AI is fleecing you. Ian Happ is a solid roleplayer who's maybe going through a slump, Kyle Schwarber is an overpaid strikeout machine. Before you complain about the AI's trade algorithm examine your own.

That said, if you want the AI to give you worse offers on Shop A Player, go in and turn the AI trade difficulty to its highest setting. I hardly get anything good out of Shop A Player now that I've started using highest trade difficulty, all my trade wins are deals I went in and negotiated myself.

[oldfatbaldguy]

Yeah, I think the trading block could be improved. I sometimes use it when a player asks to be traded. I haven't studied the morale effects of putting a guy who doesn't want to be traded on the block, but guys can be there a long time. I think I've noticed that when you shop a guy, he hears about it, but he gets over it in a few days.

I have never used "make it work" or "force trade" or any of that stuff.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by oldfatbaldguy

Yeah, I think the trading block could be improved. I sometimes use it when a player asks to be traded. I haven't studied the morale effects of putting a guy who doesn't want to be traded on the block, but guys can be there a long time. I think I've noticed that when you shop a guy, he hears about it, but he gets over it in a few days.

I have never used "make it work" or "force trade" or any of that stuff.

There is a big difference between the two. "Make it happen now" is asking the AI for a list of players they will accept to complete the deal. This function is likely the single biggest reason I advocate for a ratings evaluation setting of 55 or higher. If this were eliminated, I would find it easier to go with something a little more stats oriented, but with this function sitting there...no way. This is considered a legitimate part of the game.

"Force trade" is something much different and can only be used in "commissioner mode". It's in case for some reason someone ever needed to make a trade no matter what the AI thinks. I feel this is a fine feature, as it is intended more for roster makers, online commishes and things of that nature. If anyone ever used it in a game vs the AI...well then they just don't care about outright cheating, and maybe this isn't the game for someone like that....but this really is a intended for something very different than "make this happen now".

[Brad K]

I don't have an objection to the make it work feature. A human can achieve the same result by adding every player on the other team's roster one by one to the trade proposal. Its advantage is as a time saver.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by Brad K

I don't have an objection to the make it work feature. A human can achieve the same result by adding every player on the other team's roster one by one to the trade proposal. Its advantage is as a time saver.

Well, watch this video and tell me if you feel the same way. I think this video pretty much sums up what I am talking about. It's a little lengthy, but I think you will get the idea.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9eDk7tOciU



EDIT: It is probably a time saver, but I think when you can't do this, you are likely to be much more thoughtful about what kind of trade packages you are offering...and not just "nickel & diming" the AI until you achieve your desired result. To me, it just feels and seems gamey. In all honesty...if we didn't have the this function, I would not advocate for the most difficult trading difficulty. It's this function that makes two things absolutely necessary to me: 1. Maximum trade difficulty & 2. AI evaluation with at least 55 percent ratings weight.

[NoOne]

i like to use shop a player to judge interest from various teams based on what they offer, but rarely take any of the trades listed.

i could also just look at various prospect and ml positional ranking reports, but meh, this is much faster. clerical work isn't something i want to do in a game.

[Rain King]

The AI often has problems with contracts it inherits from the real-life GM's and that can then cause a lot of weirdness in the MLB Quickstart.

IMO, if wanting to have a better GM experience with real players I would recommend either doing a Fantasy Draft or at least using the function under Financials to "Assign Fictional Contracts to Players".

[andyhdz]

Originally Posted by Rain King

The AI often has problems with contracts it inherits from the real-life GM's and that can then cause a lot of weirdness in the MLB Quickstart.

IMO, if wanting to have a better GM experience with real players I would recommend either doing a Fantasy Draft or at least using the function under Financials to "Assign Fictional Contracts to Players".

I have no idea what you guys are talking about when you say Shop a Player is some kind of cheat that requires a house rule. All I get offers for are run of the mill relievers and salary bloated veterans. Whenever I do make a trade I feel both sides benefit and never feel I'm ripping off the AI. I'll sometimes use make it work and the AI always wants my best players. Never do I use force trade. The AI trading is clearly better than previous versions.

[PSUColonel]

yea...shop player isn't nearly as bad as "make this work now"

[Bobbyraz49]

When I make a player available in the trade section, I never get any offers. I know there are many variables, but it would be nice to get an offer or 2.

[rpriske]

My only House Rule is with my historical games. With very few exceptions, I draft who is recommended so that I don't use my knowledge of who will develop best.