The real problem with CPU GMs regarding trading

[bayman]

Real life GMs make stupid trades, SDS was right about that. The real issue in the game is the CPU acquiring 3 all-star SS and then at least 1 of them rotting on the bench for extended periods of time. Weird trades wouldn't bother me a fraction of what they do if the CPU did a good enough job utilizing the talent they have.

[LegendKillerOne]

Quote: Originally Posted by bayman

Real life GMs make stupid trades, SDS was right about that. The real issue in the game is the CPU acquiring 3 all-star SS and then at least 1 of them rotting on the bench for extended periods of time. Weird trades wouldn't bother me a fraction of what they do if the CPU did a good enough job utilizing the talent they have.

This is why I do 30 team control. I only put trades on manual. So everything else is run as if I was not using 30 team control but then if a bad trade is made I can reverse it

[countryboy]

Quote: Originally Posted by bayman

Real life GMs make stupid trades, SDS was right about that. The real issue in the game is the CPU acquiring 3 all-star SS and then at least 1 of them rotting on the bench for extended periods of time. Weird trades wouldn't bother me a fraction of what they do if the CPU did a good enough job utilizing the talent they have.

This is where the CPU needs to do a better job of utilizing players at secondary positions and where the ability to learn a new position would be beneficial.

As a guy who only does single team control, I often assist the CPU by changing guys primary positions to be a secondary position they play. If you mess around with it, you'll find there are times where the player has a higher overall once their primary position is changed to a secondary position.

Ex: Last year in regards to Tatis and what the Padres did in my franchise when they acquired Matt Chapman only to put him on the bench because he was blocked at first by Anthony Rizzo and third by Manny Machado. I made Tatis' primary position be RF and he went from 96 OVR to 99 OVR, and then I moved Machado to SS where he maintained his current overall.

With my Cardinals I changed Jordan Walker in year 2027 from 3B (81 OVR) to LF where he's now an 82 OVR.

[Caulfield]

EDIT: oops, meant to quote cb's above post.
______________________
yep. and this is why I would never draft LF'ers when I had my carry-over franchise. you can move most players to LF and their overall value increases.
I wound up moving Chris Davis from 1b to LF , otherwise I couldnt justify keeping him.


regarding how the cpu generally manages things, I know they arent any where near as perfect as I pretend to be.
compared to cpu GM's, I'm the best wheeling dealing GM since Trader Jack.
I just tell myself, "you do you" and let the other gms mismanage themselves right out of a pennant. at the end if the season, there can be only one man left standing, but its funny, it seems like I'm rarely the champion I should be. if my general managing is so much better than the cpu, why is it one cpu gm or another is usually hoisting that commissioners trophy and not me? though they may not run their ballclub like I do, there IS a method to their madness.

what I wish is there were 29 separate and different styles the other gm's gm'd their team, and you could give one of those styles to each and every other gm

[JoshC1977]

Quote: Originally Posted by Caulfield

EDIT: oops, meant to quote cb's above post. ______________________ yep. and this is why I would never draft LF'ers when I had my carry-over franchise. you can move most players to LF and their overall value increases. I wound up moving Chris Davis from 1b to LF , otherwise I couldnt justify keeping him.

I believe '22 may have changed this from past versions...but in '22...if you manually edit a player's primary position and his OVR goes up, it does not fundamentally change his trade value.

In year 2 of my franchise, I traded for Bryan Reynolds and edited his primary to LF - his OVR shot-up. Not wanting to fleece the AI, I re-loaded my save, and edited his position to LF before the trade...and it did not change the size of the trade acceptance bar (or the offer I needed). I tried this over the course of my franchise several other times, and never personally encountered a scenario where the core trade value of a player changed following an edit of his primary position.

So, I think the CPU (under the hood) uses a more direct manner of evaluating the value of a player and not just the displayed OVR.

[Caulfield]

Quote: Originally Posted by JoshC1977

I believe '22 may have changed this from past versions...but in '22...if you manually edit a player's primary position and his OVR goes up, it does not fundamentally change his trade value. In year 2 of my franchise, I traded for Bryan Reynolds and edited his primary to LF - his OVR shot-up. Not wanting to fleece the AI, I re-loaded my save, and edited his position to LF before the trade...and it did not change the size of the trade acceptance bar (or the offer I needed). I tried this over the course of my franchise several other times, and never personally encountered a scenario where the core trade value of a player changed following an edit of his primary position. So, I think the CPU (under the hood) uses a more direct manner of evaluating the value of a player and not just the displayed OVR.

I didnt mean to imply it increased trade value but rereading what I posted it does occur to me thats the way it read.
mostly what I was trying to get at is, LF is the one place I know I can move somebody from another position to, and they not hurt me by being there. therefor, I refuse to draft leftfielders. they're a nickle a dozen

[LegendKillerOne]

Quote: Originally Posted by Caulfield

EDIT: oops, meant to quote cb's above post. ______________________ yep. and this is why I would never draft LF'ers when I had my carry-over franchise. you can move most players to LF and their overall value increases. I wound up moving Chris Davis from 1b to LF , otherwise I couldnt justify keeping him. regarding how the cpu generally manages things, I know they arent any where near as perfect as I pretend to be. compared to cpu GM's, I'm the best wheeling dealing GM since Trader Jack. I just tell myself, "you do you" and let the other gms mismanage themselves right out of a pennant. at the end if the season, there can be only one man left standing, but its funny, it seems like I'm rarely the champion I should be. if my general managing is so much better than the cpu, why is it one cpu gm or another is usually hoisting that commissioners trophy and not me? though they may not run their ballclub like I do, there IS a method to their madness. what I wish is there were 29 separate and different styles the other gm's gm'd their team, and you could give one of those styles to each and every other gm

I feel like that is why it is so important they allow 30 team control. So we as realistic players can make sure all moves fit a teams style. We can make sure Oakland is not spending money they would never spend. Make sure when one of their good players hit FA they are just about walking.

[jcar0725]

Quote: Originally Posted by LegendKillerOne

I feel like that is why it is so important they allow 30 team control. So we as realistic players can make sure all moves fit a teams style. We can make sure Oakland is not spending money they would never spend. Make sure when one of their good players hit FA they are just about walking.

I tend to use 30 team control in a different way. If I see a perfectly decent RF sitting in the FA pool, and say Oakland doesnt have any good RFs, I make Oakland sign that guy. I like to try to make the bad teams better so the competition is tougher all the way around the league.