Roto Think Tank

Revisiting Contenders in Dump Leagues

2008-08-28T20:46:00.002-04:00

Yesterday, I addressed the concept of having too much talent in dump leagues and getting stuck waiving a player who might be an everyday player but not as good as the 14 hitters you've currently got on your active squad.

For owners in non-keeper leagues or leagues that don't have much dumping, this is a baffling idea. One of my readers lambasted the idea that Mark Kotsay could be waived in a league like this.

However, these sorts of things happen all the time in dump leagues. Even when a player isn't waived there is sometimes a ripple effect when a player is acquired and then an owner has to scramble to fit that player on to his roster.

On June 30, one owner in my A.L. acquired an injured David Ortiz ($38) and Jeff Mathis ($2) for Jarrod Saltalamacchia, Kelvin Escobar and a minor league pick. Despite the fact that the deal was made a full month before my league's trade deadline, many of us wondered how he was going to eventually make room for everyone on his roster, given our league's hard $375 active roster salary cap.

Two weeks later (July 14), he seemed to compound the problem when he got Paul Konerko ($30), Ramon Vazquez ($3), and Matt Joyce ($6) for Alex Gordon ($10) and Willie Bloomquist ($1).

His first move was simple. He gave away Paul Konerko to a non-contender so he could activate Magglio Ordonez ($33) and Jason Bartlett ($10) off of his reserve list, while also waiving Vazquez.

His biggest problem, though, was that the trade still left him in the position of either having to waive Ortiz or get rid of someone else. That other shoe dropped when he flipped Jermaine Dye ($25), Justin Verlander ($17) and Joyce for Coco Crisp ($11) and Andy Sonnanstine ($3). That allowed him to fill in for Dye with Ortiz.

Some owners never would have made that trade. They would have simply waived Ortiz and simply hoped that a non-contender grabbed him.

However, by flipping Dye to a middle-of-the-pack team, this owner assured himself that Dye's new owner wouldn't flip Dye to me or the league's other top contender. He also pushed Verlander onto a squad that could take two points away from me in ERA/WHIP.

Still, he did have to give up more than he would have liked. And that something was a productive Jermaine Dye.

You can argue that guys like Dye or Ortiz shouldn't be waived or be at risk of being waived. However, that's the other side of the dumping coin. Maximizing your roster's slots and salary is part of dumping. You might lose a Mark Kotsay or a David Ortiz if you don't manage your roster carefully and have to look for a best case scenario.

Why Is He Available?

2008-08-27T23:56:00.002-04:00

Anonymous wants to know why Mark Kotsay would have been available in the N.L.-only league I profile for my FAAB bids.

Any league that has Kotsay available in the free agent pool has very *unhealthy* dumping rules and/or is very heavy in available talent.

Brett, who is in that league, responds:

Why? The team that dropped Kotsay had an OF of Lewis, Rowand, Cody Ross, McLouth, and Kotsay (with Glaus at UT). The trading deadline had passed, and he dropped Kotsay for Dickerson because he needed speed more than average.

The only dump trades he made were a minor one where he got a FAABed Casey Blake, and one where he got pitching.

Agreed that during the first 2/3 of the season, Kotsay should never be a free agent. But after the trading deadline passes, your options are more limited, and your adds/drops have to be much more strategic and play to the categories that you need.

If you're way ahead of the pack in HR and RBI but are trying to squeeze out a point or 2 in SB, dropping Ryan Howard for Nyjer Morgan would be a wise move.

Who is right?

My answer, as it almost always diplomatically is, is that it depends on your league.

In a deep league at the beginning of the year, Mark Kotsay most definitely was an N.L. only outfielder. Despite his disappointing 2007 campaign, it was anticipated he'd be playing regularly for the Braves. Even if Kotsay only bounced back to a 750 OPS, with his speed a $15 season wouldn't have been out of the question.

That being said, there are sometimes players who get caught in the Twilight Zone of dumping. Typically, these players fall into one of two categories:

1) Players who are good enough to be on a one-league only roster but are hurt and may or may not come back later in the season. Players like this are hard to trade at value due to their injuries, but often do come back and are then better than the alternatives on a contender's active roster.

2) Players who are probably good enough to be kept on a one-league only roster but are not as good as the 14 hitters who are currently on the contender's active roster. A trade would be ideal, but you don't want to do a solid for your fellow contenders and the non-contenders have no interest in your $35 non-freeze, since they won't be able to move him after the in-season trade deadline or in the winter prior to the next freeze date.

Like Brett, I think these are both valid reasons for a player of Kotsay's middling status to be available in an N.L.-only league.

I do also think it depends on how you feel about dumping. I can tell Anonymous that the N.L. league I profile for FAAB is deep, with 12 teams and 23 man rosters per team. So that leaves the argument that the dumping rules in this league are unhealthy.

They could be. I would posit that how restrictive or open trading is when it comes to dumping is entirely up to your league. I've played in leagues with no salary caps and an "anything goes" mentality when it comes to dumping. I've also played in very restrictive leagues where trades were frequently overturned unless it was clear they weren't dump trades (unless, of course, these trades fit the league's narrow guidelines on the subject).

I still like the idea that teams can sometimes play for this year and wind up with overflow at one or more positions.

In my A.L., I grabbed Paul Konerko on waivers. His salary for next year is $30. The non-contenders wouldn't want to deal with that price, and the non-contender who waived him couldn't find a trading partner and thought Konerko at $30 was expendable.

To me, such a move is completely acceptable. If you're playing for next year, and no one wants Konerko, move him.

However, if you think allowing teams to waive guys like Konerko without getting something back in trade is too liberal, then by all means you should change your league's rules.

It's up to you how you want your league to run. Whatever you do, make sure you're happy with it, though.

Pitchers And Their Schedules Down The Stretch

2008-08-27T12:49:00.004-04:00

Brett writes:

Yeah, I may regret going after (Jorge) De La Rosa and not (Jeff) Francis - but De La Rosa is pitching against Matt Palmer and his 2/7 K/BB ratio, while Francis is against (Matt) Cain and (Jake) Peavy.

Of course this kind of thinking screwed me last week when I picked up (Cha Seung) Baek for his start against (Barry) Zito, only to have him start against (Tim) Lincecum once the (Greg) Maddux trade messed up the SD rotation....

I spent some time last year (or wasted it, depending on your point-of-view) trying to determine if any pitchers had a scheduling advantage in the last two weeks of the season in both the American League and the National League. Instead of poring through those articles and playing gotcha with myself, I thought I'd take a look at some of the more successful starters last year and their strength of schedule down the stretch.

Top 10 MLB Starting Pitcher ERAs in September 2007

Rank	Player	W-L	IP	ERA	SOS
1	Yovani Gallardo	3-1	33	1.36	.477
2	Jon Garland	2-3	39	1.38	.493
3	Ian Snell	1-1	33	1.64	.512
4	Fausto Carmona	5-0	35 1/3	1.78	.474
5	Carlos Villanueva	2-2	31 2/3	1.99	.463
6	Scott Kazmir	2-1	31	2.03	.547
7	John Lackey	3-1	42 2/3	2.32	.484
8	Zack Greinke	2-2	27	2.33	.505
9	C.C. Sabathia	4-0	38	2.37	.493
10	Miguel Batista	3-1	39 1/3	2.52	.506
	Average	3-1	35	1.98	.495

This chart assumes a minimum of five starts for the month.

And it's an interesting chart, yet doesn't really tell us that much. Kazmir had a tough schedule, getting the Yankees and Red Sox (twice) but his worst outing of the month was against the Orioles. Greinke's schedule looks fairly rough, but he had two outings against the White Sox at the end of the season where the ChiSox were pretty much swinging at anything so they could go home. The same could be said for Garland in his two end-of-the-year starts against the Royals.

But who cares about pitchers like Lackey, Carmona, and Sabathia, who were owned in even those joker mixed leagues? What about the free agents?

Top 10 MLB Starting Pitcher ERAs in September 2007
FAAB/Claimed Only

Rank

Player

W-L

ERA

SOS

Jon Garland

2-3

1.38

.493

Carlos Villanueva

2-2

31 2/3

1.99

.463

Miguel Batista

3-1

39 1/3

2.52

.506

Kevin Correia

1-1

2.70

.523

Adam Wainwright

2-3

38 2/3

3.03

.501

Gavin Floyd

0-3

3.19

.515

Jason Hammel

2-1

4.09

.551

Aaron Laffey

2-1

4.15

.493

Joel Pineiro

3-2

29 2/3

4.25

.493

Edinson Volquez

2-1

4.50

.508

Average

2-2

3.02

.505

The schedules here are tougher (based on opponent W/L record). But you'd expect that; pitchers on winning teams are generally better and less likely to be sitting in the free agent pool as a result. Laffey's the only guy here who made the play-offs.

Over the course of five or six starts, there doesn't seem to be any kind of corollary. And, with some pitchers, there is no rhyme or reason. Laffey was great against the Angels and bad against the Royals before pitching well against the Royals. Volquez also had trouble with the Orioles. You'd think a pitcher like Hammel would have been pounded with the Yankees twice and the Angels, but he survived.

These data are certainly cursory. A far more detailed look at line-ups, pitches per plate appearance, and much more would need to be pored over to come to any kind of meaningful conclusions. Generally speaking, though, I'd say be wary of overusing match-ups down the stretch. They're good to look at and - like you - I'd rather see my pitcher face the Mariners than the White Sox. But the most important factor is always going to rest with how that pitcher is doing and whether or not he's got his A game.

N.L. FAAB Log: August 25, 2008

2008-08-25T08:19:00.002-04:00

Mark Kotsay $30. Other bid $1.
This bid - and the fact that a player like Kotsay is even available in an N.L.-only league - is evidence of two things. First, players like Kotsay often become expendable when contenders improve their teams at the trade deadline via dump deals. Kotsay - who was probably a third or fourth OF on most N.L.-only Roto squads at the beginning of the year - suddenly became an insurance policy that was no longer needed. Second, the lack of bidding indicates that other teams in contention don't need Kotsay, while most of the non-contenders don't believe in him at $10 next year. I can see why. Kotsay's on the wrong side of the age curve, and could wind up as a platoon player or on the bench in 2009. For now, he's a decent enough option to play every day and hit the odd HR and steal the odd base. Be aware that it's rumored that he's cleared waivers, and both the Brewers and Red Sox are expressing interest.

Luis Ayala $24. Other bids $6, $5, $4.
I wrote about Ayala last week in this space, but the league I track for FAAB allows daily non-FAAB moves. So the owner who bought Ayala waived him for Adam Wainwright. The winning bid obviously reflects confidence that Ayala will get most of the saves for the Mets down the stretch. It's certainly a worthwhile gamble; Jerry Manuel is just as much a creature of human nature as the rest of us, and might very well be more comfortable with the devil he doesn't know. I'd keep my eye on Al Reyes if he's called up, though, as he's got the "proven closer" label from last year's time in Tampa Bay.

Nyjer Morgan $2.
Morgan's value is wrapped entirely in his speed. He's a 28-year-old non-prospect who got a lot of playing time last week because Nate McLouth is battling the flu. I don't anticipate Morgan getting much playing time down the stretch, and unless you're incredibly desperate for steals, don't bid.

Jeff Francis $2.
After a long and difficult season, Francis' initial owner finally (and understandably) gave up and sent him packing. He was picked up by the team in 2nd place, who could make a big jump in wins, but is also at risk in ERA/WHIP. If you are going to pick Francis up, this is the week; he's at the Giants and at the Padres (though his road and home numbers are both bad). Francis is one of those pitchers where you scratch your head if you're trying to predict the future. His biggest problem has been that he "can't get out of the first inning", which is something that's hard to quantify. The only number that's really been different for him has been his HR/FB rate, which means he's been a little unlucky. But the rest of his numbers are pretty similar. A guy like Francis who strikes out five or six batters per nine is more prone to inexplicable fluctuations than a guy who strikes out more batters. You have to sort of grin and bear it if you own Francis, understand the risk, and bid accordingly next year, which is to say bid low and keep your expectations low as well and hope you hit the jackpot.

Jaime Garcia $1.
Garcia's been solid in a low leverage middle relief role. He's a guy I'd stash away at this price or a little more if I were a non-contender, though Anthony Reyes' solid outing for the Indians last night made me wonder if the Cards jerking Garcia from the rotation to the pen back to the rotation to the pen isn't going to mess him up at some point. For now, that's all speculation, and you have to give the Cards and Dave Duncan the benefit of the doubt.

Jorge de la Rosa $1.
de la Rosa's overall numbers look terrible. But he's got over a strikeout an inning, and has put up a 2.42 ERA in August with a .221 BAA. He might actually be a decent play against a patchwork Giants line-up in San Francisco this week, especially in 5x5 leagues. Long term, he's also worth a look, though he's obviously not without his downside.

A.L. FAAB Log: August 24, 2008

2008-08-25T00:10:00.003-04:00

Jose Bautista $15. Other bids: $4, $3, $2.
Right now, it's unclear whether or not Scott Rolen will make it back before the 2008 campaign is over (my guess is that he won't), but Bautista should be on most A.L.-only rosters at this point. He should play some 3B, OF, and DH, and is worth having for the power, even if that power only comes from off the bench. Beware if your average is in danger.

Joaquin Arias $10. Other bid $1.
Both of these bids are from owners playing for 2009, but Arias might be one of those young players who actually provides more short-term value. He stole his second base tonight, and should gradually ease his way past the strict platoon role some envisioned for Arias at 2B when Ian Kinsler went down for the year. The Rangers probably will want to see how Arias fits in their plans, so I imagine he'll start seeing extended time down the stretch. The big problem is that Arias hasn't put up much in the way of minor league numbers except for speed. Granted, he's was young for his level at just about every stop, but he's already projecting more as a utility guy at 23 than he is as a regular. It doesn't help that he's got Kinsler/Michael Young ahead of him at middle and Chris Davis (presumably) at 3B.

Carl Pavano $5.
Pavano's in the last year of his four year, $39.95M contract with the Yankees. They didn't seem enthused about bringing him in to pitch but the organization determined that Phil Hughes wasn't ready yet. Pavano's fastball is down to 89-90 MPH, he's still building up confidence he can pitch at this lower velocity, and the Yanks might pull the plug on him when they're eliminated. He's certainly a worthy risk if you're playing for 2009, but he's an extreme long-shot to be a keep at $10 or more.

Ryan Rowland-Smith $3.
Like Pavano, expecations for Rowland-Smith should be kept modest. Unlike Pavano, Rowland-Smith isn't being paid oodles of money to be bad or not to pitch. Rowland-Smith is an OK back end of the rotation starter for the Mariners who is a calculated risk at this point in the season. He could put up a nice run of starts down the stretch, he could struggle due to the mid-season conversion from reliever to starter, or he could get hurt for the same reason. I like Rowland-Smith as an MLB #5 starter, but that still means low to moderate Roto upside.

Boof Bonser $3.
Very quietly, Boof's put together a solid August out of the Twins bullpen. He still can't be owned by any 2008 contenders, but Boof's still got the raw stuff that he's always had, and could still wind up being a better Roto option than someone like Rowland-Smith. Think 2010 or 2011 at this point, not 2009. Bonser still has to be regarded as a work in progress until he takes the ball every fifth day and shows us something.

Brandon McCarthy $2. Other bid $1.
When McCarthy and John Danks were swapped in the 2006-2007 winter, most pundits assumed that the Rangers had picked up the better pitch. In 2008, it hasn't worked out that way. McCarthy came back yesterday and had an OK outing, but he's yet another starter for who the reports say the velocity isn't all the way back. Down the road, this could turn out to be a blessing in disguise; reports say that McCarthy's curve and change, which he had started ignoring while he fell in love with his fastball, had regressed. Maybe while McCarthy gets a few MPH back on the fastball he'll start throwing more of his secondary pitches and become more refined. Then again, maybe not.

Jesse Carlson $2. Other bid $2.
Carlson has been so efficient for the Jays as a lefty specialist that you can probably consider him as a back-of-the-staff ad in 4x4 Roto. Keep in mind that when he does pitch against right-handers, he's a little more prone to the longball, so he wouldn't be the perfect option to close if something happened to B.J. Ryan. And I'm sure Cito Gaston knows this as well.

Clayton Richard $1.
We wouldn't even be talking about Richard if he were a "finesse righty." But Richard throws left-handed, so he got an opportunity to pitch for the White Sox after putting up a solid 127 2/3 IP between AA and AAA. Richard has a two-start week, but he's at Baltimore (a big HR park) and Fenway. Even if you're tempted, try and wait a week...I suspect Richard will still be there.

Jason Ellison $1.
Ellison is the closest thing to an emergency catcher that a major league team currently has in its outfield. The Rangers system must be barren in the outfield, because Ellison was promoted after David Murphy's injury despite a 242 BA and a 650 OPS. Ellison has all of 13 AB in the nearly three weeks he's been up and shouldn't see much playing time over Brandon Boggs and Marlon Byrd while Murphy's out.

Brandon League $1.
League's keeping the ball in the park with an insane 3.82 G/F ratio, but he's also walking the park. Toronto won't trust him with a larger role until League solves his control issues. He's only 25, so it's not out of the question, but it's also possible that it never happens and League just yo-yos back and forth between AAA and the majors for the rest of his life.

Robb Quinlan. Claimed by 7th place and 4th place teams.
Even in deep A.L.-only leagues, Quinlan's an awful option. He doesn't hit for power and doesn't run. He might get some additional playing time the last two weeks of the season over Mark Teixeira if the Angels clinch early, but even then I don't see him producing enough to make it worth the time.

What Can They Possibly Mean?

2008-08-24T12:59:00.003-04:00

I generally try to take what I can out of the free Roto analysis sites like Rototimes and Rotoworld. Another way of putting this is that while I recognize the flaws with sites like these, I also appreciate the plethora of information that is out there out one location so that I don't have to troll 30 team media sites. For this reason, I rarely complain about these types of sites. I know what I'm in for when I go there for information.

Sometimes, though, I see something like this and it bugs me:

J.D. Drew's back is also acting up on him. If you own him and complain, smack yourself.

As a matter of fact, I do own J.D. Drew.

I got him in a dump deal, along with Bobby Abreu, for Joakim Soria.

And I'm not stupid. I knew what I was getting into. I figured that Drew was going to cool off, and that I'd be happy to get a .250 BA out of him with OK power.

I also knew that J.D. Drew was a risk. I knew that he could be a total wipe-out due to injury.

But I also knew that I didn't have much to dump, that Soria at $20 wasn't the most attractive target to most teams in the league, and that Drew/Abreu for Soria was a good - if not great - return. I would have loved to have upgraded on Drew, but knew that with the lack of dump targets on my team, that I might be stuck with him.

(Incidentally, I did just that with Drew last year. I acquired Drew and Jay Payton for Cameron Maybin in order to shore up an outfield that had been decimated by injuries, and then flipped Drew along with a draft pick for Jose Guillen and Dustin McGowan.)

(People reading the blog this week must think I'm getting a commission every time I type "Guillen".)

So that's that. Of course I'm not happy that Drew got hurt - what rational owner would be? But I knew the risk when I traded for him, deemed the risk acceptable given the lack of dump targets I have, and am probably going to lose.

Though Drew isn't the only reason. More importantly, I lost Carl Crawford to injury, and the entire offense is sputtering. I've got too many platoon players and not enough oomph from the guys I have playing every day.

That's the way it goes in deep leagues. Sometimes your game plan works beautifully. Other times it doesn't. I'd agree that if J.D. Drew was the centerpiece of your offense, then shame on you.

But if you owned him in a 12-team American League, so what?

Forget my specific scenario. What if you paid $12 for Drew?

Are you unhappy with a 19/64/4/.280 line?

I wouldn't be. I'd be pretty satisfied. Expecting more than that for $12 would be very greedy.

Stars at Par and Dumping

2008-08-22T19:37:00.002-04:00

The good dr. hibbert weighs in with his own dumping peeve:

I run into a similar problem in my league, though slightly inverted. We have several owners who are reluctant to part with their at-par or even above par salaried stars as they are part of their "rebuilding effort". "I want to build around Sizemore next year". GUHHHH...

I talked about this briefly in response to Brett. The issue is important enough, though, to address here at greater length.

An owner in my league had Alex Rodriguez at $42, was in 8th place at the deadline and had already dumped Brian Roberts ($33), Erik Bedard ($40), and Carl Crawford ($50) in other deals. But he refused to part with A-Rod.

As Dr. Hibbert might say, GUHHHH!

However, depending on what A-Rod's owner was offered - and where he had A-Rod valued, it might not make sense to part with A-Rod.

Let's once again use Jose Guillen as an example. Entering the season, Alex Patton had a bid limit on A-Rod of $42 - or exactly his freeze price. So that means that A-Rod's has a net value of zero. Right?

Not so fast. If your league has any kind of inflation, A-Rod's value suddenly increases. The higher the inflation, the more it increases.

Let's say inflation in your league is 10%. As a result, A-Rod's inflated bid is $46.2. At 20%, A-Rod's inflated bid is $50.4. At 30%, that bid price jumps all the way to $54.6!

Now let's look at Guillen. Let's assume that Guillen is at $9 in your league and your bid price on him for next year is $15. His inflation prices would be:

10% = $16.5
20% = $18
30% = $19.5

In the league with 10% inflation, Guillen is $7.5 under value while A-Rod is "only" $4.2 under value. However, in the league with 30% inflation, A-Rod is $12.6 under value while Guillen is $10.5 under value. In the league with a 10% inflation rate, Guillen is a better keep than A-Rod. But as the inflation rate spikes, that's no longer the case. At some point, Guillen stops being a better keep than A-Rod.

And there's yet another factor that plays into this equation as well. There's a $33 difference in salaries between A-Rod and Guillen. What happens to that money in your auction?

In a league with zero inflation, nothing happens. You will spend $33 on $33 worth of players if you have a par auction.

Once again, inflation will play a role here as well. The higher the inflation rate, the more money you will lose on those extra $33. In a league with 10% inflation, $33 will buy you $30 worth of stats. Suddenly, your $3.3 gain between Guillen and Rodriguez has nearly been eroded. Flipping A-Rod for Guillen to gain 30 cents in auction value is a virtual wash.

At 30%, your $33 buys $25.38 worth of stats. Suddenly, Guillen for A-Rod straight up is a lousy offer. You lose $9.72 in the auction if you make this trade.

This is all assuming, of course, that A-Rod is worth $42 and Guillen is worth $15. If you have A-Rod valued at $38 and Guillen at $18, it's a different story. But even then, you still might be better off with A-Rod in leagues with higher inflation.

Most owners know this instinctively, even if they don't know it mathematically. That's why they won't move an A-Rod, even though Guillen is undervalued and A-Rod isn't.

Dr. Hibbert continues:

So even though you offer a Guillen type, the also-ran is reluctant to let go of the much higher priced talent even though they are going nowhere. So if you miss the boat on the few owners who are dumping, you're screwed.

In the broader context, going into your auction with a lot of money to spend and a high inflation rate is bad news. Inflation will eat away at your value, unless you have a lot of it. I think this is the real reason why guys like Jose Guillen at $9 often wind up staying on the contending teams. It's not that Jose Guillen is not a keep. It's that guys like A-Rod provide a high level of value, and are more than just par freezes in keeper leagues.

The players we often wind up getting are the guys like Torii Hunter at $35 and Magglio Ordonez at $38: players who are overvalued even with inflation and have no value unless inflation is absurdly high. Owners who hang on to these players are being stubborn. However, hanging on to A-Rod, under the right circumstances, might be a good play.

"Borderline" Freezes

2008-08-21T20:58:00.002-04:00

Eric talks about a peeve I have, though it has more to do with roster evaluation than it does with trades.

(Jose) Guillen is $19 in my league and I had the strangest time trying to convince others he was protectable at that price off his previous year's production.

Guillen might not be the best example for this peeve, though. Despite his strong 2004, 2005, and 2007 earnings, the bid limits and expert auction prices on Guillen were tepid. Alex Patton's bid limit was the most aggressive at $15. He went for $14 in Tout Wars, $13 in Sportsline (I bought him), and $11 in LABR. My bid limit for him in Sportsline was $16, but since I don't publish or sell my bids, I won't lump that in there.

Let's assume for a moment that your opponents agreed with the most aggressive bid/price here, which is Patton's. That means that they all thought he was a $15 player. Not a keep, therefore.

Ah, but Eric's one step ahead of me.

No one bit, but at draft time his ilk went for $20-$24 dollars. His ilk? Jhonny Peralta, Casey Kotchman, J.D. Drew, Garret Anderson, etc.

In order to simply, I'll once again refer to the Patton bid limits.

2008 AP 4x4 A.L. Bid Limits = $15

Alpha	Player	AP	BABG Cost	+/-	2007
1	Travis Buck	$15	$8F	+7	$9
2	Orlando Cabrera	$15	$21F	-6	$25
3	Jack Cust	$15	$10F	+5	$16
4	J.D. Drew	$15	$18	+3	$12
5	Ryan Garko	$15	$11F	+4	$16
6	Carlos Gomez	$15	$25	-10	$5
7	Jose Guillen	$15	$9F	+6	$24
8	Howie Kendrick	$15	$10F	+5	$13
9	Jhonny Peralta	$15	$20	-5	$16
10	Edgar Renteria	$15	$21	-6	$24
11	Luke Scott	$15	$17	-2	$13
12	Kevin Youkilis	$15	$8F	+7	$18
	Average	$15	$19	-4	$16

And I'll also use my "regular" A.L.-only league (BABG) as a reference-point.

Seven of the 12 players Patton assigned a $15 bid limit to were frozen in my league. The five players who weren't went between $17 and $25, for an average of $20 per player.

This is what Eric's talking about. Guillen at $19 isn't necessarily a freeze. However, Eric was being sincere when he told his fellow owners that he wasn't trying to rip them off. Of the five comparable players available in my league, only Scott and Drew went for less. Gomez, Peralta, and Renteria all went for more.

Position scarcity obviously has something to do with this when it comes to Peralta and Renteria. Let Renteria and a few other shortstops go, and you might wind up trolling for Adam Everett and John McDonald at the end of your auction.

That doesn't mean that I think Guillen's was a good freeze at $19. My league's inflation rate was about 20%; these $15 players were at $18 with inflation. I probably would have thrown Guillen back in the hopes that I either got him for $16-17 or stuck some other with him at $21.

But, like Eric, I would have tried to trade him first, then muttered loudly when he passed the price I had him at.

If I could get him at $9, I'd already have him. The competing teams in my league this year did it with every post-draft/peripheral-defying player in the AL. A $9 Guillen would have ranked as one of the best bail targets.

I wound up in the opposite boat. I had Guillen at $9 and couldn't move him. Part of the problem was that the teams at the bottom had already grabbed the stud freezes like B.J. Upton at $15 and Carlos Quentin at $15. They were certainly interested in Guillen at $9, but trading Guillen for the detritus they had left on their rosters didn't entice. The teams in the middle had better players, but were reluctant to part with top talent for Guillen in the hopes that they could squeeze a better player out of a more desperate owner at the deadline.

At the 11th hour, I got an offer of Xavier Nady and Jason Kubel for Guillen that I would have taken...but Nady's FAAB price would have put me well past my league's salary cap.

Eric's league might have more restrictive freeze lists and contract rules than mine. If his league uses toppers instead of long-term contracts, then Upton probably was back in the pool this year as a Topper. In my league, Upton got a $15, two year contract and certainly was a bigger fish than Guillen. There were enough players like that to make Guillen not quite as valuable.

Something intriguing about Patton's list, though, is that the guys on the list aren't as successful as you might have hoped.

2008 AP 4x4 A.L. Bid Limits = $15 (with estimated values)

Alpha	Player	AP	$	+/-	2007
1	Travis Buck	$15	-$2	-17	$9
2	Orlando Cabrera	$15	$16	+1	$25
3	Jack Cust	$15	$11	-4	$16
4	J.D. Drew	$15	$18	+3	$12
5	Ryan Garko	$15	$10	-5	$16
6	Carlos Gomez	$15	$15	0	$5
7	Jose Guillen	$15	$15	0	$24
8	Howie Kendrick	$15	$16	+1	$13
9	Jhonny Peralta	$15	$18	+3	$16
10	Edgar Renteria	$15	$9	-6	$24
11	Luke Scott	$15	$16	+1	$13
12	Kevin Youkilis	$15	$33	+18	$18
	Average	$15	$15	-0	$16

Alex gives pay cuts to more than half of the players on this list, and five of the seven do indeed live up to his lack of faith in them. True, the Cust and Garko pay cuts are marginal, and an owner could have bumped either one up to $16 on a whim pre-auction. But this isn't what we're hoping for when we take a $24 earner like Guillen and stick a $15 bid limit on him. We're secretly hoping that he splits the difference between his 2007 and Patton's 2008 bid, we get a $19 season out of him, and turn a tidy profit.

In freeze leagues, if you keep Guillen at $19, he'd better earn $19. Inflation is already going to eat away at your team; if you pay $15 for Luke Scott in a non-keeper league, you're satisfied; if you pay $18 in a league with 20% inflation, you're not thrilled, but realize that it comes with the territory. You know that your freezes are where you're going to get your profits.

That's why Guillen's bid limit is so low, Eric - and why your fellow owners didn't want him. He would have been an OK freeze at $19, provided he earned $23-25 again. The market guessed that Guillen had too much risk associated with him and the market turned out to be correct.

Evaluating Pitchers

2008-08-20T19:52:00.002-04:00

Anonymous asks:

I'm trying to assess some free-agent pitchers in my NL-only league. Generally -- with hitters -- I look at the last seven to 14 days of production so I can see who has the hot bat. How should a judge pitching performance, since SPs might have only two starts in that 14-day period? How would I judge middle-relievers? Thanks.

I find an analysis of the last seven, 14, and 21 days useful when it comes to batters who are either rookies or bench players who are on the cusp of working themselves into extra playing time. If Paul Konerko isn't hitting in an A.L.-only league, I'm stuck with Paul Konerko and I'm not going to drop him for Randy Ruiz. For a player like Ruiz, though, it's worth looking at his short-term line: not as an indicator of future performance, but more for an idea of whether or not Ron Gardenhire will keep finding AB for him down the stretch.

For this reason alone, three or four start trends aren't all that useful when it comes to pitchers, particularly since some organizations might have a quick hook after a couple of starts, while others might let a pitcher twist in the wind for 10-15 starts before pulling the plug.

On the other hand, there many more opportunities to grab a starting pitcher who is taking a regular turn in the rotation than there are to grab a position player with a regular job. The flip side of this equation is that most of the starting pitchers who are sitting in the free agent pool week after week are dreck, and there's a good reason that team near the bottom of the pile in wins won't touch any of those guys; his ERA and WHIP stand to crater if he does.

I'd agree that one or two week samples are very small. However, I also can't help but look at them, in the hopes that there will be something promising in the tea leaves, since the pitchers available in deep leagues are either marginal filler guys or rookies who will be aggressively FAABed right out of the gate.

What I'm looking for are pitchers who fit the LIMA profile: good K/IP, K/BB, BB/IP, and HR/IP rates. Walks, strikeouts, and home runs - in that order - are the three things I like to look at in terms of potential value going forward. Even if a pitcher isn't a strikeout machine and is prone to the occasional long ball, throwing strikes is an obvious key to success and keeping runners off base via the walk is the best way to fall prey to the big inning. I like strikeouts next, since a pitcher who can keep the bats off the ball is more likely to throw up a dominant outing. Failing both of these, a pitcher who keeps the ball in the park can at least allow his defense to pick up the slack, or at least get lucky and stay out of the big inning by allowing a single and two doubles as opposed to two singles followed by a long ball or two.

Beyond that, I like to try and get pitchers on good teams if those pitchers are available. These pitchers have a greater chance at picking up wins (or saves as relievers), and also of having better defenses behind them. They're also less likely to be left in a game to wither and die on the vine.

It'd certainly be interesting to take a look at LIMA pitchers and see if guys who didn't do well in ERA/WHIP but had good K/IP, BB/IP and HR/IP numbers were successful the following year. However, my instincts have generally been good in this regard, and I've done pretty well sticking with this basic strategy for scouting and picking up pitchers.

Out with the Old?

2008-08-19T20:55:00.003-04:00

Over at Patton and Company, TJRohr asks:

So, I'm building for 2009. The Big Unit has been hot for a couple months. I'm in a 12-team, 4x4, NL-only league. Do I keep a $5 44-year-old, or flip him now for, say, Jaime Garcia ($5) and Anibal Sanchez ($5)?

My instincts would say that you probably should do that, even if Garcia and Sanchez are no more than lottery tickets for 2009.

What do the numbers say?

I'm reluctant to look at this year's earnings until the books are closed on the 2008 season. What about 2007?

I reviewed the American League and National League's starting pitchers and ranked them by cost this past winter. What about the 12 starting pitchers who were 40 or older in 2007?

Age 40+ Starting Pitchers MLB, 2007

Rank	Player	$	AVG Cost	+/-	2008
1	Roger Clemens	$6	$3	+3
2	David Wells	-$6	$3	-9
3	Randy Johnson	$7	$15	-8	$11
4	Jaime Moyer	$2	$3	-1	$14
5	Kenny Rogers	$1	$5	-4	-$7
6	Orlando Hernandez	$16	$5	+11
7	Tom Glavine	$7	$9	-2	-$9
8	Greg Maddux	$17	$13	+4	$6
9	Tim Wakefield	$11	$5	+6	$11
10	Woody Williams	-$4	$3	-7
11	Curt Schilling	$13	$19	-6
12	John Smoltz	$28	$21	+7	$5
	Average	$8	$7	+1	$3

This is a much more successful group in 2007 than I would have dreamed. The problem is that almost half of them didn't answer the bell in 2008, and only Moyer and Wakefield have had any kind of sustained success this year.

There are a couple of reasons I'd move Johnson fast if I had an offer like that on the table:

1) You'd be very hard pressed to find examples of successful 45-year-old pitchers in the bigs. Nolan Ryan's 1992 (157 1/3 IP, 5-9, 3.72 ERA, 1.316 WHIP) wasn't bad, but that ERA was only slightly over league average in the 1992 context (103 ERA+ according to Baseball Reference). Baseball Reference actually only has six players who pitched in their Age 45 who even pitched enough in their careers to generate a similarity score (though I imagine Moyer will be the seventh after this year is complete).

Johnson certainly is far more similar to Ryan than he is to Charlie Hough or Ted Lyons. Coming into this season, Johnson was the seventh most similar pitcher to Ryan, and was behind some impressive names: Steve Carlton, Gaylord Perry, Early Winn, Don Sutton, Roger Clemens, and Phil Niekro. But even for these names, the clock eventually ran out. Johnson's an outlier, and if anyone's going to defy time and put up a quality season, it's him. But the odds aren't in his favor.

2) Sanchez and Garcia are probably going to have a more favorable trade market this winter. In my write-up on the A.L. pitchers last winter, I said:

Perhaps there's something to be said for older pitchers; many of the bombs in the last group (Sowers, Bonser, Roberston, Cabrera) are young guys with only one solid season under their belts. Or no solid seasons, in Cabrera's case.

The market certainly is more likely to give pay raises to the young guns in the previous group. They earned $9 compared to this group's $8, yet are paid $10 to this group's $6. The market is insisting on profits here and it gets them, albeit begrudgingly.

What matters to you isn't whether or not the market is right or wrong; the correct answer is going to be different every year. What matters more is what the market is paying for these pitchers.

I believe that if the market is going to pay more for young pitchers, most leagues are going to behave the same way when it comes to assessing value in carry-over leagues in off-season trades. Johnson might earn more than Sanchez or Garcia in 2009. But it doesn't matter. You'll probably get more in trade in March 2009 using a Sanchez or Garcia as a chip than you will from a Johnson. And the same thing will apply to dump trades. A rebuilding team is more likely to target a Sanchez or Garcia than it is to target a 45-year-old Randy Johnson.

The more I look at it, the more I think you should take this trade quickly...if you haven't already.

N.L. FAAB Log: August 18, 2008

2008-08-18T01:24:00.003-04:00

Chris Dickerson $19. Other bids $17, $2, $2.
The knock on Dickerson is the high K/AB rate, but his BB/AB rate indicates that he could contribute as a major league regular if given the opportunity. So far, so good for the Reds, and Dickerson should be bid on aggressively in N.L.-only leagues even if he's 26 years old and his pedigree doesn't speak to him doing more than serving time as a 4th OF in the bigs. He could be better than that, and on a team like the Reds, he might get a shot at proving it.

Pedro Feliciano $4. Other bid $1.
Feliciano picked up a save this week, and the ESPN Baseball Tonight crowd seemed to be all atwitter about him as a result. The problem is that Feliciano's been a punching bag against righties this year, and is far more suited to the LOOGY role than at the closer role. The tepid bids here are about right. Feliciano might pick up another save or two against the left-handed part of a line-up, but he shouldn't be in line for taking over as the interim closer for the Mets, no matter how bad their pen has been.

Cha Seung Baek $4.
We all had the opportunity to see Baek pitch against the Phillies tonight. I wasn't impressed. Baek's command seemed poor and - Petco or no - I think he was lucky to have escaped with as little damage as he did. Baek's pitches are perpetually too far out of the zone and his stuff isn't strong enough to get hitters to swing at every offering he throws up there. Like a lot of Padres pitchers, he might be OK in Petco, but Baek's not a pitcher I'd be willing to bet on going forward.

Tadahito Iguchi $3. Other bid $2.
With Khalil Greene on the shelf, Iguchi's been logging regular playing time, but hasn't done much with it. Hopefully, he'll start running again soon, because otherwise Iguchi's Roto value is marginal at the moment, and the Padres could turn to younger options in September as they plan for 2009.

Travis Ishikawa $2.
Ishikawa should get the bulk of the AB at 1B for the Giants down the stretch, as they decide whether or not he's going to be part of their 2009 plans. He'll be 25 next month, so he's certainly not young, and more time in the minors isn't going to prove anything. Unfortunately for Ishikawa, his minor league numbers are all over the map, and it's hard to get a read on whether his power outburst at Fresno this year was legitimate, a product of small sample size, or a frustrated veteran hitter swinging for the fences. His minor league BAs have all been very low, so Ishikawa might only project as a .240-.250 hitter in the bigs. He's going to need to bring all of that power to The Show to be viewed as legit, in other words, and the odds of that happening are poor. On the other hand, he could be a nice September addition if he winds up facing a bunch of roster expansion pitchers throwing him cripple pitches.

Pablo Sandoval $1.
Sandoval's a guy who came out of nowhere this season; he wasn't even listed in John Sickels' off-season Top 20 Giants prospect list, and the Giants don't have a prospect-rich system. Sandoval's power didn't come out of nowhere - he did hit 11 HR in 401 AB in 2007 - but he went nuts this year, smacking 20 HR in 448 AB between High-A and Double-A before his promotion. Like Ishikawa, I imagine that Sandoval's up to get a long look. However, Bengie Molina's signed through 2009, and unless the Giants are considering moving Sandoval to 1B, he could get squeezed. He's a worthy FAAB play since he's catcher eligible, but might not make much of a Roto impact. The low BB/AB in the minors suggest that he should probably spend another season there refining his game a little more and consolidating his gains in AAA.

Laynce Nix $1.
Nix put up some tasty power numbers in the minors before the Brewers called him up, but he's a 27-year-old ex-prospect whose star never really shined that brightly to begin with. He could do what he did with the Rangers (decent power, low BA) if given another opportunity, but that opportunity won't come with the deep, deep Brewers.

Luis Ayala $1.
With the Mets bullpen in disarray, the owner who grabbed Ayala probably thought the same thing that Omar Minaya thought, which was something along the lines of "what the hey". Ayala's poor numbers make him a long shot for saves, but stranger things have happened. Another way of looking at it is that a pitcher pitching poorly within the organization would have no chance of getting save ops, while a new import might.

A.L. FAAB Log: August 18, 2008

2008-08-18T00:48:00.004-04:00

Kenji Johjima $11. Other bid $5.
With most leagues past the trading deadline at this point, there are always teams awash in FAAB that are going to "overbid" on what a player's true value is. Johjima's an example of this. Two non-contenders placed these bids, so it's not like the players they chose to get rid of were lighting it up. On the other hand, even as an $11 flier for 2009, Johjima looks more than questionable. Despite the fact that he's signed through 2011, the Mariners seem committed to playing Jeff Clement, and I'm not sure that situation is going to change in 2009. If you're playing for this year, forget about Johjima. He isn't playing, and when he does play he's been too much of a cipher even as a catcher.

Kendry Morales $6. Other bids $2, $1.
Here is another trio of next-year bids (the salary jumps to $10 in 2009 if Morales is kept). The thinking in a few circles is that Mark Teixeira winds up somewhere else and Morales is the Angels starting 1B in 2009. It's possible, but who knows what kind of numbers he'll put up. The AAA numbers at Salt Lake are pretty, but it's a very strong hitting venue, so Morales' 14/58/1/.338 in 287 AB might look more like 10/70/0/.280 in the majors in 2009. That's well and good at $10, but those numbers mean he's no lock to be a starter anywhere, let alone a team with deep pockets like the Angels. He'll be 26 next year, so the clock is ticking quite loudly.

Adam Everett $6.
With Alexi Casilla out for the season, Everett should get most of the AB at SS as long as he stays healthy. He's a poor play, particularly if you're still competing in batting average. The best case for Everett is that he'll contribute in HR/SB like he did in Houston, but he did that in a favorable hitters park and now resides in a very unfavorable hitters park. He should be owned in deep A.L. leagues as long as he's starting, but like a lot of the bottom of the heap MI options, be aware you might get less than nothing from him.
UPDATE 8/18 8:00 P.M.: As rodger points out in the comments section of this post, Casilla now looks like he'll probably be back this week. I'm pretty skeptical about how much Casilla will be able to contribute hitting exclusively from the right-hand side of the plate (his OPS is about 140 lower as a right-handed batter), but the bottom line is that it makes Everett a slightly weaker option nonetheless.

Jerry Blevins $4.
Like Brad Ziegler, Blevins is an unheralded reliever who has put up some pretty solid numbers for the A's. Unlike Ziegler, Blevins is unlikely to do more than eke out the odd win and put up decent rate stats. Blevins' H/IP rate is incredibly unsustainable, so a correction is quite likely in the last 40 or so games we have left. Use with extreme caution.

Ramon Ramirez $2.
Ramirez has been incredibly dominant for a suddenly strong Royals bullpen, but any reliever behind Joakim Soria has limited value right about now. Ramirez is the rare middle reliever with more value in 5x5, due to his more than one K/IP to date. Worth it in very deep leagues, but don't think he has any chance at supplanting Soria barring injury.

Dallas Braden $1.
Braden doesn't throw hard, but he has a deceptive delivery and seems to have refined his pitch selection at AAA Sacramento this year. He's still a borderline major league starter long-term, but is someone you can look to if you need the arm and want to roll the dice on a young pitcher in a favorable pitchers' park. I'm wary of his sub-90 MPH velocity, but I know that this doesn't bother some owners.

Alan Embree $1.
Embree's not doing very well at the back of the A's bullpen. The winning bidder also has Santiago Casilla and Joey Devine, so perhaps his thinking was that he'd have the A's closer in 2009. However, he doesn't have Ziegler, who at the moment looks like the horse we should all have our money on until he proves otherwise. Embree's diet of almost nothing but fastballs looks like it's finally wearing thin.

Leo Nunez. Claimed by 11th place and 7th place teams.
Nunez has struggled since his return from the DL, but he looks like he'll join Ramirez as a nice bridge to Joakim Soria in 2009 and beyond.

Jay Payton. Claimed by 5th place and 2nd place teams.
Payton has picked up fairly regular AB subbing for Adam Jones on occasion and acting as Luke Scott's nearly exclusive platoon partner. His value is very limited, though, due to a nearly complete erosion of the speed game and a definitive drop in power. He should be pursued in deep 4x4 leagues if you have a dead spot, but Payton's value is limited nonetheless.

N.L. FAAB Log Supplemental 8/17

2008-08-17T23:16:00.003-04:00

Chad Reineke
I wrote about Reineke last month when he was still with the Astros. Like Josh Banks, he'll be helped a little bit by Petco. The downside is that he's not even as good as Banks and is probably a poor bet for success. As a starter for the Padres, he should get more than the no bid I gave him a month ago, but I'm still only giving him a $2 bid. The good news for Reineke this week is that he gets the Giants in San Francisco; the bad news is that he's slated to go against Tim Lincecum.

Trading Peeve #3 (not one of mine)

2008-08-17T16:35:00.002-04:00

Here's a trading peeve from Brett:

Owners that are dumping but won't trade anyone who has the slightest chance of being a keeper.

Examples: Torii Hunter at $28. His owner won't trade him because "he might want to keep him next year." They just can't comprehend that even though he may be a bargain by a buck or two, they'll get more by trading him to someone going for it this year.

I can see where Brett's coming from. I'm kind of on the fence with this one, though.

Let's take a look at Brett's example.

Torii Hunter isn't an elite Roto hitter, but is definitely in the next tier. His 4x4 Patton $ earnings from 2004-2007 were $24, $21, $26, $31. He's on pace to earn about $25 this year. The Patton bid limit on him coming into the season was $24. That sounds about right for next year. You might want to knock off $1 or $2 due to his advancing age, but you probably won't get him for less than $24 in start-over leagues.

So Torii Hunter is what I'd call an inflation keep. In a league with 20% inflation, that $24 bid becomes a $29 bid. That makes him a borderline keep at $28. Given my auction philosophy, I'd throw him back, but an owner who is more insecure about his ability to auction might want to lock in Hunter at $28.

Once again, it's worth trotting out this anecdote from two winters ago. It isn't enough to know that Hunter's borderline; you also have to analyze if what you're getting back for him is enough.

Using my bid limit of $24 and a hypothetical 20% inflation rate, Hunter at $28 gains his owner $0.67 versus simply throwing him back. In other words, trading Hunter might mean getting a better player back at the same price, but it might also mean spending $31 for a player like Hunter depending on the number of outfielders available, the top hitters available, and other factors unique to your auction.

If you were offered Lars Anderson for Torii Hunter straight up in this example, would you do it?

I might, I might not. In a league with unlimited farm keeps where farm players like Anderson were valued highly, I would, since I know I'd get someone like Hunter back next season when I was going for it. However, in a league where I had a limited number of farm keeps, I might not. Another factor would be whether or not Hunter would have a market in the off-season. Often, teams that have dumped pursue players like Hunter as inflation hedges. I might be able to get more for Hunter in March than I can in July.

Brett's second example isn't as clear cut:

Another guy has BJ Ryan at $15. A good keeper, to be sure - but I said I would offer him a package of keepers/minor leaguers who are much better than Ryan for next year, but he still wouldn't even talk about it. In his mind, Ryan is a keeper, and you don't trade keepers if you're dumping. The inflexibility is maddening.

Given Ryan's fat contract in real life, he'll close for the Blue Jays unless his arm completely falls off. He isn't an elite closer like Joe Nathan who should go for $32-34 in a non-keeper league, but he is a guy who should go for $23-25. So he isn't someone who is going to be a huge bargain like a B.J. Upton at $10 was coming into this year, but he's still a pretty important component heading into 2009 for a team that wants to contend.

Would I take Anderson for Ryan straight up? No way, since Ryan in a league with 20% inflation would be worth $10.50 more than the same pitcher I could buy for $15 at auction, even if I only assigned a conservative $23 bid limit to Ryan. I don't even know if Anderson's going to be up next year; it seems to me that the risk with Anderson is too great to give up a cheap, undervalued closer.

If the package improved, I'd certainly consider it. I'd have to assume, though, that Brett's not going to give up too much value that's tied into players this year to get Ryan unless he's desperate for saves, since Brett is competing for the title, and probably understands the cardinal rule surrounding dump trades: never give up more in this year value than you get.

Something fair for Ryan might be a deal like Alexai Ramirez and one or two farm players, depending on their value. But why would Brett do that? He's losing too much with Ramirez on offense unless he gets something back, and the owner who is moving Ryan might feel like he's barely upgrading on his freeze value with Ramirez for Ryan. Again, depending on the league, that may or may not be a fair assessment.

I do know what Brett's saying. There are owners who will stubbornly hold on to players who are way too expensive to be freezes, or hold on to marginal freezes like Hunter, even if they're getting offered someone good for next year. However, there also shouldn't be an imperative to give a B.J. Ryan away. A player who is $10.5 undervalued would have been one of the stronger freezes in my league in 2008, and would require a pretty hefty return for me to move him.

When Jose Guillen Isn't Worth $9

2008-08-15T23:40:00.002-04:00

My pissing and moaning yesterday certainly got a lot of attention:

Well, if you're on comfortable-enough terms with that owner, I'd just ask him what stats he thought Guillen would produce next year.

...Brett wrote

If he says .265/11/53/2, then tell him "ok, I disagree but you're right, he's not a keeper to you". If he gives numbers similar to this year, then you have the discussion about why his valuation is out of whack, and hopefully convince him.

Well, I generally try to keep the lines of communication open with all owners. And I did ask this particular owner why he thought Jose Guillen was only worth $7.5.

He told me (and I know I'm rehashing some of what I said yesterday) that Guillen is only "X" amount better than a replacement level player and has negative value in SB.

I didn't really pursue the conservation further because I made a couple of assumptions that I'm guessing are correct based on his next responses:

1) He's assigning a player with zero stats a negative base value, since that player is "X" below replacement level in all categories.

2) Since this owner typically spends aggressively early in the auction, he's not undercutting his league's total budget. Instead, he's robbing guys in the middle (like Guillen) to pay guys at the top (like A-Rod).

It worked very well for him in 2007, but he also had a cheap B.J. Upton ($10), Dustin Pedroia ($10) and Matt Stairs ($2) in tow. Stars and scrubs (which is what we're talking about here, of course) in keeper leagues requires a few scrubs who come through. Or young players who were acquired via the farm draft or dump trades (which is how Upton and Pedroia were acquired) who turn into the Next Big Thing.

The problem is that you also need your stars to come through. This owner bought A-Rod at $42 in 2007. In retrospect, that makes the rest of us look stupid, but he was coming off of a $33 season in 2006. Yeah, we still screwed up letting him slip to $42. I said $41, but that doesn't make me feel much better.

This year didn't work out quite so well. He came off a year where he finished in the money, so he needed a more balanced team to compete. He started out with A-Rod and Carl Crawford ($50), and then bought Brian Roberts ($33), Erik Bedard ($40), and Mariano Rivera ($37). It didn't work out so well.

In the 2007 scenario, opting for $1 players was OK because this owner had some keeps like Upton and Pedroia to start with. If a guy like Matt Stairs worked out, great. If not, so what; you dump Upton and Pedroia and fill the holes that your $1 buys left you.

In the 2008 scenario, you're better off buying a balanced squad and hoping your $15 Kevin Youkilis turns into a $30 stud. In Stage Three leagues, your $1 buy is typically going for $1 for lots of good reasons. He could earn $20+, but the odds are very poor.

So, in the end, we come back to Stages One, Two, and Three. If you overvalue A-Rod and Crawford, you're back in Stage One, and you're not going to win unless both of them at least match their expensive price tags. If they don't, the odds are very poor that more than one of your $1 players are going to turn into double digit earners. And if they don't, you'll lose.

In this scenario, you'd better damn make sure you get one or two guys like Jose Guillen. At least.