Big Market - Small Market Trades

[Borealis]

Let's turn this away from the Shisa Blog and continue here...

Lets take a look at the Trade Talley and the instances where 1st round picks were recently dealt:

New Jersey and Duluth: December 21, 2021
Duluth receives:
SP Julian 'Rainmaker' Thomas
CL Julio 'Tapper' Gonzalez

New Jersey receives:
SP José Gómez (A)
SP Pete Jones (A)
LF Dewitt Barry (A)
Duluth's 2022 1st round draft pick (5th overall)

Jersey is 8th in Budget and Duluth 14th, but I bet the smaller market Warriors don't mind the 1st pick heading east for two stud pitchers under 30-years of age...

Aurora and Okinawa: December 21, 2021
Aurora receives:
OKA 1st Round Draft Pick

Okinawa receives:
P Gustavo Cabrera (SA)
AUR 1st Round Draft Pick
RGV 2nd Round Draft Pick
AUR 4th Round Draft Pick
$4,000,000

Of course that #1 Okinawa pick ended up in small market Reno for the .211 hitting Negrete. On the surface the 'trading down' by the Shisa may arguably have been a worthwhile gamble - still getting a 1st rounder as well as an early 2nd and a not-so-bad pitching prospect 1-year removed from college.

Yuma and Kentucky: December 21, 2021
Yuma receives:
SP Avery Parkinson
3B Darrell Stark (AAA)

Kentucky receives:
SP Phil Russel (A)
SP Martin Lopez (S A)
Yuma's 1st round draft pick

While 'Numbers' doesn't seem to like the dry furnace of the Sonoran Desert, this one was small market-on-small market...

Shin Seiki and Kalamazoo: July 26, 2021
Shin Seiki receives:
Kalamazoo's 2022 1st Round Pick
Kalamazoo's 2022 2nd Round Pick

Kalamazoo receives:
SP Kazuo "The Dominator" Ishihara (AAA)

While K-Zoo isn't small market, it's not all that far behind the Big Bad Evas, and scoring a potential Ace helped the Badgers in the now. The Evas draft a pair of decent looking relievers - and really, when looking at these deals, it's all about who gets drafted. Would the Badgers have picked up a pitcher similar to Ishi? Would they have drafted two relievers? Doubtful.

Arlington Receives:
CL Shawn Marshall

San Antonio Recieves
ARL 1st Round Pick
ARL 3rd Round Pick

Arlington is #7 on the Budget list, and surprisingly the Calzones aren't too far behind. This is the inverse of the Jersey-Duluth deal, and I bet both sides are very happy with their ultimate haul here as Marshall is one of the bright looking relievers and that #1 became 3B Ed Brown, who could become a high profile hitter.

Amsterdam and Reno: June 28, 2021
Amsterdam receives:
CL David Chesney

Reno receives:
Amsterdam's 1st round draft pick
Amsterdam's 3rd round draft pick

Reno no doubt couldn't afford to sink the money into a high price closer and their haul matches what the Calzones got. C Al Wallace was probably a draft selection more out of need than for talent (plus they got SP Toby Ayers in the aforementioned Okinawa-Aurora-Reno deal)

Aurora and Rio Grande Valley: June 8, 2021
Rio Grande Valley receives:
1B Richie Norman (AAA)
2B John Dickson (AAA)

Aurora receives:
RGV 1st round pick 2022
RGV 2nd round pick 2022
I'm just guessing Trader Matt is plenty happy with Richie Norman right about now... That #1 became C Manny Castro and the #2 went to Okinawa. Right now, Norman has the Ocelots in 1st??? Castro is an even money bet to make it to the ML level. After that, will he be Scott Vinson/Bob Keller or Rusty Butler?

Aurora and Hartford: June 8, 2021
Hartford receives:
Aurora's 1st round pick (#24)
Aurora's 4th round pick (#21)

Aurora receives:
Hartfords 2nd round pick (#19)
Hartfords 2nd round pick (#21)
Hartfords 3rd round pick (#5)
Hartfords 3rd round pick (#10)
Hartfords 5th round pick (#7)
Hartfords 6th round pick (#7)
Hartfords 7th round pick (#7)
Hartfords 8th round pick (#7)
Hartfords 9th round pick (#7)
Hartfords 10th round pick (#7)

Aurora on the road - literally and making the draft was iffy. Hartford was looking to get a couple of higher picks for their lot. We each met the others need on this one. Aurora picked up a number of (likely) mediocre pitchers who may blossom - only Billy Taylor (AA) looks to be a possibility...

Canton and Hartford: June 8, 2021
Hartford receives:
Canton's 1st round draft pick (1-8)

Canton receives:
Hartford's 1st round draft pick (1-22)
Hartford's 2nd round draft pick (2-5)
Hartford's 3rd round draft pick (3-4)

Small market cannibalizes Small market...

Rio Grande Valley and Crystal Lake: December 16, 2020
Rio Grande receives
SS Orlando Barron (AA)
CF Millard Anderon (AAA)
SP Chad Miller (AAA)

Crystal lake receive
SS Mike Woodward (SSA)
RGV 1st Rd pick

Naha and Amsterdam: December 16, 2020
Naha Receives:
1B Alex Bothwell (A)
Amsterdam 1st Round Draft Pick
Amsterdam 2nd Round Draft Pick
Amsterdam 4th Round Draft Pick

Amsterdam receives:
SP Hisashi Kokan (ML)

I've added the last two without commentary, just to illustrate a theme through all this - Big Market teams have been just as likely as Small Market teams to deal their top picks in deals, and there doesn't really seem to be an instance where the Small Market team gets shafted. As we know, when evaluating these deals, it's all about the fact that you still have to draft, AND Sign, and watch them develop. There are no guarantees at all. If a small market team gets a stud closer or a power hitting bat that helps them in the now, they should, just as the big money boys are doing when they deal their picks.

You really can't increase your budget a whole lot without winning, and if you have to sacrifice a pick or two to bring in guys who help you win now, you do it because you may be able to increase your budget through increased revenue stream.

At the end of the day, whether a deal is fair or not, or helps one team or the other is in the eye of the beholder. There have been plenty of trades that left me scratching my head that others raved about...

Of course if winning doesn't do it, look into killing your opponents owner - you never know, he just may become a cheapskate (Michael Topham, Jr... I'm looking right at you!)

[Borealis]

The concept is neither giving discounts, nor gouging the rich. And in no form whatsoever is it collusion.

All this conversation is about is framing the mental position any small market team needs to keep in mind as they are working to compete consistently, especially when one is dealing early draft picks (which have very, very large value to teams with large revenue streams).

Well, it's collusion if a group of teams say, 'Hey, let's...'.

I'd argue that they have very, very large value to all teams. But the beauty of our league is people have different opinions on their value and the draft and how to build an organization.

[roncollins]

Ok...since we're going to just have some fun playing with some specifics here, let me start by saying that my thoughts are not intended to criticize anything, or not to be bullying, aggressive, obnoxious, or whatever. What I'm doing here is exploring cause and effect differently (and perhaps more deeply?) than maybe some folks have explored it before.

I do not think big revenue GMs are out to rip anyone off. I do not think small market GMs are simpleton rubes who are just out there getting plucked. Heck, I think it's fairly obvious that there were real life GMs of real life MLB teams back in the day that did not know how to run small market teams. For all I know, maybe I fit their mold better than any of the other PEBA GMs. But it's complex. Much, much more complex than many people think--especially given that we trade these draft picks and those MLB guys didn't (or not very many, anyway). It is worth noting that among the reasons MLB didn't install draft picks as fully tradeable is that they did not trust themselves to keep from throwing the competitive balance away in the process. so perhaps they really were smarter than we think sometimes. :)

First a few high-level comments:

1) I'm using revenue as a differentiator, because I think revenue is actually a better parameter for this discussion than Budget or "market size." I say this because there are many things you can do with boatloads of extra cash that don't show up in budgets or payrolls. Extra cash helps teams sign minor league free agents to big bonuses, and build stadiums (that then bring in more revenue!), and send players to winter ball, and grease the trade skids, and whatnot. Revenue is what makes the PEBA world go around.
2) Given #1, using budget as your baseline concept serves to obscure the full depth of the value a deal gives to big revenue teams.
3) As Kevin says, this is a system with many degrees of freedom. It is hard to simplify down to basic concepts. But we try so we can discuss them.
4) I picked $200M revenue as the demarcation of "big revenue" teams because there is a serious gap at that point. You can, of course, pick whatever levels you want, but the data suggests to me tat $200M seemed like an obvious place to draw the line.
5) 5 "big revenue" teams made >$200M revenue last year: FLA, AMS, BAK, AUR, SS. If you count CL at $197M, which is probably fair, then there are 6 big revenue teams. At that point the drop off is considerable.

Anyway...given that, and given the trades you posted, here I go...

Trade 1: Neither DUL or NJ are mega-revenue teams, hence don't really make my radar screen.

Trade 2: OKI/AUR - This is an example of a small revenue team exacting a very nice price for trading with a big revenue team. Morris runs a nice ship, and I would consider this deal to fit the concept I'm putting forward as prudent for small revenue teams to work under.

BTW ... since you mentioned it, I thought REN's moving Negrete for AUR's #1 and another interesting young prospect was a nearly perfect small revenue GM move. Negrete had already served out most of his cheap service time, and was moving into arbitration years, REN had depth at the position, and (to be honest) I think there was some question as to Negrete's studness even then. The numbers show possible holes, though all is still uncertain, of course. Regardless, even if Negrete turns it around and becomes a star, Reno extracted good future value from a big revenue team for present value that was ready to come with a multi-million dollar bill. I doubt seriously that he could have gotten an equal value anywhere else (and I'm guessing he couldn't have gotten much more from AUR ... though again, I'm guessing). This looks like a classic "today for tomorrow" deal that does not have any element that the big revenue team can use as a lever of greater future value (unless, of course, AUR actually winds up trying to trade Negrete himself).

Trade 3: YUM/KEN - Again, neither are big revenue teams, hence not on the radar screen.

Trade 4: At $139M, Kalamzoo was essentially an average revenue team (very slightly below). The question in this situation is "Could the Badgers have gotten more from SS for two high draft picks than Ishiara?" Or, similarly, could they have gotten an equal deal for a guy on a small revenue team? The answer is: I have no idea. But I also have no idea if they tried. If they could have (and if I'm honest, here I'm guessing they could), then it would have been in their best interest to do that rather than to strengthen one of the strongest rivals in their own league.

Trade 5: Neither ARL or SA is a mega-revenue team, hence don't fit the issue. That said, ARL is an above average revenue team at $170M, and SA is a below average revenue team at $110M (that $60M gap is probably cut to $30M-$40M by revenue sharing. Significant, but nothing near the mega-revenue gaps). I would agree that SA got a good price for their solid reliever--and my guess is that they couldn't have gotten much more. So, if we pretend these are actually small-to-mega revenue teams, I could be convinced to say this deal fits the mold I'm suggesting small revenue GMs follow. But given the team's situations the trade doesn't really fit the conversation.

Trade 6: AMS is a mega-revenue team, and Reno is a below average revenue team, so the REN/AMS trade meets the base criteria we're discussing. Yes, REN got about the same kind of price for Chesney as SA got for Marshall. But they were also dealing with a team who has some $30M-$40M more spending power than ARL. So, the question is asked "could they have gotten more from AMS?" Again, the answer is: I have no idea. I wasn't in on the discussion. But my pure guess based on market efficiency and the ARL deal is "yes" ... merely because (all other things being equal) the price ARL could afford to pay for a good reliever is less than the price AMS could. Part of the law of economic gravity here is that there is no "one true market value."

The fact that both sides are happy about the deal is great, but doesn't make it a winning idea.

One thing that mitigates the issue for REN, though, is that AMS is not in their division or their league. So that "back-end" parameter associated with strengthening a chief opponent is nowhere near as strong as SA helping ARL. In addition, the cost of Chesney is $3M+ more than Marshall. Overall, given these things, this was probably at least an okay deal for REN within the framework I've put forward--but mostly because they are fairly far removed from the ramifications of AMS's greater leverage of the value they received. If they made the same deal with, say, Bakersfield, it would be worse for them.

TRADE 7: RGV/AUR - Matt is a very savy trader. He knows what he's doing. Getting $500K players who can add value now for $500K players who add value later is a good thing. But again, the question is could he have gotten more from AUR for two top picks than he got? Only you can answer that question. Or, could he have gotten equivalent or better players from other mid-market teams? I have no idea. Matt tends to play all the irons all the time, though, so ... shrug. From AUR's side, assuming Castro works out, the deal basically becomes Castro at $500K for three years, and the ability to use the $7M-$15M you would have needed to buy Castro's production on the FA market for something else. While the future is unclear, given your relative positions there is every chance right now that both teams will receive value from the deal, and that AUR's total value will be considerably larger across time. No guarantees, of course.

I'm suggesting quantum randomness here, not discrete certainty. :)

TRADE 8: HAR/AUR. Bottom line, this was about HAR not wanting to take the time to draft. Yes, Jason was on the rush right this moment, but I think his entire plan every year is to trade his picks so that he doesn't have to make lists. I think it's fair to say that this is not the best in-game reason to make such trades, but it happens with some GMs of these environments, and there's nothing particularly wrong with that--this is supposed to be fun. :) As far as whether this was the "right" deal for the health of the HAR organization, though, the question of whether he could have gotten more from AUR or whether he could have made the same deal with a non-mega-revenue team still stand as valid queries.

TRADE 9: Neither CAN nor HAR are big revenue teams, so this deal doesn't fit the model. Even if it did, it's still HAR avoiding the task of making lists rather than making a baseball move specifically to strengthen his team. :)

Blah, blah, blah...

I've added the last two without commentary, just to illustrate a theme through all this - Big Market teams have been just as likely as Small Market teams to deal their top picks in deals, and there doesn't really seem to be an instance where the Small Market team gets shafted.

My conversation is not about small revenue teams getting obviously shafted in the visible production aspect of any deal. It's not even about whether the small revenue teams is happy with the deal or not. It's about the semi-hidden advantages that many such deals carry within them. In fact, what this is really about is the idea that a small market team can come away from a deal feeling very happy, and even thinking they _should_ feel happy, and that deal can still in reality be a net negative to their organization.

---

Of the nine trades you've listed, my best guess is that they break down this way:

5 were Not Applicable to the conversation.
2 were Applicable, and well done by the small revenue GM in context of the construct I'm discussing.
2 were Applicable, and the big rev team _probably_ got a very large value vs. the small rev team's much smaller boost. In both of these cases, I'm sure the small revenue GM was happy with the deal.

Then there's the Reno/AUR Negrete deal that I very much liked from the small GMness model I carry around with me.

---

I'm sorry to be a bit blunt here, but if you think I'm suggesting some weird group collusion, then I honestly I think you are wrong. I have never in any way suggested that any groups of GMs refrain from dealing with any other groups of GMs. I have suggested only that GMs of small revenue teams be aware of the idea that big revenue teams have the means about them to pay more than what WE think is "market value," and given that they are trying to win championships, they have the motivation to use those means.

What I'm discussing is basic economic theory that is like the law of gravity. There is a deep truthiness to the "fact" that when a small revenue GM helps a big revenue GM, they help them in ways that are far ranging, and in ways that the big revenue GM cannot possibly help the small revenue GM. This is not because the big revenue GM is actively trying to shaft them. It is because the basic dynamic inherent in the small revenue/big revenue power split favors them in ways that are not immediately obvious.

And given this, all I'm saying is that it's in our best interest as individual small revenue GMs to keep that clearly applicable math in mind as we work with teams that have relatively massive financial advantages.


EDIT: A final note here, I should say that if my grand master plan works out, I have every intention of LUP being one of those big revenue GMs within (say) three seasons. And when that happens, I would fully expect that when small revenue GMs work with us they will operate in their own self-serving ways under these very guidelines that I'm discussing.

[Jason]

Yes, I hate the draft beyond round 3 or 4. I would much rather consolidate picks even if it means trading several rounds for one slightly higher round.

Why? The law of diminishing returns. The amount of benefit an organization gets for the added time it takes to compile a list beyond round 4 is negligible in my humble opinion. There are a zillion things I would rather do with my time than craft a massive draft list of guys who are likely going to be cut from my organization's farm in a few seasons. I see little value in drafting beyond round 3-4. Sure there is always that "diamond in the rough" but it's not common enough for me to care.

Some people LOVE wading through the entire draft lost and picking guys they think may be that unearthed, rare diamond in the rough. I don't.

As I've always maintained, I wish there was an easier way to import lists from the game. I don't think I'm the only one that at first looks to his scout to see how they order the draft, and then makes adjustments based on needs or personal tastes. In fact, I bet MOST of us do. The only rounds I really make a lot of changes are 1-4. Then it's whatever the scout days when I'm making my long, arduous list.

I also don't think it's necessary to shorten the draft either though. As I said, many like the idea of picking in the late rounds. I just wish we were only required to prepare for the first three rounds. After that, I wish it was optional.

Finally, I don't think my choices to trade most of my later round picks has particularly hurt our franchise. The best medicine for a franchise is winning, and that comes with paying attention to the product you are putting on the field; it's no secret that our team's early success this season is directly related to the fact I have been paying a lot more attention since the offseason, signing several free agents and making several trades. THAT, in my estimation, far outweighs and trumps players you can draft beyond round 4.

Previous to this season it was also no secret that it was my intention to ACTUALLY BUILD THROUGH THE DRAFT. We were in pick acquisition mode, and went from one of the worst farm systems in the league to among one of the best -- and that occurred while getting fisted by draft day hiccups two consecutive seasons that were beyond my control because I could not be there. Therefore, I do not think it is fair to characterize my willingness to trade all my post-round three picks solely because "I don't like the make lists."

Now, who wants to trade for all my 2023 picks? PM ME! :))))

[Evas]

Ron, you've poked at me for not understanding the low revenue mindset, so I won't feel too bad about poking back a little at your approach to the high revenue mindset.

All of the points you make about the things that teams can do with cash are valid. But your focus on Revenue over Budget is not the most accurate way to measure the resources available. At a minimum you need to consider Revenue Sharing. It is a major expense for High Revenue teams - about 10% of my gross revenue.

Budget also takes in to account the Owner that a given team is dealing with, which has a considerable effect on what options a GM has for allocating his resources in the way he would prefer.

When you do that, the distribution of resources looks a little less skewed than it does on a purely revenue basis.

[roncollins]

Yes, I hate the draft beyond round 3 or 4. I would much rather consolidate picks even if it means trading several rounds for one slightly higher round.

Why? The law of diminishing returns....

As I said at the front of my post, my comments are not meant in any form as a criticism. My assessment of the trade(s) in question is/was that your position is absolutely fine. I understand your assessment of time/fun, and as I said, this is supposed to be fun and if it's not fun for you to dig through the draft detritus then you should spend your very valuable life doing things that matter more to you.

Also, it's certainly possible that your approach is good for the team. I could argue for or against, but at present I wouldn't be able to say one way or the other--hence my assessment that queries one way or the other are still valid.

Either way, neither of you trades actually spoke to the issue we are really discussing. I commented on them only because Mike included them in the discussion. My apologies if I set my comments on too much of an edge. Written word comes without tone of voice, and the pure length of my response alone may well have caused you to feel I was unhappy about your approach. I am not. I admire your point of view, as it is quite healthy for living your full life (regardless of whether it helps HAR or not!).

[roncollins]

Ron, you've poked at me for not understanding the low revenue mindset, so I won't feel too bad about poking back a little at your approach to the high revenue mindset.

Hi, Kevin (and anyone else silly enough to be reading along).

Hope you're having a great morning/afternoon/whatever. :)

Just to be certain, my question about whether you have run small market teams was not intended as a poke. It was a question--an honest, direct question. And your answer tells me that you have not experienced running a small revenue team in the way that I meant it. Playing against the AI is not a substitute for playing in the PEBA (or probably any other online league) because the AI manages in a non-human kind of way.

Regardless, I intended no poking. My apologies.

That said, I want you to always feel free to poke at me. Life is too short to be grumpy all day.

I have a few comments on (1) whether we should use budget vs. revenue in this discussion, and then (2) about the need to include the effect of revenue sharing...


BUDGET vs. OVERALL REVENUE:

In the least adversarial way I can possibly put forward, I honestly do not understand how one can consider budgets as a "more accurate" assessment of the gap between the "haves" and the "have-nots" in this discussion. If budget was a true restraint on all of our spending, then I could probably agree with you, but we spend millions and millions of dollars on things that are outside the budget. We can certainly discuss budget constraints and how they influence teams in different spaces, but to argue that something that doesn't include all spending is "more accurate" for this particular conversation seems considerably wonky to me.

Of particular note is that each of the things we can spend that free cash on further improves the future revenue stream that comes to the spending team. So revenue in "excess" of budget turns into a self-sustaining multiplier. For example, spending relatively big money on increasing the size of your ballpark provides a massive return almost immediately. Being better able to spend cash/money on winter ball and improving personnel outside the system directly influences future performance, which influences revenue, which influences profit (which then also influences, yes, budget).

So, no, I see nothing in the conversation that suggests a small revenue team should stop thinking about revenue and start thinking about budget. Please do not take my viewpoint out of context and say "Ron thinks you can ignore your budget!" Of course one manages a team to its budget within the construct of a season, that is obvious. But focusing on budget in this conversation instead of overall revenue is a loser's game if you are a small revenue team because it ignores the places where big revenue teams' leverage over small revenue teams is its greatest.

If you don't see it that way, I admit I'm kind of staggered. But that's fine. We are sportsmen here and as such can agree to disagree. But I'm guessing (hoping?) that if we spent ten minutes having an open debate about the issue, then took a league-wide vote, that every small market/budget/revenue GM in the league (more on that in a moment), would vote that revenue is a more important indicator of the gap than budget.*

* Realize that my use of "more important" in that sentence means that budget can be used (it's not completely "wrong"), but that revenue is certainly "more accurate" for this conversation.

Anyway ... on to the next topic, which is ...


INFLUENCE OF REVENUE SHARING

Below was my response in the earlier thread to your correct and proper assessment that one needs to take into account revenue sharing. I agree completely with that, and ever since your suggestion, I have been (I hope!) using that gap as the basis for my framing of the conversation.

Raw revenue is not perfect, but it's easy to calculate. And you're right. $15-$20M (which is the general range being redistributed at the top and bottom of the scale ... that number is less as you get closer to average) is not inconsiderable. However ... we share 31% of all revenue, so that means that in 2021, the raw revenue gap between the very top end and very bottom revenue teams after sharing shrunk from ~$130M to about $95M (about $18M on both ends). But that still means a big market team received $95M MORE than a small market team _after_ sharing. To put that in context, that $95M gap is more than the entire revenue stream of the low revenue teams in both the SL and IL. Or, in other words, the top revenue team in the PEBA has 2x the resources than a small revenue team after sharing. To put it in another context, that $95M is MORE THAN THE PLAYER PAYROLL OF 13 PEBA TEAMS IN CURRENT DAY PEBA.

So, yes, I agree we need to include revenue sharing in our conversation, and I've been attempting to do that. I apologize in any area I've erred since that adjustment.

That said, your charts are interesting--specifically the comparison of budget to revenue (which we agree to disagree on, but where your chart shows definitively that using budget obscures the most relevant truth abut how big the gaps are), as well as specifically where you chose to break your collection of data into $20M buckets.

Here is the same revenue chart, broken down into $10M buckets and done after sharing is included.



Now in $5M buckets



You can now see much more clearly that:

1. - There is a substantial $20M gap between the top six and everyone else
   - The span between biggest and smallest revenue streams is essentially 100% of the smallest
   - If one took away the big revenue teams, the distribution would be statistically normal

Remember, this is all after adjusting for revenue sharing. In my opinion, these gaps are very, very big relative to the PEBA's entire revenue stream. I know you don't like to hear this, or don't agree, but I think it's very important for the bottom 19 teams (teams who make less than $140M after sharing) to keep in mind just how steep the hill actually is, and that if they want to compete for championships rather than just win for a year or two, they need to change their methods of operation. Otherwise the structural advantages of big revenue teams are very hard to overcome.


THE FINAL BIG HOWDY-DO

I'm fine if anyone looks at this and says they don't care. I mean, it's just a game. But I note that the only two guys arguing against this case are GMs of big revenue teams. This honestly leaves me fighting the feeling that you're actively trying to pretend the hill is not very steep in order to keep people from climbing it better. I am successful in this fight to date, but after a while I admit the human failing of jumping to conclusions and needing to readjust my reactions at certain moments.

For me, this discussion is about helping my fellow GMs become better GMs, and hence compete against me better. Even if other small revenue GMs read this and take my ideas in different directions, at least they've thought about it differently--or maybe in some cases this conversation cements something they already kind of thought, but are now able to formulate their position better because of it.

If other folks put forward arguments or ways to think about the situation, I'm very interested in rolling them into my own frame of reference because that makes me a better GM. Your argument for using budget, for example, made me rethink my position and gave me a better view for how I consider the budgetary span across teams in the PEBA.*

* Budgets are the Owners' attempt to constrain spending on things that game manages, but it's not perfect, and the game doesn't manage everything
* Your goal as a small revenue GM is to manage your profit, and to win enough so that your owner opens up their budget. Of these two, I think profit is the more important ... but we shall see

This is not to say I will agree with every other GM. And it's not to say that every GM will agree with me. The world doesn't work that way.

The environment the PEBAverse exists in, however, does its work in a specific fashion. Whether one opinion is right or wrong in this case only matters in context of what really happens. So, regardless of who the GMs agree with or don't, having the conversation in an open fashion should help create a better world for our little competition--as long as we do our best to keep the conversation from becoming personal.

So, please, let me reiterate ... I do not think large revenue teams are doing anything purposefully deceptive or unfair or whatever. The PEBAverse has a remarkably great set of GMs that are brilliant, tight-knit, and much fun to be around. With John, Matt, and the board's guidance (and the use of fliers and other communications), I think this league is a beacon for open conversation and fair play. All the people in it and their quest for great depth and maximum fun are what make it one of the best leagues in all of existence.

This is a great place to be.

I don't want anyone to think I'm forgetting, glossing over, or attempting to tarnish that very important point.


EDITED TO FIX A COUPLE OF MY USUAL TYPOS.

[roncollins]

Here's another interesting chart that shows the multiplier effect in action.

[Morris Ragland]

Let's turn this away from the Shisa Blog and continue here...

Thanks. Talk about unintended consequences...

[Evas]

Ron, no offense taken on anything here, really. This has been nothing but a good natured philosophical discussion to me. And I agree completely that this is a great place to be.

I'll grant that Revenue After Sharing (Net Revenue) is a better measure of the total resources available to an organization than the pure Budget. You could say that "Cash" should be added in there. But you are more concerned about the inherent resource streams that teams have, not what ever transitory surplus or deficit they have at the moment.

Interesting chart. It seems like the entire league shifted up about $60M/team. By that measure, the lower revenue teams are probably closer now than they were then.

[roncollins]

Added 2008 in there.

[Evas]

Let's turn this away from the Shisa Blog and continue here...

Thanks. Talk about unintended consequences...

Hah, sorry abut that. Sort of spiraled out of control there.

[roncollins]

Well ... uh ... I think

[Coqui]

Canton and Hartford: June 8, 2021
Hartford receives:
Canton's 1st round draft pick (1-8)

Canton receives:
Hartford's 1st round draft pick (1-22)
Hartford's 2nd round draft pick (2-5)
Hartford's 3rd round draft pick (3-4)

Small market cannibalizes Small market...

Heh. I hope I'm the diner rather than the dinee.

This should be looked at as your standard NFL type trade. In fact, we consulted the NFL value chart for draft pick values in making an offer. We thought this was a deep draft and that we would get a player at 1-22 who wasn't markedly worse than what we would get at 1-8.

Anyway, time will tell whether we were right. Hartford took college catcher Hector Rodriguez at 1-8 (I have no idea whether we would have taken him or someone else - my draft notes have been shredded for confidentiality purposes, in accordance with franchise policies), who hasn't done much so far in A-ball. We took college SP (who will close if he makes the bigs) Edward Adams, who also hasn't done much so far in A ball.

Our boot in the deal ended up being:

HS C Masaki Matsuoka (actually at 2-8 rather than 2-5 thanks to the vagaries of draft order), who had a good first half season at SS-A and struggled at full-season A this year before being dropped back down to SS-A two sim weeks ago.

and

HS CF Jimmy Shelton (3-4), who looks and feels like a bust, but with just 42 professional at bats, hasn't had the chance to fail yet.

Anyway, as to the larger discussion, once I have a few hours to catch up, I may have some pithy comments. I'd be interested in the same charts as they pertain to player payroll, though, rather than budgets or revenues.

[Jason]

Heh. I hope I'm the diner rather than the dinee.

This should be looked at as your standard NFL type trade. In fact, we consulted the NFL value chart for draft pick values in making an offer. We thought this was a deep draft and that we would get a player at 1-22 who wasn't markedly worse than what we would get at 1-8.

Anyway, time will tell whether we were right. Hartford took college catcher Hector Rodriguez at 1-8 (I have no idea whether we would have taken him or someone else - my draft notes have been shredded for confidentiality purposes, in accordance with franchise policies), who hasn't done much so far in A-ball. We took college SP (who will close if he makes the bigs) Edward Adams, who also hasn't done much so far in A ball.

Our boot in the deal ended up being:

HS C Masaki Matsuoka (actually at 2-8 rather than 2-5 thanks to the vagaries of draft order), who had a good first half season at SS-A and struggled at full-season A this year before being dropped back down to SS-A two sim weeks ago.

and

HS CF Jimmy Shelton (3-4), who looks and feels like a bust, but with just 42 professional at bats, hasn't had the chance to fail yet.

Anyway, as to the larger discussion, once I have a few hours to catch up, I may have some pithy comments. I'd be interested in the same charts as they pertain to player payroll, though, rather than budgets or revenues.

I think the original poster was on your side, stating that I was just "trading my picks so I didn't have to make lists" and that "I could have gotten more than I did." (paraphrase)

Two notes:

-Very few people initiate reasonable initial trade offers that are remotely interesting. EVERY season I am looking to consolidate picks and EVERY season it is like crickets. When offers do come in, they end up being negotiated to something similar as above.

-No offense James, because I like Matsuoka and Adams who you picked up, but I am taking H-Rod over that three person lot every day of the week. Therefore, I don't think this was a terrible trade even in hindsight.

This still has nothing to do with the topic at hand, nor am I offended. I just wanted to make it clear that I don't just give away assets without careful consideration.