Great discussion today from HMP on the impact of Ottoneu arbitration on the trade deadline (8/31), which is essentially a keeper question. Easier to post the full discussion here for future reference for those with questions regarding the arbitration process:
HMP [1:06 PM] (@hartspassman)
Curious to get the group’s take on a strategy question from an Ottoneu rookie. I am playing for 2017. I have Dahl at $1. He is surely the most likely target on my team for allocation in October. Knowing that, is it better to deal him now for multiple parts, or hold him and hope that his ultimate price isn’t too crazy? I’m anticipating that he’ll climb to $15-20. 5x5 league.
Micah [1:10 PM] (@MicahN)
Hold
I’d be surprised if Dahl got arbed up that high unless he is literally your only surplus player
John [1:11 PM] (@pittsburgh)
Even if he does get arbed that high, wouldn’t you rather trade him after he absorbs all your arb dollars?
Chad Young [1:14 PM]
Do not trade players because they might get arbed
Justin Vibber [1:35 PM]
I just pulled the roster of every team that is currently in 1st place across my 11 FGPts leagues, no player is owned on more than four of those first place teams
Joe Douglas [1:35 PM]
Or maybe those 1st place teams just traded for Ortiz or Miggy. That’s happened in my leagues.
Justin Vibber [1:36 PM]
Those players are Zobrist/Dozier/Carrasco/Ortiz/Betances/Villar/Cruz
HMP [1:46 PM]
@pittsburgh: true, but on the flip side, he’ll fetch a lot more at his current price.
@chadyoung: I’m trying to grasp the strategic logic. Why not?
Justin Vibber [1:49 PM]
@hartpassman Mostly because that player attracting arb isn’t a bad thing, 90% of the time that’s just fewer $ being allocated to your other players
Chad Young [1:56 PM]
Because getting arbed is a good thing
It means the player is underpaid. and it means someone else is NOT getting arbed
Basically, if you have Dahl or don’t have Dahl, you are probably going to get $25-$30 in arb total.
If $10 goes to Dahl, that is someone else who did not get hit.
Think of arb on a team level, not a player level
You want allllllll the players who might get arbed. those are the best assets
Justin Vibber [2:00 PM]
I like to have zero assets that should be arbed, that way my opponents waste their allocations on guys I’m going to cut 
Chad Young [2:06 PM]
Know you are kidding, @vibbot but that is the one extreme here where my logic breaks down. if you have 39 overpriced players and a $5 dahl, you might as well trade him instead of waiting for him to be $30
Chad Young [2:16 PM]
Did that help, @hartpassman?
Basically, you should value guys based on their current price and expected value, regardless of arb. you will get hit with arb no matter what. “downgrading” a player because he might/will get hit with arb dollars is putting an artificially lower value on a guy than he deserves.
HMP [2:24 PM]
It did. I think I mostly agree. Especially with your comment above about having only one surplus player.
But I think “regardless of arb” is potentially mistaken. If you know (or can reasonably guess) that a given player will get hit with arb to a level that makes him overpriced, it would seem that trading hm before that time has some appeal, assuming the return haul is sufficient
I don’t advocate trading for trading’ sake. But there should be no sacred cows on your roster, and I’d rather have two surplus players than one correctly-priced player, generally speaking.
John [2:26 PM]
If dahl’s going to draw twenty dollars of arbitration, then you should expect whatever you’re dealing him for to get twenty dollars of arb.
If your league is arbing someone until they’re overpriced, your team is hopelessly bad or the league is doing it wrong.
HMP [2:29 PM]
First, why is that “doing it wrong”? Second, since each owner makes his own arb decisions independently (right?), isn’t it possible that the league as a whole overshoots a price because of those 11 independent decisions?
And getting back to the Dahl example, if the return haul divides up the arb in a manner that keeps each player fairly priced or even at surplus, then it doesn’t bother me that the same 20 in arb would be divided among them.
Chad Young [2:35 PM]
honestly, you are better served getting one player crushed in arb and becoming a non-keeper than having 5 guys get hit a little and being fairly valued
John [2:35 PM]
You see arb results in real time as other owners add them.
Chad Young [2:36 PM]
Extreme example - you have four players all at $1 all worth $20. if one gets hit with $20 in arb, you cut him and now have 3 players with $57 combined surplus. if they each get $5, you now have 4 players with $56 in combined surplus. more surplus on fewer players is better
HMP [2:40 PM]
That’s a very good example @chadyoung and I think it illustrates your point
@pittsburgh: it’s in real-time? Really? That surprises me.
John [2:41 PM]
You have to hit refresh, but it’s not a hidden process.
Chad Young [2:42 PM]
you can see who is getting dollars arbed to them, but not who put them there
John [2:43 PM]
You can see who assigned them afterwards.
HMP [2:43 PM]
Thanks. I didn’t know that.
And I appreciate the discussion here. Thanks for that as well.
Chad Young [2:44 PM]
i thought you could only see which teams allocated and which players were allocated too, but not who made which allocations. is that wrong?
John [2:45 PM]
After January 31st, when you go to arbitration results, it also shows who each team allocated to. (I might have the link name wrong, but it does exist.)
Justin Vibber [2:47 PM]
@pittsburgh is right, you can definitely see who each team allocated to. You can’t directly find out which teams allocated to a particular player, but you can find it by looking at each team one by one to see all the players they allocated to
John [2:49 PM]
I use it to make retribution lists.
I just peruse it to make sure teams aren’t trading allocation dollars on an $14 Adam Conley and an $8 Ben Paulsen.
Chad Young [3:05 PM]
I would actually like to use that for trade purposes
Every year a guy or two on my teams get hit that surprise me
I would love to approach that owner about a trade
HMP [3:10 PM]
@pittsburgh: you didn’t answer my question. Why is it wrong to arb a player to a point where he is overpriced?
John [3:12 PM]
Because he gets cut and owner is shed of the money.
Say you have two guys paid five dollars and worth twenty, and twenty-two dollars are allocated.
If all twenty-two go to one guy, you cut him and still have one player at five dollars.
Justin Vibber [3:14 PM]
It’s all about that surplus!
John [3:14 PM]
If the twenty-two dollars are evenly split, you have two sixteen dollar players you’re keeping.
lagamer [3:28 PM]
@hartpassman think of it this way. I have a team that has a bunch of players who are undervalued. One of them is Jose Fernandez at $26. If Fernandez gets $33 of arb (max possible), I just cut a $59 Fernandez and have a team that took $0 in arb. Yes, I’ve lost Fernandez, but I can probably buy him for $45 in the upcoming draft…now I have all the same players plus $14, which is a win for me. I think the best strategy is to arb an opponent’s player up to what you think he will go for in the draft (or maybe $1 less) making it difficult to decide and saddling that opponent’s team with the most kept arb dollars.
HMP [3:32 PM]
These make sense. Thanks. I wonder though if there’s a situation in which you WANT the other owner to drop the player so you have a shot at him. For example, if your team desperately needs a 2b in the draft, it might make sense to load up other teams’ second basemen in order to free up as many as possible for draft day. It’s a myopic strategy, but not necessarily a bad one under certain circumstances.
Chad Young [3:32 PM]
agreed with @lagamer on this, but i know there are other owners who like to use arb to force players into FA
Personally, i think you hurt yourself by doing that, though
All those teams whose 2Bs you turned into cuts now a) need 2B and b) have less negative impact from arbitration than you do
So you have increased inflation league wide but in a way that favors the teams you were trying to steal a 2B from
HMP [3:33 PM]
It seems risky. But the prevailing surplus-focus here presumes that owners have perfect information on draft day and will (a) recognize where they have surplus, and (b) draft “correctly”. As we know, that’s the goal but it’s near impossible to do.
John [3:35 PM]
I firmly believe others’ mistakes don’t justify my own.
Chad Young [3:36 PM]
i don’t assume anyone has perfect information, per se. but i do assume that teams are trying to maximize the production their roster and that the more players they have who produce more value than they are paid, the better.
HMP [3:54 PM]
Sure. That’s obvious.
John [3:56 PM]
I’m not sure I see the logic. Is arbing over what you think a player is worth able to hedge against imperfect information?
Chad Young [4:04 PM]
Another example, related to arbing guys up until they get cut - using your situation, @hartpassman, you need a 2B. i have a 2B at $15 that you think is worth $25. Other teams have allocated $10 to him, so now he is $25 and you have to make a decision. If you think I think he is worth $25, you assume I will keep him and if you want me to cut him, you have to allocate to $26. Of course, you also have to assume I would pay $25 for him at auction, in which case you would have to bid $26 to win him - and you do not want to do that, you think he is worth $25. If you think he is worth $25 and hope to get him at auction for $25 or less, the only way that happens is if I (and others) value him less than you…but if that is the case, I will already plan to cut him at $25 (since you value him at $25 and I value him less).
It’s just a thought experiment, and there are a lot of assumptions built in there about rational behavior, but i think the point stands - if you value a guy at $X and have to allocate above $X to get him cut, then you also have to assume that other owners value him the same. your best bet is always to allocate up to $X and no higher - if it turns out you value him more highly than i do, I will cut him and you can bid on him up to $X (which I will not be willing to pay). if we value him the same or I value him more highly, you have maxed out my cap hit, which is good for you
John [4:07 PM]
I rather keep the player’s salary down and try to trade for him.
Chad Young [4:11 PM]
that’s another good call out, @pittsburgh, though for me that is definitely secondary, only cause I don’t want to do something like avoid putting $2 on the player I most want to put that $2 on in the hopes I can trade for him instead.
Joe Catanzariti [8:10 PM] (@joecatz)
I’ve tried every philosophy in the book and am pretty convinced that the best way to arb is to make it simple.
- I put $1 on the highest surplus asset on every team.
- I take the five best offensive surplus assets and add $2 to each (if a team owns more than one, I may split it, and then add $2 to asset number 6 etc…
- Repeat for pitchers.
I don’t play payback, or target higher finishers, or grudge arb, or worry about guys I want to trade for. I just want to pull surplus away from every clear keeper I can and keep every dollar I put out there on your roster and out of the auction pool.
John [8:14 PM]
I disagree. I want to arb the owner, not the player. I’m not wasting money on inferior owners because one of their prospects hit.
HMP [8:23 PM]
I should start saying really dumb things then, so @pittsburgh doesn’t arb me. 
Joe Catanzariti [9:02 PM]
@pittsburgh: it’s very rare that that is the case. Conversely, a team at the top that has considerable surplus typically owns multiple assets if they’re at the top or very few that are deserving of more than $1
Henry Woodbury [9:08 PM]
I tend to work top of the standings down, though there are always a few wildly cheap players that deserve an extra buck no matter who owns them. I also don’t worry too much. Arbitration is a crowd source activity.