Skip to content

Super Sleeper Alert

Everyone’s talking about the Tribe’s front-line starters, but look who’s been the most effective so far this spring:

Bruce Chen, March 5: 2 IP, 0 R, 0 H, 3 K, 0 BB

Let Mendoza overpay for Kluber in the fifth. Grab Chen ten rounds later and get 90% of the stats.

Saget/Nookie Transcript

I suppose I should get Saget’s permission before sharing his emails with me Nookie but we shoot first at GCBL Blog and ask questions later…


Hi Nookie,

I will be sending the following offer through the league e-mail engine too:

I would like to offer my #87 overall for your #65 overall and my #90 overall for your #76 overall…in return I would send my #92 for your #104, my #120 for your #177 (big jump), my #148 for your #188 (another big jump up), my #204 for your #216, my #245 for your #261, and my #316 for your #328…I think you will find that this will bundle a lot of picks and make them back-to-back so you have 2 consecutive picks in multiple parts of the draft

In summary:

I give you:  #87, #90, #92, #120, #148, #204, #245, #316 

   for your   #65, #76, #104, #177, #188, #216, #261, #328

Thanks….look forward to your reply

Sagets Sluggers


Sure, no problem.  But, I have to ask, how are you coming up with your formula for what picks to offer/trade for?  Just curious.


Thanks for the quick response.  I do mock draft sheets and pinpoint where I can move up or down depending on who I want to pick or where.  I will give you an example ( with a player I am not targeting): Let’s say I just have to have Brett Gardner and he is ranked #99 on yahoo and I hold pick #90… order to maximize my ability to pick Brett Gardner up I want to move up from slot 90 because someone may pick him up with their picks between 80-89. I try to move up to a slot where there is another player I want ranked at the slot I move up to but probably wont be there. Let’s say I trade slot 90 for slot 65 and nelson cruz is yahoo rank 66. Cruz will probably be gone but Gardner will probably be available.

So if I miss Cruz then I get Gardner who I wanted all along. The other aspect is offering a fair deal.

Let’s say at slot 120 the player I want is ranked yahoo at 280. Well I can move down significantly from slot120 to get my yahoo ranked 280 guy.  

I break up the draft slots from 1-60/61-120/121-180 and so on. If I want to move up within tier 1 (1-60) and I am offering a pick  from tier 2 (61-120)  lets say slot 120…..I multply however many slots I move up by a factor between 2 to 2.5. That’s how I offered 90 for 76 (14 slots up) in tier 2 and in return I offered 140ish for 200ish (60 slots) since I was offering a tier slot when I moved up within a higher tier I multiplied the slots I moved up (14) by 2.5 which was 35 slots. Thus if I send you 120 my asking price should start no higher than 160.

The other draft pick swaps where you moved up only 10-15 were sweeteners plus I got picks where I had back to back slots….less hassle.

I will do the math and send it to Copp….Thanks!

Commish Cogent Comeback

Mendoza replies:

“No. A reliever strat still works. Low innings low Hrs allowed.”

…OK, OK, I see what he’s saying, but I’m not quite sure I agree.

Low IP = better chance at winning HR Allowed, but punts both Wins and Quality Starts. Punting two cats to win one is scruffy business.

Maybe it’s something of a wash, I don’t know. If you do go get the 8th inning guys, you still really need a few of them to take over as closers, like last year?

Konfusing Kommish Kuote

Oof. KKK? That’s not good. Can somebody else start writing headlines?

Commish writes in part:

“One thing I would mention though is please consider an minimum inning increase to avoid the all reliever strategy.”

…and that makes zero sense.

The all reliever strategy, oft employed by this writer, is actually less attractive without Holds. With holds as a cat, that was a likely win every week if you ran seven or eight set-up guys, which I often did. Without holds, that likely win disappears.

If anything, the IP minimum could be done away with completely. Run all the 7th/8th inning guys you want.

Now I’m not advocating to remove IP minimum, I just don’t get the logic for an increase.

The Drop Off

Depending on your view of taking Clayton Kershaw early (you shouldn’t: how can you take a guy who should put up zeroes in two cats, SV, and HLD, when there are bats to take who can contribute in seven cats?) there’s a pretty serious falloff after 1.06 or 1.07 (including Kershaw)

3 OF: Trout, Stanton, Cutch

3 CI: Miggy (3B/1B), Goldy, Abreu

After that, it’s health risks (Bautista, Tulo, Braun) or guys that have holes in their game (Adam Jones can’t walk…) etc.

Do yourself a favour and trade for a top-6 stud. Makes the rest of the draft go so much smoother.

Mailbag Follow-up: Pederson/Polanco

Saget comments:

I was thinking if I were to entertain Pederson….it woulkd be at slot #90-100

Follow Up ?…..Better Year: Polanco (Pirates) or Pederson

…and that’s a good question. The interesting (frustrating!) thing with the Pirates is that unless Polanco takes a big step up, the offence is much weaker this year with Russell Martin’s production (2014: .832 OPS) leaving and not being replaced. No, Martin’s not going .832 OPS this year but it’s still a long way down to A-Rod’s BFF Francisco Cervelli and the various internal options who filled in while Martin was on the DL last year.

Looking at the lineup card, Starling Marte should lead off lots, Josh Harrison is figuring it out, and Walker hits righties. Call Harrison and  Walker #2 and #5 or #5 and #2 based on Clint Hurdle’s mood. Cutch #3, Pedro Alvarez #4. Which means Polanco hits #6 at best, but might be #7 if Jordy Mercer or the Korean FA signing Kang starts hot. (The shitty catcher-du-jour bats 8th.)

Pederson won’t start much higher, especially if J-Roll is pencilled in as the leadoff man, but J-Roll is 36 and that pencil is faint. The Dodgers will want to keep easing Pederson in, but as soon as he’s ready, he’s leading off.

Polanco struggles vs LHP, whereas Pederson has hit all pitching equally well.

Pederson > Polanco 2015. Pederson firmly third round talent. Polanco might have third-round upside, but is more of an eighth round pick.

Mailbag: Joc Pederson

Hey CL,

Any thoughts on Joc Pederson for the blog!?  The dirt sheets I’ve been studying either have him the greatest thing since Bo Jackson (first player in PCL history to record a 30/30 season) or he will strike out too much and Dodgers will resort to a Heisey/Ethier platoon.

Dr. Teeth

Dear Animal,

Well, first thing’s first. There’s no point in the Dodgers holding Pederson down to try to get an extra year of team control, unlike say, Kris Bryant on the Cubs. That ship has sailed. He’s going to start in CF and we’ll see how we go.

He’s 20/20 for me this year, and in our league is comparable to Hunter Pence for 2015. Pence is what 10 years older, and Pederson should get you a few more steals, but the risk factor is that Pederson needs to stay up. Pence is Yahoo #37, MDC #23-#33, and I think if a drafter’s got two solid guys with his first two picks, Pederson is fine as third round talent.

Pederson does strike out more than Pence, but throughout the high minors Pederson has also walked a ton. So in the regular fantasy world he runs the risk of being an AVG liability, but in our league I think, like Pence, he’ll be OBP-neutral in the 330s. The ability to take a walk will also make the Ks easier to bear in real baseball for LA.

In your personal situation, it’s a little bit scruffy to take Pederson at #31 because your first three picks are #3, #31, #77 (what the fuck happened there, Son?). But you know what? given that you’re starting with (Cutch, Stanton, Goldy, Miggy, or Abreu) at #3, WHY NOT take Pederson at #31, especially if your first pick is CI? If he is Bo Jackson, you’ve put yourself in the perfect spot.

Unless things change drastically in the next four weeks, Pederson’s not getting by me in the third round, guaranteed.

Good Old Yahoo O-Rank has him #236 ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.