Draft Strategy

[worrierking]

There's another downside to drafting guys you don't want. What if you get them? Then you have a team full of players you didn't want and a low waiver pick. I understand most of the times it's for guys in the last few slots who you can assume will be picked by others, but I like drafting guys I want and letting waivers be for the guys who didn't get what they wanted.

[J-Pav]

[b:b7df380859]Jerlins[/b:b7df380859]:

I'm trying to understand where you're coming from.

First off, what we're trying to solve is autodraft strategy. You're describing an autodraft of players regularly chosen very high (Johnson, Santana, Abreu and Castillo are all generally chosen in the first or second pick). You know you're not going to get them all, but you (hypothetically) pick them all very high anyway. You could very easily (and likely) miss all four of those picks. So what you're describing is, in addition to listing several players you will likely not get to begin with, throwing away autodraft picks in order to get a higher waivers pick, with this theoretically solving all your teams' woes.

My contention is:

1. You'll rarely or never get those kind of first four picks, so why make them in the first place?
2. A number one waiver pick won't solve missing those four picks.
3. Create an autodraft of guys you WILL expect to get.
4. Use waivers and the FA pool to fill a few holes, not to comprise the core of your team.

As for my team, as I listed, I got all three waivers picks in order (1-2-3, Clark, Helton, Rollins). I did not get Drew, but wouldn't expect to at number 11. I did not want or miss anyone else, and no, I did not feel I missed out because I didn't have a higher pick. I could've had number two and still missed Drew, who was the only guy I would've taken over Helton.

I think it's terrific you can get a great guy with a number one pick. I've gotten RJ, Santana and Bonds as well with high picks (although high picks for me imply I missed a lot of guys I wanted, to begin with, and had to scrap a strategy or theme and rebuild from what was left).

But if you like Bonds and Drew so much, list them 1 and 2, then build your autodraft with the necessary low dollar values needed as the supporting cast. When you do this, you can raise those popular low dollar guys higher on the list and beat competitors to the punch (Walker, Hammond, etc), because everyone else is often chasing the same carrots (Abreu, Kotsay, Castillo, etc).

You're implying that getting Bonds and/or Drew with a number one pick will save your team as a whole? Has that been the case with your teams??

My experience has been, if I have a high waiver pick, my team likely stinks and needs to be rebuilt from scratch. If I have a low waiver pick, my team is solid and I need to only plug a few holes. You seem to want to celebrate being in a situation in which I would expect to struggle. Is your record bearing out your "strategy" with wins?

So I guess I'm still confused by what you're trying to say, but if it works for you, more power to you.

[Jerlins]

I normally still get my top picks, Wilkerson, Dunn, Roberts, Santana (50% of the time with him) of the time, my middle picks (role players such as Gomez, Amezaga, Halama). That gives me a good base. Seems to work often enough for me. I'd prefer a top-notch base, a top notch bunch of role players, and a high pick as opposed to submitting to choosing second level players for the sake of obtaining everyone you choose. Unlike most, I'm not partial to the Frank Thomas, Troy Glaus, headache every night wondering if they remain healthy types that are often chosen in leagues, but thats my preference. All I ask is for 4 or 5 hitters from the autodraft, my bit players, and 1 or 2 of my pitchers I want.

Two different philosophies that work for both of us. You've had lots of success, as have I. Guess the answer to the original question becomes...
whatever you're comfortable with.

[Jerlins]

Just on an aside note, one of my strategies also include never choosing a closer or a shortstop in my drafts. There are plenty of servicable closers remaining after the draft, and shortstops with 2 ratings are plentiful. If I get Guzman instead of Rollins, its not a big deal. I prefer leaving my production with the other positions on the field.

[worrierking]

I agree with you there Jerlins, I almost never put a closer on my autodraft list. I might put a couple of innings-eating R2 guys, but there are so many options at closer, I don't usually worry about it.

I usually don't worry about CF either. When I play in a hitter's park (most of the time) either Wilkerson, A Jones, Finley or somebody is available in waivers. Everybody seems to go for the pitcher's park guys like Kotsay and Pierre.

By leaving those spots blank I can put two choices down for some of the tougher positions or try to grab a bunch of SPs and sort through them later.

[CHARLESBELL]

Since I usually go to great pains to try to get a good cf/ss, I'm intrigued by the strategy of not even drafting for them and picking from whatever is left.

Maybe I'm doing something wrong here. On my last team I botched the cf pick, settled for cameron, gave up on cameron and am now hoping for better results from dejesus. I did not particularly like the options I had to choose from in the fa pool both pre and post waivers.

I'm curious, what is the worst picks you had to accept from the FA pool as a result of that strategy?

[Jerlins]

Always try to get a CF myself, normally Wilkerson, Kotsay, Finley since the majority of 05 has been in lefty friendly parks. When I have played in righty slanted, nuetral, or pitchers parks, I find the choices for CF much more plentiful so its not as high a priority.

[Jerlins]

J-Pav, regarding your team and its players, based on the leagues I've been in, which is not as frequent as you have been, I've always seen Gonzo, Hairston, Burroughs, Reyes, Gordon and Seo to mention a few, ALWAYS available come waiver time. Would it have been just as beneificial to you to eliminate these from your original pre-draft and shoot for the higher pick, or are these these players sought after in most of the leagues you've been in? Just curious, not questioning your strategy or thought process.

[J-Pav]

What I really wanted on this team was Bonds.

What I was trying to do was build a very high clutch hitting line-up behind Bonds. Pudge and Damon are two of the best clutch hitters in the set. I have had zero interest in clutch hitting this season, so I'm trying to see what I've been missing. Merloni and Taguchi are also good clutch hitters.

As you saw with my [i:c80534adf8]Leisuretime Mommies[/i:c80534adf8] team, Pudge-Hunter-Burnitz have appeared to add no extra value to my team offense (which has been terrible), but it's hard to tell because my pitching stinks so badly also. Still, I'm tinkering.

Yes, the guys you listed are almost always available, even in the post waivers. But if I already had Thomas-Bonds-Pudge-Damon hitting 2-3-4-5, what would I really need to add in the way of firepower? A high waiver pick helps me little at this point, because of the salary issues. And as it turned out, Clark-Helton-Rollins were not bad 11th pick waiver additions.

Taguchi, LuGo and Seo were acquired post waivers.

In truth, whatever I need is always available to me in the post waivers, largely because the pool of 2006 players is so deep. If not LuGo, Sweeney. If not LuGo or Sweeney, then Dejesus. If not LuGo, Sweeney or Dejesus...

This time I actually took Gordon/Isringhausen high middle just to not have to worry about my bullpen. Normally to often, I will not take a closer until waivers or later, like [b:c80534adf8]Worrierking[/b:c80534adf8] wrote; however, this particular combo has been extremely effective for me on other teams, and like I said, I just wanted that aspect of my team over and done with.

I guess to answer your question directly, I'm pretty specific about what I want from an autodraft. So, no, I won't not (?) take guys I do want for more popular players I won't get, just to improve my waiver situation.

Again, if I can get whoever I need from the 11th spot, why would I need to position myself higher? I guess that if you find it works for you, then it works for you. From my perspective, it seems like extra work which yields no added advantage.

[Jerlins]

Well I've always been of the mindset of building my team (like most others) both on my ballpark and those in my my division, therefore, after a select few I feel I need for my base team, its really a matter of building the rest of it to fit both my team and those who will oppose it. I'm better able to to that by hand, at least in the first few slots, than I am blindly heading into the draft without knowing my division's strengths, weaknesses, and ballparks. No sense (at least for me) in building a team with 100% focus on my ballpark alone. If I were to build a Wrigley team with strictly righties for hitters and pitchers in the draft, only to find 2 Sheas and a Safeco in my division come waiver time, well, I would want the best choice available to help me AS LONG AS I had my foundation set. The key is getting your foundation and building from there. Of course, if I were to receive none of the key players, then yes, it is most likely a better strategy to have done what you do.

Again, there probably is no right way to draft, just what puts you in the comfort zone. It's all about preferences and I'm guessing why we are so enchanted with this game.