Just trying to figure out if I'm looking at it in a skewered way.

When I attempt to acquire a veteran player, I look at who much playing time I'll get from him(either this season, next or for his career if he's signed long enough) and compare it to what sort of production I'd get from the prospect in his first 5 pro seasons(3 minimum salary, 2 arb years).

If it's something like 600 AB to 2200 AB, the veteran better be head and shoulders better than the prospect. Because of this, I usually pass on the deal because the vet is never that much better.

i of course don't think things thru as much as most hbd addicts. that said, if my team is close to looking like it can contend, i will trade a good prospect for a young vet who can help immediately.

if the vet in question is older, the likelihood that i will trade one of my better prospects goes down quickly.

i think one of my main 'problems' is i'm always thinking of future seasons instead of going all in to try to win right away.

I think a lot of owners look at it that way also, though I feel thats a misconception.

I feel that obviously the older a player is, the less you are going to get for him in terms of prospects, and vice versa.

If a 28-early 30 year old is being traded, I feel the prospects should be of greater value than the ML vet for two main reasons - Theres the immediate impact at the ML level, and the developmental / injury questions that a prospect needs to grow through. This is somewhat to a lesser extent in HBD than in real baseball, but I feel it needs to exist in HBD as well.

if an older player is being traded - then you see a slipping scale of talent, at least you would from me.

At younger levels, I feel you should be trading approximately equal values on each side

to me, developmental stuff is negated in the fact that the prospect costs almost nothing

and even when they make it to the bigs you can get several 'cheap' seasons out of em (all the while they're still improving)

with older vets, they are declining and are more expensive to replace than a prospect

To be clear, when I say "vet", I'm talking about someone on the downside of his career. Obviously, if he's 27 and signed for 5 seasons, I'm getting more than 600 AB from him.

I'm thinking early 30s, maybe 1 year on his deal. Maybe he'll resign, maybe he won't.

unless he's a stud starting pitcher, i aint giving up much for someone like that

Yeah, that kinda how I feel. I know overalls aren't the way to go but I'm not listing a bunch of ratings. I feel a 72 overall(quality BL pitcher) at 31-32 years old isn't worth a 22-23 y/o 3 year pro who is BL-ready and will be comparable quality in a couple of seasons. It just seems to me that I'm trading 1-2 seasons for 5+ seasons.

i agree generally, although i don't do the AB comparison.

a lot also depends on need, obviously. that can take two forms: pushing you over the top, and unclogging depth at a position. the first one is easy: i once traded 3 good prospects for an older vet in the last year of his contract, which you might not have done. but he did fine for me all season, and hit a walk-off, come-from-behind HR with 2 outs in the 9th in game 7 of the world series for me. couldn't make it up.

the second one happened to me just this season. i traded a stud C/DH, a young RP, and a SP prospect for a big SP vet... but i had a comparable C/DH, and young pitching depth. might as well make a move since the guys i gave up, while high quality, were redundant in my system.

if the vet is a a potential signable type A or B, consider the fact you could have picks coming back.

a prospect in exchange for 1 year of vets and a potential prospect(s).

I actually traded a first rounder and a supplemental pick for a couple of 35/36 y/o pitchers in the last year of their deals last season. I only got about 70 innings from them but I figured they'd be Type B FA and I needed some down the stretch pitching. The guys I gave up were redundant on my team.

Certain situations change my rules if I'm making a run.

Depends on if you want a WS ring or not? Most owners will offer a prospect of lesser quality for a vet say who is 32-34 who can get you a close 600 slg%.

Because it's always the same, "half season rental". I might be more willing to trade a 19 year old prospect, who is 3-4 seasons away than a 23-24yr. old prospects who is closer to the show.

I think people looking at future seasons can sometimes hinder their chances of winning a WS. In my short time in HBD I have noticed alot of teams aren't willing to deal a prospect in order to give their team a shot in the arm for the playoff run by acquiring a proven vet who may be in the last or 2nd last year of a contract. I don't understand the thinking. There are 12 teams that make the playoffs and of those, someone has to think their team could use a boost. Or does everyone who makes the playoffs already think they have the best team in the league? Prospects will be more valuable because of the low contract but if they are never supplemented with veteran talent what is the point of having them?

I'll make the move but I have to get "value". I'm not giving up my top prospect for 60 innings of pitching unless I'm getting one of the top pitchers in the league. And, because of comp picks, you aren't getting one of the top pitchers in the league if he's in the last year of his deal without giving up two of your top prospects.

This is unlike MLB because, for the most part, prospects are a sure thing.

It depends on if I'm getting comp picks back. I'm pretty much never going to trade a worthwhile prospect unless I am getting comp picks back.

I've traded for 29-30 yr. old with contract running out the following season who were rated high 80's, I assume the former owner thought was a FA no matter what who then resigned an extension with me.

Those are the nice trades that work out better for you. So it's hard to predict how many at bats you might get or innings you might get with a trade like that.