Cuddyer's Anonymous

[DOUGHBOYS]

Insomnia for me, so with blurry eyes, some grammatical mistakes could be had. Be nice.
I am involved with my fifth slow draft of the year. Each draft, like the others that will follow, is different. There is a trend this year of more starting pitchers being taken earlier than in drafts leading up to this year. At the same time, closers are being waited on more this year.
Those are just trends, and like any trends they can continue or end suddenly. During these drafts that started a couple of days after the last pitch of the 2011 season, one player has trended up more than any other player. This player went in the 12th round of the first draft, the Pre-Mature E-Draftulation Draft, and has zoomed to the sixth round of a $150 draft that is ongoing now.
The player is Michael Cuddyer.
Cuddyer was traded from Minnesota, and will go from one of the worst hitting parks to one of the best in Colorado. In effect, drafters are hoping that Coors hits 10 more homers for Cuddyer next year. Of course, drafting Cuddyer this high results in comments from the peanut gallery, or the other drafters chiming in that Cuddyer was over drafted. These remarks could be serious, jealousy, or ball busting.

We all have the same information on Cuddyer. We will use that information in different ways when it comes to drafting him. We know that Cuddyer is not getting any younger, he'll be 33 this year. We know he has only hit 30 homers once in his career. But, we also know the Coors angel has helped others.
Cuddyer has also been drafted by 'Anonymous' in the two drafts that 'Anonymous' has been involved in. So, if you are in a draft with 'Anonymous', you are forewarned.
Since 'Anonymous' could be any player(s), no 'secrets' are being given away here.
Maybe a new help group can be started, 'Cuddyers Anonymous'.

Anonymous and we know that Cuddyer stole a career high 11 bases last year. A figure that could come in handy at a non-speed position like first base. He could continue that with the Rockies as they like to run. A great stat Cuddyer has going for him is his instinct on when to run. He has been successful 40 of 46 attempts during the last six years. He is also dual eligible in the outfield and if injuries hit the Rockies, he could gain status at 2b or 3b.
Average is pleasant also in that Cuddyer has only dipped below .270 once during the last six years.

There's a lot to like about Cuddyer for 2012.
Is his rise from the 12th round to the sixth or seventh round justified by the trade to Coors?
In my mind,a possibility
In Anonymous mind, there is little doubt.

[Money]

Insomnia for me, so with blurry eyes, some grammatical mistakes could be had. Be nice.
I am involved with my fifth slow draft of the year. Each draft, like the others that will follow, is different. There is a trend this year of more starting pitchers being taken earlier than in drafts leading up to this year. At the same time, closers are being waited on more this year.
Those are just trends, and like any trends they can continue or end suddenly. During these drafts that started a couple of days after the last pitch of the 2011 season, one player has trended up more than any other player. This player went in the 12th round of the first draft, the Pre-Mature E-Draftulation Draft, and has zoomed to the sixth round of a $150 draft that is ongoing now.
The player is Michael Cuddyer.
Cuddyer was traded from Minnesota, and will go from one of the worst hitting parks to one of the best in Colorado. In effect, drafters are hoping that Coors hits 10 more homers for Cuddyer next year. Of course, drafting Cuddyer this high results in comments from the peanut gallery, or the other drafters chiming in that Cuddyer was over drafted. These remarks could be serious, jealousy, or ball busting.

We all have the same information on Cuddyer. We will use that information in different ways when it comes to drafting him. We know that Cuddyer is not getting any younger, he'll be 33 this year. We know he has only hit 30 homers once in his career. But, we also know the Coors angel has helped others.
Cuddyer has also been drafted by 'Anonymous' in the two drafts that 'Anonymous' has been involved in. So, if you are in a draft with 'Anonymous', you are forewarned.
Since 'Anonymous' could be any player(s), no 'secrets' are being given away here.
Maybe a new help group can be started, 'Cuddyers Anonymous'.

Anonymous and we know that Cuddyer stole a career high 11 bases last year. A figure that could come in handy at a non-speed position like first base. He could continue that with the Rockies as they like to run. A great stat Cuddyer has going for him is his instinct on when to run. He has been successful 40 of 46 attempts during the last six years. He is also dual eligible in the outfield and if injuries hit the Rockies, he could gain status at 2b or 3b.
Average is pleasant also in that Cuddyer has only dipped below .270 once during the last six years.

There's a lot to like about Cuddyer for 2012.
Is his rise from the 12th round to the sixth or seventh round justified by the trade to Coors?
In my mind,a possibility
In Anonymous mind, there is little doubt.

This is very interesting. In my mind I think the new ballpark will be offset by the increase in age. Keep the trends coming, although you may want to be careful with the use of the "A" word. It might land you in the doghouse.

[Greg Ambrosius]

Cuddyer has also been drafted by 'Anonymous' in the two drafts that 'Anonymous' has been involved in. So, if you are in a draft with 'Anonymous', you are forewarned.
Since 'Anonymous' could be any player(s), no 'secrets' are being given away here.
Maybe a new help group can be started, 'Cuddyers Anonymous'.

There's a lot to like about Cuddyer for 2012.
Is his rise from the 12th round to the sixth or seventh round justified by the trade to Coors?
In my mind,a possibility
In Anonymous mind, there is little doubt.

I know this is trying to be cute with the reference to ANONYMOUS, but I'm not sure any of us should be posting someone else's picks on a pubic forum. That's likely one reason some people choose to be ANONYMOUS. Can you imagine if Lindy ever did a Slow Draft and Dan wrote "Lindy took Cuddyer in the 7th round, so maybe we should all take Cuddyer." I'm not so sure we should be posting ANYONE's picks on the boards and I think those of you who also have competed in these pay leagues would agree.

And secondly, as I've said before the ANONYMOUS in the two early Slow Drafts are two different people, not one. The fact that they both took Cuddyer is interesting, but not factual when Dan says he took him in both drafts. It's not the same person, but obviously they are thinking alike.

Let's make sure we have our facts correct when posting and let's keep the naming of people's pay draft results private. It's obvious that many of you are sharing the results and you are lucky to have that info, I guess, but let's keep those results private if possible. Thanks.

[DOUGHBOYS]

I wouldn't do that to Lindy or anybody else....well, except myself.
Anonymous is two different people whose name we don't know, I don't see the harm, but I digress.

[Money]

Cuddyer has also been drafted by 'Anonymous' in the two drafts that 'Anonymous' has been involved in. So, if you are in a draft with 'Anonymous', you are forewarned.
Since 'Anonymous' could be any player(s), no 'secrets' are being given away here.
Maybe a new help group can be started, 'Cuddyers Anonymous'.

There's a lot to like about Cuddyer for 2012.
Is his rise from the 12th round to the sixth or seventh round justified by the trade to Coors?
In my mind,a possibility
In Anonymous mind, there is little doubt.

I know this is trying to be cute with the reference to ANONYMOUS, but I'm not sure any of us should be posting someone else's picks on a pubic forum. That's likely one reason some people choose to be ANONYMOUS. Can you imagine if Lindy ever did a Slow Draft and Dan wrote "Lindy took Cuddyer in the 7th round, so maybe we should all take Cuddyer." I'm not so sure we should be posting ANYONE's picks on the boards and I think those of you who also have competed in these pay leagues would agree.

And secondly, as I've said before the ANONYMOUS in the two early Slow Drafts are two different people, not one. The fact that they both took Cuddyer is interesting, but not factual when Dan says he took him in both drafts. It's not the same person, but obviously they are thinking alike.

Let's make sure we have our facts correct when posting and let's keep the naming of people's pay draft results private. It's obvious that many of you are sharing the results and you are lucky to have that info, I guess, but let's keep those results private if possible. Thanks.

This is borderline comical. Don't we discuss some of the early drafts where all participants remain anonymous? So now its unethical to divulge picks that are taken from those hiding behind the curtain? No one knows who they are. So there is no harm (in my opinion). Where does the nonsense stop? Possibly with full on oversight by the game determining which topics can be discussed and which picks can be divulged by what I now guess is only semi-anonimity when declaring anonymous.

Although you may not want it Dan, I applaud you for not censoring yourself after being being called out on this. I didn't give you enough credit and thought you'd pull it down. For that I truly apologize.

[Gekko]

Even though I really don't care to, I was PLANNING to use Anonymous (since other people are and it wouldn't just be me). Greg has outlined a process should ANYONE want to use Anonymous.

Now we have someone (who I happen to like) posting who "Anonymous" is taking and warning people??? If this is what Anonymous can expect to have happen to them moving forward, I won't be using the Anonymous process come the next two weeks. I will simply find an alternate way.

Greg: This thread is just another example of why I (and others) should have the option of simply using a friend's name to sign up WITHOUT an Anonymous distinction.

[Greg Ambrosius]

I wouldn't do that to Lindy or anybody else....well, except myself.
Anonymous is two different people whose name we don't know, I don't see the harm, but I digress.

No, I wouldn't expect you or anyone else to divulge someone else's picks on the message boards. Nobody does that. Your topic is very worthy and we all could discuss the merits of Michael Cuddyer going earlier and say that he's gone five rounds sooner now that he's in Colorado than before his signing. That's really the point of this column, isn't it? Or maybe not.

[NorCalAtlFan]

Even though I really don't care to, I was PLANNING to use Anonymous (since other people are and it wouldn't just be me). Greg has outlined a process should ANYONE want to use Anonymous.

Now we have someone (who I happen to like) posting who "Anonymous" is taking and warning people??? If this is what Anonymous can expect to have happen to them moving forward, I won't be using the Anonymous process come the next two weeks. I will simply find an alternate way.

Greg: This thread is just another example of why I (and others) should have the option of simply using a friend's name to sign up WITHOUT an Anonymous distinction.

drama much? if anyone took dan's post as a serious "warning" to other players in regards to anonymous, i'm not sure what to say. there is a phrase though i think will suffice, HF's. Humorless F@@@s

[rockitsauce]

it sucks that this has turned into another freakin thread about this goddamn anonymous bs.

I am in this draft w/ Dan and was also struck by the early taking of Cuddyer..primarily b/c before he was picked I was considering him w/ my own pick ( I have the last pk in draft so a long wait). I ultimately chose a different 1B/OF b/c I felt he had a better track record, esp for HR....but I chose who I chose b/c I knew he wouldn't be there w/ my next pk. I was hoping Cuddyer would. The fact that he went so soon after, when I thought I'd be able to get him illustrates precisely what Dan is talking about.

or as Gekko would say, GET ON BOARD THE CUDDYER TRAIN NOW

[Ryan C]

On second thought....never mind.

[DOUGHBOYS]

I'd like to get a majority in what is right. I am at a loss. Really, I am.
I participate in a lot of drafts. One of the reasons I do so is to post some tidbits and information about these drafts.
I've been told not to use folks names, even Anonymous, although I don't see the harm in that, others do, so I won't.

In the chat room of a draft I engaged Anonymous in a conversation. He was of the opinion that ZERO picks should be posted from drafts unless they're mine. Not just the drafters, but players names too.
To me, it smacked of that Barry Bonds thing years ago when he wouldn't let sites use his name.
There are plenty of drafts that we can see by analysts online. Why not here, in the form of random names for draft stories?

Is it wrong to post the players names and what rounds they go in on the Message Board?
Should I not compare drafts?
Anonymous thinks the only players mentioned should be my own, do you agree?
Greg posts the first six rounds of drafts. This can't be right either, in that way of reckoning. Is there a line?
Before I write any more about drafts, I've got to know what is on your mind and what the right thing to do is.
Are these drafts Message Board material?
Let me know.

[NorCalAtlFan]

post away. the precedence has been set with Greg posting the first 6 rounds of various drafts.

[Glenneration X]

The simple posting that two seperate and obviously unknown Anonymous users took Cuddyer prior to early ADP data is an issue, yet the actual policy allowing the Anonymous tag is not. Interesting.

[Captain Hook]

post away. the precedence has been set with Greg posting the first 6 rounds of various drafts.

I call BS on that - it's Greg's party - he can do what he wants but there is no excuse or rationale for people in the drafts to post ANY thing but their own players/picks............yeah you might say the 1st round went.1-2-3-4- but that should be the limit

[NorCalAtlFan]

post away. the precedence has been set with Greg posting the first 6 rounds of various drafts.

I call BS on that - it's Greg's party - he can do what he wants but there is no excuse or rationale for people in the drafts to post ANY thing but their own players/picks............yeah you might say the 1st round went.1-2-3-4- but that should be the limit

and i call BS on that. you want to toe the company line, so be it. but be consistent at least. to paraphrase you, "don't post anything. but the first 4, that's ok." where's the rationale in that?

[Money]

post away. the precedence has been set with Greg posting the first 6 rounds of various drafts.

I call BS on that - it's Greg's party - he can do what he wants but there is no excuse or rationale for people in the drafts to post ANY thing but their own players/picks............yeah you might say the 1st round went.1-2-3-4- but that should be the limit

I disagree. The NFBC supplies a public forum to provide information, entertainment and a way to promote their product. To say that they can have a different reporting responsibility than the players or public is wrong.

Dan's question goes to the crux of the anonymous debate. In a contest of this nature (high stakes) either everyone should be anonymous or no one should be, IMO. Possibly a hybrid situation could be created where they have anonymous "Only" leagues and anonymous "Free" leagues. Right now, as far as I'm concerned, if you pay to get into a league you're free to do what you want with the information.

This is not what Dan is doing though. He's providing information and insight into player movement without exposing anyone. It is good stuff and stimulates interest in the game. No one is harmed

Carry on Dan, any regular visitor to these boards reads every single post you make because they are both insightful and entertaining.

[Greg Ambrosius]

post away. the precedence has been set with Greg posting the first 6 rounds of various drafts.

Right now, as far as I'm concerned, if you pay to get into a league you're free to do what you want with the information.

I think this is the kind of response Dan is looking for. It's also the kind of response that makes people want to go ANONYMOUS.

Listen, I'm trying to provide some early draft results for people because we're all interested in the early rounds and in the past we grabbed ADPs from MockDraftCentral.com because honestly those were the best ADPs at the time. Right now there is no doubt that our Slow Draft ADPs are setting the trend, at least in the NFBC. Some people are competing in them and have access to all of the results and some may jump in after seeing some of these results. I think it works for everyone: Those who are in one league and get to see results of other leagues, those thinking of competing in the NFBC this year, and thirdly for the NFBC because yes it's a marketing tool.

But we've never given individual results away. I know Dan isn't trying to do that either. He's offended that I said one person did not pick Michael Cuddyer in the 7th round twice. If the names had been Joe Smith and John Doe he would have said Michael Cuddyer has moved up from the 12th round to the 7th round with no reference to the individual, which would have been very newsworthy. I'm asking him and everyone not to identify who picks which players, even ANONYMOUS. Again, I told Dan he was factually incorrect that one person did not pick Cuddyer twice; they were two separate people.

As for ANONYMOUS, the posts here act as if our three ANONYMOUS owners are scouting others' picks, as if that's why they're paying $150 and $375 to compete. No, they want to compete. And as Dan and many others know, these Slow Draft results are being passed on to many other "friends" and the scouting is pretty severe by these consortiums. That's one reason why many "name" players aren't competing in these Slow Drafts because at the end of it the results get sent to many other NFBC players. Some of you are scouting a whole lot more than you're accusing others of doing.

Nobody is ANONYMOUS in the Main Event yet. Complain when that happens, but for now ANONYMOUS (all of them) just want to compete in Slow Drafts and not have everyone know their picks. As Joe said, let's have everyone ANONYMOUS. If you want that, I'll eliminate the signup list for these Slow Drafts and you'll find out who you're competing against when you get in the Draft Room, and even then you might not know. We can do that, but I'm not sure it's necessary (well, to some of you it is).

For those of you in the Slow Drafts, continue to enjoy what you're doing. I know for those competing they are more worried about their own picks than ANONYMOUS' picks. And trust me, this debate will continue well after you're done.

[DOUGHBOYS]

I get it, Greg. I do. It's not really about Anonymous for me any more. They have their reasons, I get it.
I can only speak for the Anonymous in our draft. He does not want me to even say that Cuddyer went from the 12th round to the seventh, because I wasn't the one who took him in each draft.
That's the point for me. I don't think that's right. The players should be still talked about. They have in the past. He wants me to stifle any talk about where any player goes.
I'm looking for a response to that more so than who took these players. Where players go in drafts is for public consumption.
Am I wrong?

[Greg Ambrosius]

I get it, Greg. I do. It's not really about Anonymous for me any more. They have their reasons, I get it.
I can only speak for the Anonymous in our draft. He does not want me to even say that Cuddyer went from the 12th round to the seventh, because I wasn't the one who took him in each draft.
That's the point for me. I don't think that's right. The players should be still talked about. They have in the past. He wants me to stifle any talk about where any player goes.
I'm looking for a response to that more so than who took these players. Where players go in drafts is for public consumption.
Am I wrong?

Dan, I went into your Chat Room to see if ANONYMOUS is causing any trouble for you. Here's the exchange. What possibly could this person have said wrong that has you so upset?

DOUGHBOYS: Were you upset about my Cuddyer post?
Texaco Station: May not have been your best moment
DOUGHBOYS: Why?
Texaco Station: people probably shouldn't be revealing anyone's picks but their own
DOUGHBOYS: I partly understand that...but isn't it the same as saying Cuddyer went in the eighth round in two different drafts? The identity is unknown either way...
Texaco Station: again, people probably shouldn't be revealing anyone's picks but their own
DOUGHBOYS: So, if I wrote a post saying that Cuddyer went in lower rounds as drafts progress, that's not acceptable?
Texaco Station: Not sure how to say this diplomatically, but I'm not here to debate it. If my prior response wasn't clear enough, not sure what else to say


Dan, YOU CAN DEFINITELY SAY CUDDYER WENT IN THE SEVENTH ROUND IN YOUR DRAFT!!! You can say it and I'll give you more data to show that he's moved up five rounds in EVERY DRAFT since his move to Colorado. Just don't say that Lindy took him there or Kent Stermon took him there or whomever jumped him up. That can't be that hard to understand. It's not important who sees Cuddyer's value rising but that all leagues seem to see his value rising.

I think Texaco Station just wants to draft. Honestly, I believe even Marcel just wants to draft without being called out. But that's another story. Again, if we want to have the debate about ANONYMOUS in the Main Event, let's do it. But these Slow Drafts where guys are just trying to draft, compete and prepare for the big NFBC drafts is pretty basic. Let everyone draft without identifying their individual picks. Have fun and thanks for all you do on the boards.

[DOUGHBOYS]

Thanks Greg.
That's all I was looking for. I don't have an ulterior motive or trying to be a burr under your saddle.
I just enjoy writing about players and drafts and wanted to know if I was crossing a line.
Thanks again.

[Raskol]

I still think that Cuddyer sucks, no matter who did or didn't draft him. There, I said it.

Oh, and Magglio has sky rocketed from the 40th to the 34th round. I took him in both, so please don't send out the goons to remove my knee caps just yet.

[Ryan C]

Dan you can talk about any or all of my picks from our recently completed (non-NFBC) 15 team draft if you are looking for grist for the mill. I will be writing about them myself at some point on MB. Have at it if there is anyone/thing that you think people would find interesting.

[DOUGHBOYS]

Thanks Ryan, very much appreciated.
I've got something in the works.
Didn't you win both of those drafts last year?
Or was it first in one, second in the other?
Either way, outstanding job!

[Ryan C]

No problem - in a post that I deleted earlier I basically said that if anyone should have the leeway to talk about who's drafted where and when it is you. And I agree that the thing people want to talk about more than anything else is who's picked when.

That is right - a 1st and a 2nd. I ALMOST pulled off a double-play. And I actually BLEW both of my number one picks - grabbing Crawford and Hanley respectively. I was very involved on the wire and managed my team pretty well. I got lucky in the league I won with early season WW plays, like a $2 Melky Cabrera and a $5 Emilio Bonafacio , then was able to land Brett Lawrie and Paul Goldschmidt for the stretch run. We also had a couple dead teams last year - so I think this year will be tougher to sneak up on anyone. And the second one I only lost because somehow my staff that was first in K's (1400) and Whip and second in ERA couldn't buy a W. We finished I think with 3 or 4 points in that category. Even in the last two weeks when I maximized my starts I couldn't get W's. Oh well.

Looking forward to the next draft -

[Greg Ambrosius]

I've made it perfectly clear in this thread that you can discuss WHEN a player was selected but not by whom, no matter the person in that Slow Draft. I'm not sure why people think this forum is different from any other NFBC forum. Enjoy your Slow Drafts, but DO NOT identify WHO is taking certain players. It's exactly why some people are not identifying themselves.