The Z Files: Money Management and Auction Strategy

The area where experience is paramount is money management. You can know the player pool from A to Z. You can understand the depth of each position. You can rank players in tiers, by category, by skills, by risk, it doesn't matter. One of the primary differences between a draft and an auction is no one ever left a draft lamenting having left $20 on the table. Well, unless it was a real Hamilton. In the auction setting, money management is every bit as important as understanding exit velocity, spin rate and which is better, FIP or xFIP? Actually, it's exponentially more important.

On the surface, money management sounds like the process of making sure you don't leave money on the table. And, it is. But it runs deeper than that. It also entails spending most efficiently. Here's where experience is key.

To truly excel with money management, the experienced fantasy player knows it goes hand-in-hand with knowing the player pool. Why does someone fail to spend their budget? It's usually because they played the waiting game, planning to scoop up several players under their expected bid price. This is fine, if not always recommended, but if you buy 23 $10 players for $5 apiece, you've only purchased $230 worth of talent, albeit for $165 (leaving $95 for account or a gift certificate). Obviously, this is a hyperbolic example, but the point is, you need to combine spending all your resources with purchasing players at a potential profit.

Those who leave money on the table, or who overpay just to spend their budget, did so because of poor money management. They were left with more budget than players available.

Not every ploy works for everybody, but here's what I do before every auction. I look at the player pool in terms of tiers and set an expected spending level for all 23 roster spots (assuming a standard league). I won't dedicate a strict amount for every position, but there are some I narrow down.

For example, I'll aim to spend $X on my top starting pitcher and $Y on a closer. I'll find a tier of desirable hitters at a certain position and plan on spending $Z at that spot. By the time this is done, I'll have dedicated about seven spots to specific types of players; the rest is playing it by ear.

Here's a typical set-up:

This is a 175:85 split, where I'm most comfortable. Now's the fun part. Maybe every top player sells for more than I'm willing to pay. I quickly take $10 from the $35 player and distribute it to one or more other players. Maybe I now plan on:

Perhaps an ace starting pitcher lands at a price I like, over $25. I'll take what I need from another spot and adjust again. Usually, if I'm paying for a top pitcher, I'll shift my spending to 170:90:

I could go on, but hopefully you get the idea.

The final piece to the puzzle is making sure there are ample players remaining at the associated price range to put a player at each spot. If your top remaining spot is for a $20 player and there isn't any left, make that a $15 line and allocate $5 elsewhere. You're going to have to fill the top lines or else run the risk of ending up with more money dedicated to the remaining inventory than they're worth.

Again, there's nothing like experience. You can read this and perhaps find it intriguing and plan to use it. That doesn't mean it will work like a charm the first time it's employed. In fact, before embarking on my main auctions each March, I make a point to participate in a couple of lesser ones, in part to familiarize myself with the pool, but also to get back in the groove of money management.

While on the topic of auctions, let's hit on a few other elements of the format. Much is made of the mind-game aspect, and I suppose in some rooms it's effective. However, in a room full of experienced players, their focus will be on their team and all the other stuff is more fluff than fact.

For example, there's a faction of auction players that like to wait until "going twice" then swoop in with their first bid on that player. Sometimes, it's the winning bid. Now they think they got the player because of their irritating tactic, when in fact more often than not, someone will up the bid. The times it "worked", it didn't work; the person with the high bid was at their limit and no one else was interested in topping it. I don't know, maybe it influences an inexperienced room. Don't let it faze you.

Here's another piece of irksome advice. "Only price-enforce if you're willing to take the player." Hey Einstein, if you're willing to take the player, you're not price-enforcing, you're bidding a player up. True price-enforcing is the act of pushing up the price of a player you want no part of, draining the buyer's budget a couple extra bucks. Personally, I don't price enforce. I'll let someone get a player for less than where I price him. Chances are they've overpaid (according to my numbers) for others so it isn't worth the risk of getting a guy dropped in my lap.

While I'm venting, another misplaced notion is to nominate a player for the purpose of getting money off the table. This just in, the money is already off the table. You may not want Mike Trout, but trust me, someone else does and he'll be nominated early. Let someone else be the hero and get money off the table. Always have a reason for every nomination. The more intelligence you can glean, the more efficient you'll manage your money. Prices usually set precedence for other like players. Let's say you are interested in buying an ace pitcher, but not Clayton Kershaw. Don't nominate Kershaw to get money out, either nominate a hurler you want and hope he lands under your number, or table one you really don't want but you know is in the similar tier. If Max Scherzer sells for $32, you can now set aside $30 for Madison Bumgarner, perhaps a couple fewer for Corey Kluber. It doesn't always work out like chalk, but if you expect to be spending $30 on an ace, you can make better decisions on players coming out before that time. Or maybe, Scherzer sells for $35, suggesting Bumgarner will cost $33 or so, more than you want to spend. Now you aren't planning on a $30 line in the scheme above, instead making it less while doling out the excess elsewhere. The sooner you garner this intel, the better your approach for the rest of the festivities.

Every year I take some heat for recommending "jumping to the nines." Just as I contend "going twice" shouldn't work, the going-twice guy can call my bluff. Jumping to the nines entails taking a $13 or $14 bid directly to $19. I'll only do this on players I have priced in the low twenties, or thirties if I jump $23 to $29. The narrative is there's a psychological barrier taking the player to the next round number. Truth be told, auction results demonstrate this is true, so there's method to this madness. The other benefit is jumping reduces processing time. One usually only raises a bid when confident in the price. Sometimes, it takes a little time to talk yourself into raising the bid, or settling on a final bid. Jumping strips some thinking time from indecisive owners.

The primary rebuttal to this action is "who knows, maybe you would have gotten the guy for less." Maybe, but I doubt it. My obvious retort is I still purchased the player for less than anticipated, ignoring the possibility I could have saved even more money.

Feel free to share your auction tricks in the comments and I'll reply with how it's a bunch of hooey. Just kidding, even if they don't work, the head-games are a big part of the fun of auctions and it's a hoot to talk about them.