Value Picks: Second, S... (08/13)
Painting the Black: Sa... (08/13)
11 comments have been left for this article. BP Comment Quick Links
|
|
|
|
|
|
The First-ever Baseball Prospectus Futures Guide - now just $7.24 at Amazon ( bbp.cx/fg ) |
|
|
August 13, 2012 Resident Fantasy GeniusHow to Handle 'Dump Trades'On Thursday, I discussed my views on non-contenders trading with contenders in fantasy leagues and whether or not there should be special considerations when making such deals. Naturally, this evolved into a discussion in the comments section on how this applies to keeper leagues versus redraft leagues, leading reader brucegilsen to request: Derek, I think you should post an article about your take on dumping. It should lead to an interesting discussion. My 24-year-old 4x4 25/280 NL only league uses an in-season salary cap to prevent contenders from building $500 super teams and it would be fun to discuss on here. While I don’t think a league’s rules should ever be left up to a single person, if I were creating a keeper league myself, I would definitely take a very laissez-faire approach to the matter. The same as I’m against trade vetoes, I am (for the most part) for so-called “dump trades.” If an owner is in a position to win a championship this season, I believe it should be fully within his rights to sacrifice the future of his team to secure a banner. I’m fully aware that this is an unpopular opinion among many people, but it’s how I feel, generally speaking. Last week, I said that a team in contention shouldn’t have artificial limits put on its ability to make trades with non-contenders, and I feel the same logic applies to teams who are out of contention and want to offer up their non-keepable stars for long-term assets. Sure, some may see it as unfair that one owner gets Justin Verlander and Josh Hamilton for a pair of B-level prospects, but his competitors have the exact same opportunity to trade for Verlander and Hamilton or to respond with trades of their own. Yes, maybe it becomes an arms race, but there’s still skill in that. There’s the skill of posturing, negotiating, and such when making these deals. There’s the skill of setting your team up for this situation (i.e. acquiring enough long-term assets along the way for use in stretch-run dump trades). There’s the skill of evalu
|
Surprise Me!
Derek may prefer a hands-off approach but my guess is that dump trades are the single biggest source of keeper league acrimony and dissolution. It's dispiriting to the others when one team lands a Verlander & Hamilton in a dump trade and totally changes the dynamic of a pennant race. The dumping team doesn't have the constraints on trading stars that real-world teams do (long-term contracts, no-trade clauses, fan sentiment, TV ratings, etc) nor the same incentives to get fair value in return. Moreover, the dumps often follow pre-established channels of friendship or workplace proximity, causing resentment. In our 25-year old keeper league, we have established a value trading cap-- the maximum amount of salary one team can trade to another in a single season is the draft value of the highest value player. This year, Pujols was the highest at $50, so that's the cap. An out-of-it team can still trade Pujols to a contender (or some combination of players totalling 50 or less), but if they also have Verlander, they have to find another partner. It's worked well.
The idea that we shouldn't be allowed to make trades, or do anything else within the rules because our competitors don't like it seems pretty problematic to me. Too many people seem to have this idea that they should be allowed to control the strategy that other players use for their teams. For example, if you have Trout or Harper (cheap and controllable long term), why should I not be able to offer you rentals of Pujols and Verlander, who are of no use to me any more, to substantially increase my chances of winning in the future.
It's not like other people are being shut out from making similar deals or acquiring particular players - they are entirely free to make offers. If another player makes me a better offer for the Pujols and Verlander, he'll get them instead.
Also, people tend to make deals with friends or people they work with for one reason - they talk about the league with those people more. Your rule seems to me to be an example of a rule that appears to make sense, but is actually just an unnecessary infringement on a manager's right to run his team as he sees fit.
Say the team going for it already has a guy that cost $35 who tore his ACL and is out for the season. Could an owner trade Pujols ($50) and Verlander ($35) for prospect and $35 injured player? As in, do the salaries of the players going to the dumping team matter to the between teams trade cap?
One problem with this approach (a value trading cap) is that the guys who got drafted cheap years ago, blossomed, and are now in the last year of their contract become absurdly valuable.
No matter what you do, there's no perfect solutions.