How to curb dump deals

[Big Tymer]

My opinion, if you don't want dump trades then don't play in keeper leagues. Nothing wrong with redrafts - just not my cup of tea.

[Judge Jude]

I think this is the way most people feel, and it further illustrates my point. By your own noting of my 2011 situation, the owners involved did nothing remotely unethical, acted in accordance to all of the best practices in this game, dealt fairly and transparently with all stakeholders, and STILL four owners quit.

Dane, you make a great case - so good that I am not sure why I am still a little uncomfortable with the scenario you laid out. I feel as if I must be wrong, yet here I am. Maybe it's the fact that 4 owners left, or maybe it's that I feel as if you are so certain that this open-and-shut and everyone else is just wrong?

Interesting discussion, for sure.

P.S. I play in a league with no salary cap, and no controversies. Every man for himself, just as you seek.
I guess I'm not sure what I'd do in your exact situation, except maybe the dumping owner could have pushed even harder with the affected owners beforehand? Not sure. I guess I can't figure out what made them quit, and not 100 pct clear that it's 100 pct being babies about it. Of course, I don't know the owners...

[The Dane]

Maybe it's the fact that 4 owners left, or maybe it's that I feel as if you are so certain that this open-and-shut and everyone else is just wrong?

Haha! Judge, you have your head now where mine has meandered for a while. I know on a rational, statistical, practical level that I am right. Winning the way I did is the admirable way to do it, and yet somehow it feels wrong, I know it.

In my albeit limited small-sample-size experience, the last minute huge dump deals are the ones that piss everyone off the most. However, the early deals have exponentially more impact on the league because they carry the stud stats for a longer time, plus there is no time for the sudden blush to wear off a flash-in-the-pan non-keeper. Early deals more often result in more padded stats given for less. Huge deadline deals tend to be more efficacious for the dumper because they generally have a better read on the cheaper player and finish higher in the standings than the guy that dumped in May. The deadline receiver of the dump deal gets fewer stats and gives up more. And yet somehow it FEELS worse, especially if it results in a championship. No one WANTS it that way, but by every reasonable measure, it is the best way to win.

[Judge Jude]

Haha! Judge, you have your head now where mine has meandered for a while. I know on a rational, statistical, practical level that I am right. Winning the way I did is the admirable way to do it, and yet somehow it feels wrong, I know it.

In my albeit limited small-sample-size experience, the last minute huge dump deals are the ones that piss everyone off the most. However, the early deals have exponentially more impact on the league because they carry the stud stats for a longer time, plus there is no time for the sudden blush to wear off a flash-in-the-pan non-keeper. Early deals more often result in more padded stats given for less. Huge deadline deals tend to be more efficacious for the dumper because they generally have a better read on the cheaper player and finish higher in the standings than the guy that dumped in May. The deadline receiver of the dump deal gets fewer stats and gives up more. And yet somehow it FEELS worse, especially if it results in a championship. No one WANTS it that way, but by every reasonable measure, it is the best way to win.

fyi, this is so interesting to me because for many, many years I have gotten the feeling that The Dane plays fantasy baseball more closely to my style than anyone else on the site (and he may feel the same way). So I was surprised for once to not be on exactly the same page - except we kind of are, yet again.



#separatedatbirth

[Fresno Bob]

There is a world of difference to me between "dump trades" and "the same two owners dump to each other each year". As lng as you can count on each owner in your league doing their best to optimize their team, i dont have an issue with any trade

[Erik]

My beef with dump trades is at least in my league it's the same two teams pulling off a dump trade (or trades) year after year. They appear to have a strategy that at some point (or points) the weaker team dumps to the stronger. They always telegraph it by announcing to the league they are throwing in the towel and are dumping , then within 24 hours the trade goes down. I've made better offers before the trade occurs, but the offer is just a red herring.

This is collusion and I'd be really unhappy in a league like this.

But I think it's the exception. Dump deals are part of the game, and I have no issue with them as long as everyone involved thinks they are doing what is best for their team in the short run or long run.

[The Dane]

This is collusion and I'd be really unhappy in a league like this.

But I think it's the exception. Dump deals are part of the game, and I have no issue with them as long as everyone involved thinks they are doing what is best for their team in the short run or long run.

I'm not sure I would quickly claim collusion, but it's certainly fishy and more than enough reason to boot both of those guys from the league. Remember, the trades aren't broken, the people are broken.

I think the only trade restrictions I can get behind are ones that increase transparency and give all owners an even shot, like rules that say players must be on the block before they are moved, stuff like that.

I was also thinking of some kind of sliding scale thingee that would reward people trading with other owners and penalize those who only trade with a few. Plus, I might make owners who rarely trade consider it more. Something like this (I'm not married to any of the numbers, they're just here so you get the concept).

This goes for both owners:

• If said trade is with the last person you traded with (even across seasons) you will lose three keepers, $30 of FAAB (if this season is spent, then it comes off next), $30 of budget next year, and $30 extra into the pot.
• If said trade is with the second-to-last person you traded with (even across seasons) you will lose two keepers, $20 of FAAB (if this season is spent, then it comes off next), $20 of budget next year, and owe $20 extra into the pot.
• If said trade is with the third-to-last person you traded with (even across seasons) you will lose one keeper, $10 of FAAB (if this season is spent, then it comes off next), $10 of budget next year, and owe $10 extra into the pot.
• If said trade is with an owner you have not traded with in 5 years, you get one extra keeper, an extra $10 of FAAB, and an extra $5 at draft.

Obviously, there would be limits that could be worked out, but the idea would be to spread the trades around, so even if you dealt with someone you often deal with, a few other trades with newer guys could balance it out. And these two guys who only deal with each other would have these penalties compounded, because the second trade would enact the first penalty, but the third trade between them would trigger the first AND second penalty. Dudes just could not win this year or next if all they did was trade with each other.

Just a thought.

[TopChuckie]

I think this is the way most people feel, and it further illustrates my point. By your own noting of my 2011 situation, the owners involved did nothing remotely unethical, acted in accordance to all of the best practices in this game, dealt fairly and transparently with all stakeholders, and STILL four owners quit. I'm not arguing that this kind of thing doesn't happen -or even that dump trade restrictions aren't the way to reduce their frequency or impact- but that it shouldn't happen if we were all wearing big boy pants. People complained about my championship that year. I say they only do that because they are patently stupid and flatly refuse to acknowledge the truth of the situation. First, I was only able to complete the trade because I drafted and mined the waiver wire well enough to have the chips to deal, both skills which we would all admit are laudable. Second, I had to be able to get within striking distance without making any such deals prior, quite an accomplishment seeing as how I passed two other teams on the receiving end of dump deals (including my eventual trade partner). And third, the two owners who "lost" their title to me received more total players in trade, got stats from them as early as May (whereas I didn't start accruing stats from such studs until the end of July), and gave up fewer keeper gems than I did. In absolutely no way -I repeat for emphasis, no way- can I see that either of these owners "deserved" a title, or "earned" a title more than I did, except for the fact that I wasn't part of their tete a tete until the homestretch. These two guys took advantage of some schmucks dumping in May, set their All-Star line-ups, and sat and waited. I got to work from April 1 and built a championship.

You "just don't think the championship should be decided by that sort of circumstance"? Are you nuts? Is there any better way to decide a championship? I respect you TopChuckie, but I think you are way off here.

This is where people are screwed up and not the game.

I respect your position as well, but I also respectfully disagree with it. And again, I don't criticize anything you did within the constraints of your league, but I disagree with your league being set up in such a way that the only way teams can be competitive is to at some point make a dump trade, and presumably significantly compromise the future of their team in order to make a run at a championship. I commend you for being able to take down those other two teams, but you acknowledge the only reason they were the top two teams was because of earlier dump trades they were involved in. They were just as complicit, if not more so because of the timing, in what I don't like as you were. So no, I don't believe they deserved to win any more than you did. But it sounds to me like all three teams that had a shot at the championship in 2011 were competitive because they sold their souls to make a run and picked clean all the studs from all the remaining teams, thus creating that two divisions scenario I was explaining I don't like earlier, the dumpees who have a shot, and the dumpers who no longer care about the current season.

I think a league should strive to have as many teams in the running each season as possible and that teams should be good because they drafted well, first and foremost, developed a solid nucleus of quality keepers, which they continue to nurture each season as contracts expire and new players are acquired, and then trades and the waiver wire are used to fill holes and supplement the teams. I just don't think a league should be set up in such a way that if you expect to have a chance at winning the championship, at some point you are going to have a find a trading partner who is going to fortify your team ala the way the Royals used to do for the Yankees back in the day, and if you aren't willing to sell your soul and sacrifice your future, or you are too late to the party to find a dance partner, well then you're screwed, despite the fact maybe you had assembled the best keepers heading into the season and had the best draft.

I think it is somewhat analogous to the PED situation in MLB. At the height of it, if a good player wanted to compete with the all the users, he probably had to use also, even if he really didn't want to based on all the suspected side effects or his ethical beliefs. I don't want to be in a league where I may have built a quality, balanced team of prospects, valuable keepers, and some expensive studs that could be a competitive team for many seasons, except for the fact that if I want a realistic chance to win a championship, I'm going to have to tear that team apart and trade away my team's future in exchange for all the studs from some other team.

I want teams to be able to be competitive all year, every year. I don't want there to be a continuous cycle of some teams playing for the current year, knowing they will be the non-competitive dumper teams next year and looking to over pay for a few studs in the next draft knowing they will then dump them to the competitive teams for cheap keepers so they can build to the point where they are the competitive dumpee again in a year or two, and vice versa.

So the goal of the rules I instituted was to motivate all teams to remain competitive as long as possible, ideally all season, and for trading to be an option to supplement your team for a run at a championship, but not for an extremely lopsided trade to be an absolutely necessary and integral part of a run, usually at an extreme cost of one's future.

At different points throughout the season teams still eventually realize they don't have a realistic shot at winning this year and they can trade some expiring or over priced studs for some nice keepers, some minor dumping, but by motivating owners to make those trades more balanced by retaining some value for the expiring contracts, limiting the cap space for those over priced studs, and providing an easier path to future success by still finishing as high in the standings as possible, those trades typically do not completely shift the balance of power or force every other team that hopes to compete to go out and make a similar trade.

Basically you said the only way you, or anyone else, was going to have a chance to compete with those other two teams was to be on the receiving end of a lopsided dump trade, because they had already been on the receiving end of lopsided dump trades, and I don't want that to be the circumstance in my leagues. You ask is there any better way to win a championship, and I say yes there is, by building a nucleus of keepers, drafting well, following the waiver wire, strategic, effective FAAB bidding, and smart, balanced trades to fill some holes and needs, for both teams involved, and being able to do that year after year.

I guess it all comes down to just how significant a role you want trades to be in the outcome of your league. I want them to be a part of it, but I just don't want them to be so significant that they are the only way you are going to have a chance to win.

[bryanbutler]

To me, your 2011 story is exactly why I instituted rules to curb, not eliminate, but curb and balance dump trades. I trust my owners to do what they think is best for their teams and not collude, and I don't think anything you did is underhanded in any way and both of you were doing what was best for your teams under your league's system, but I also don't think it is in the best interest of competition or the health of the league, as somewhat evidenced by the fact you lost four teams as a result. I just don't think the championship should be decided by that sort of circumstance.

^this.

what is best for two particular owners is not necessarily best for the league. each of them may be getting something that is "good" for them, but it skews competition too greatly.

my league used to be extremely heavy-handed with this - we actually used a trade evaluator that i devised that made sure that trades weren't too lopsided. (as an aside, it once got written up in baseball weekly.) that was too far, we all agreed eventually, but we still use several measures to prevent extreme dumps. we have a salary cap and floor, which slides linearly as the season progresses. and the minor league draft starts with the team just out of the money. this last is also used to retain interest in the second half of seasons (there was a thread about that a while ago).

i seem to recall jude dumping even before the season started in '09 and then two weeks into the season in '10, and then dropping out of JWRL in '11. that kind of thing is not healthy for a league.

[Judge Jude]

"i seem to recall jude dumping"

hey, not THIS jude!
#notetocrowd

[joncarlos]

I don't think salary caps are the answer. You get into a situation like The Dane described, where the top 2 teams can't add salary. Then the #3 team gets all the studs that are left, and everyone gets mad. Alternatively, there are no teams that can afford the studs that are left and there are teams that can't rebuild and become perennial bottom-dwellers.

It is nice that caps add value to expiring contracts, like a $15 Ryan Howard in his last year that only has value to a cap conscious team. But that's about it.

[JudeBaldo]

^this.

what is best for two particular owners is not necessarily best for the league. each of them may be getting something that is "good" for them, but it skews competition too greatly.

my league used to be extremely heavy-handed with this - we actually used a trade evaluator that i devised that made sure that trades weren't too lopsided. (as an aside, it once got written up in baseball weekly.) that was too far, we all agreed eventually, but we still use several measures to prevent extreme dumps. we have a salary cap and floor, which slides linearly as the season progresses. and the minor league draft starts with the team just out of the money. this last is also used to retain interest in the second half of seasons (there was a thread about that a while ago).

i seem to recall jude dumping even before the season started in '09 and then two weeks into the season in '10, and then dropping out of JWRL in '11. that kind of thing is not healthy for a league.

No fucking way. That league folded. Nor do I recall dumping two years in a row that early.

[Zoidy]

Thanks everyone for all the input regarding our league, really nice insights

I like the transparent trading concept, I do think it could be a help in a league like ours.

I have kept of a log of the actual trades over the past 6 or so years, I will dig it up and post it later. The one thing owners don't consider in dump trades is the effect of the dumpers scoring on the teams not involved. i have usually been able to mitigate the damage of losing points to the dumpee by targeting the categories where the dumper has weakened themselves. Usually those were the dumpers best categories as they had studs before the dump. Thats let me view the situation as just an additional challenge

[The Dane]

I think that the "there are no bad trades, only bad owners" stuff is nonsense.

I never claimed that there weren't bad trades. There are PLENTY of bad trades, many of which are not even dump trades. My argument is that dump trades are not nearly as terrible as everyone makes them out to be, and the true damage to to the league, more often than not, is the sniping and backbiting that follows in the wake of such trades.

I remember many years ago, driving home from a live draft, Jude and punched out a four-for-four player swap of bench players, mainly to help us both address roster concerns. Several owners got up in arms about it. Screamed about collusion and all sorts of nonsense. Threatened to quit. They accused me of using Jude as my personal farm team. When I put the deal up here on the board, the overwhelming consensus was that I gave up way more than I got. The crazy thing in retrospect, is that the only one of those eight players to have any career at all was Bruce Chen. This trade that threatened to destroy the league was for Bruce Chen and a bunch of players considerably worse than him. There was NOTHING wrong with that deal, only with the actions of the people in the league.

There are bad deals, but not all of them are the ones we complain about.

[The Dane]

No fucking way. That league folded. Nor do I recall dumping two years in a row that early.

I don't think it folded. I just think several of us left, but they managed to reconstitute it. I remember clearly you dumping early once, but not twice.