How to curb dump deals

[Big Tymer]

I despise it when people dump before June. I can't imagine how much of a fit I would throw if someone dumped before the season began.

Well then I guess we can't be friends I personally believe you need to take a long term view to league ownership and evaluate the talent you have. Some people might be content with middle of the road finishes but if I believe my team has no shot I say dump early as the first mover advantage is pretty huge if you have targets in mind. I've played with a lot of the guys on this thread and personally no one has bitched directly to me about my moves since usually they pay off the next year. I joined a RJ-heavy AL league this year and inherited a big pile of shit as a roster. Am I supposed to be a good soldier and work with the crap I inherit knowing there is literally no chance to win or be a strategic owner and plan for the long term by assembling 2014 building blocks? In this league I did something I never have before which was go into the auction with a dump strategy. I bought injured studs as good keepers, young guys with no roles and went heavy on potential future closers. I'm doing what I feel will most help me win in 2014 and beyond and would fault no one for doing the same.

[Big Tymer]

I didn't recall the second time. But thanks. Still, I believe dumping is a legitimate strategy to improve my team. It sounded as if my dumping caused the league to break up.

JWRL had issues way beyond your dumping Jude as we know. We actually had a pretty good group there for a time and I liked the use of holds and K/9 as non-traditional stats but year-to-year I had zero confidence the league would stick so I found greener pastures.

[TopChuckie]

I went back into the archives to find the trades I was referring to and here are the trades I could find:

NL Only 12 team keeper, low money league, retention key as follows:

(0) - Cannot be kept - Also cannot be cut remainder of year
(1) - Can keep 1 year at same salary
(2) - Can keep 2 years, $5 bump first year only or 1 year same salary
(3) - Can keep 3 years, $5 bump second year only


2008 - Week 20

TeamA get: PUJOLS,A $55(0), UTLEY,C $43(0), ETHIER,A $10(0).
TeamB get: DUKES,E WAS $1a(3), FURCAL,R LAD (injured) $30(3), FONTENOT,M CHI $10(3), MAYBIN,C FLA (m).
Final Standings - TeamA 3rd TeamB 10th

2009 - Week 17

TeamA get: CUETO,J CIN $5(2).
TeamB get: REYES,J NYM $53(3).
Final Standings - TeamA 5th TeamB 3rd

2010 - Week 15

TeamA get: RAMIREZ,M LAD $30(3) , PUJOLS,A STL $65(2).
TeamB get: BAKER,JO FLA $10(0), PRADO,M ATL $1(2), SPILBORGHS,R COL $2(3), CASTRO,SIMON SDP P (m)
Final Standings - TeamA 1st TeamB 9th

2011 - Week 10

TeamA get: MORRISON,L FLA $5(3)
TeamB get: PUJOLS,A STL $65(0), KENNEDY,I ARZ $10(0) ,COGHLAN,C FLA $10(0)
Final Standings - TeamA 7th TeamB 5th


2012 - Week 12

TeamA get: PRADO,M ATL $6(0), UPTON,J ARZ $10(0), JOHNSON,J MIA $16(0).
TeamB get: HERNANDEZ,R COL $9(2), BROTHERS,R COL $6(3), ESTRADA,M MIL $10(3).
Final Standings - TeamA 2nd TeamB 9th

I also believe dump trades are a valid strategy, it's the magnitude of the dump I want to curb. I don't have a problem with the dump of Reyes for Cueto, a keeper for a non-keeper, and look at how that standings impact wasn't that significant. It's the 3 studs for one keeper, or none, deals that are what I want to discourage/eliminate.

[DMT]

This has been a great discussion. Dane's arguments are compelling, but Jude's last remark above brings up a critical point. "I believe dumping is a legitimate strategy to improve my team". Of this there is no doubt. But, when it threatens to destroy a league it becomes a matter of priority: your own interests vs. what is best for the league. Most FBB players like our leagues to somewhat mirror MLB as much as possible, and teams tanking before the season starts simply isn't at all close to reality. Without acknowledging this critical point, you're left befuddled when other owners quit out of protest for what was simply your (legitimate?) attempt to win. The only rule we have in my non-RJ league is a salary cap and the most dramatic response to dump trades in our league has been groans and name-calling. I think if someone tried to dump before the season started he'd get beat up...hopefully it never comes up.

I like the idea of rewarding teams who finish higher with better minors draft picks, but what about leagues like mine that don't have minors drafts (despite my attempts to start one)? I have on several occasions tried to introduce a penalty for finishing last since MLB teams that finish last are punished with lower revenues. But I seem to be in the very small minority on this one. As a consolation we decided this year to make the person who finishes last handle all the logistics of the following years live auction...not a small task (the winner gets to pick the location).


ETA: If I wasn't clear, I am completely in favor of dump trades, but within reason and that of course is particular to each league.

[JudeBaldo]

This has been a great discussion. Dane's arguments are compelling, but Jude's last remark above brings up a critical point. "I believe dumping is a legitimate strategy to improve my team". Of this there is no doubt. But, when it threatens to destroy a league it becomes a matter of priority: your own interests vs. what is best for the league. Most FBB players like our leagues to somewhat mirror MLB as much as possible, and teams tanking before the season starts simply isn't at all close to reality. Without acknowledging this critical point, you're left befuddled when other owners quit out of protest for what was simply your (legitimate?) attempt to win. The only rule we have in my non-RJ league is a salary cap and the most dramatic response to dump trades in our league has been groans and name-calling. I think if someone tried to dump before the season started he'd get beat up...hopefully it never comes up.

I like the idea of rewarding teams who finish higher with better minors draft picks, but what about leagues like mine that don't have minors drafts (despite my attempts to start one)? I have on several occasions tried to introduce a penalty for finishing last since MLB teams that finish last are punished with lower revenues. But I seem to be in the very small minority on this one. As a consolation we decided this year to make the person who finishes last handle all the logistics of the following years live auction...not a small task (the winner gets to pick the location).


ETA: If I wasn't clear, I am completely in favor of dump trades, but within reason and that of course is particular to each league.

And I actually took back that deal because I DID NOT want there to be animosity in the league as a consequence of my trade.

[Zoidy]

I also believe dump trades are a valid strategy, it's the magnitude of the dump I want to curb. I don't have a problem with the dump of Reyes for Cueto, a keeper for a non-keeper, and look at how that standings impact wasn't that significant. It's the 3 studs for one keeper, or none, deals that are what I want to discourage/eliminate.

I agree with you with that, sometimes it seems owners do that out of laziness as negotiating a trade takes effort. What nags me is the buddy system and what seems like a premeditated plan. Before lasts years trade I offered a $5 Alonzo (who could be kept for 3 years) for only Upton and never got a counter offer. At least in my opinion Alonzo was a better keeper than any of the other 3.

[Judge Jude]

I cannot expect everyone else to be just like me, and saying that someone's desire to dump early ruins the fun for me is trying to force someone else into my worldview, my perspective of this activity, like I own it or something. I don't.

I think this is starting to clarify for me now. so this has really helped.

Sure, there should be a variety of worldviews of how to handle one's team.
But I'm not sure that an informal agreement that the worldviews begin with mid-May dumping and ranges into "battle for 11th place until the last day" as the universe of approaches is terribly limited.

I won't use a 'real-life' example because it would just lead us off-tangent, but in general it's pretty typical that a group accepts a modest limit on activity, and then everyone else is comfortable with the rest of the range. And if someone gets angry because a team dumps even before or as the season starts, I'm not sure that's 100 pct 'the other guy is a baby.'

Maybe it's not so awful to accommodate the 'babies' in one's league to a modest extent. Basically, that's what we've always done, with no rule to prevent us from moving up that dump timeline.

Coincidentally, our last new owners arrived in 2002, and 7 of the 12 main owners date back to the 1980s.

There is 'having a perfect within-the-rules right to do something,' and then there are other consiiderations, is what I'm saying...

[The Dane]

"I believe dumping is a legitimate strategy to improve my team". Of this there is no doubt. But, when it threatens to destroy a league it becomes a matter of priority: your own interests vs. what is best for the league.

This is a salient point.

So, let me see if I got this straight... so... I want to use a strategy that I know will improve my team (for this year or next), a strategy that is vetted through personal experience and countless examples from peers. This strategy is within the bounds of the rules of the game. This strategy is also somewhat mirrored by MLB. But, I shouldn't use it because... I might hurt someone's feelings in the league?

Do you hear chess masters saying that they don't ever use en passant, because their opponent might get peevish? Poker players who refuse to use the advantage of being a chip leader to win because some cowboy across the table could be weeping beneath his shades? This is ridiculous. We are grownups playing a game for a hobby, but we don't like some of the rules so we complain and bitch about others and leave in a huff?

The only sorta reasonable comp I can think of is, perhaps, a game of pickup football with a bunch of six-graders and one high schooler. The high-schooler chooses to QB for both teams and not score on his own, so that the game is more fair and fun for everyone. But, does that compare to our game? Can anyone think of anywhere else where competitors choose to not use a proven, legal, winning strategy to avoid hurting the feelings of their competitors? Even where there is money involved?

In a way, people who complain about dump trades are people who signed up to play a game, fully aware of the rules and practices of said game, got beat by a strategy that they were either ill-equipped or unprepared or unwilling to employ, and set about changing the rules so that they don't get beat like that again. And if the rules don't change, they are just going to take their ball and go home, which is totally within their right. I'm not sure what to call people like that.



This is SO about the people and not the trades.

[The Dane]

I won't use a 'real-life' example because it would just lead us off-tangent, but in general it's pretty typical that a group accepts a modest limit on activity, and then everyone else is comfortable with the rest of the range. And if someone gets angry because a team dumps even before or as the season starts, I'm not sure that's 100 pct 'the other guy is a baby.'

Yep, #separatedatbirth. As I'm trying a reply, Judge Jude pretty much hits on exactly where I was going.

I have no problem with some rules to guide our play. Setting date limits and even per-team limits are fine, but once those limits are agreed upon, then shut up and play. Most of the leagues I play in use salary caps and I hate them all, but I can't get pissed when a team goes right up to the cap and then beats me. If he goes over, we have issues, but until then, he's playing by the same rules I am, which are those written up in the league constitution. I do have a problem with owners who grouse about what other owners do even if it is within rules of what the league agreed upon. In all other competitive games, such people are ostracized and summarily ridiculed and called names far worse than "babies." Why do we tolerate it here?

[gcstomp]

Rebuilding early rocks the boat. You need a rock solid group of guys that all know everyone is in it for the long haul, and with every team knowing every other team is doing their best to improve for that to not piss anyone off. You want a comp to our game, where you may want to hold back going 1st day rebuild to not sink a league? And understand, I am in your camp. I get the rebuild, I use it, I would never whine when someone else does it, etc.

What game is for prize money, across multiple years for the strategy to work? Maybe a group of house flippers. There are certain ethical moves you would not want to do but legally may be able to. If you buy houses to fix up and flip, maybe you can legally evict tenants, even if a family cant afford to move, or whatever, but you wouldnt as that is not playing fair. I cant really think of a close parallel to our game where the strategy takes a multi year outlook to make sense.

[DJBeasties]

I hate quitting and I think it's lame and dumping doesn't guarantee anything so I'd rather fight for now as much as I can. Any system that rewards quitting encourages it. It's a part of keeper leagues but I don't like it and I think the early adopters are always too early and turn the league on its head. But you can do it so more power to you. I'll be a buyer.

[bryanbutler]

JWRL had issues way beyond your dumping Jude as we know. We actually had a pretty good group there for a time and I liked the use of holds and K/9 as non-traditional stats but year-to-year I had zero confidence the league would stick so I found greener pastures.

yep. i didn't mean to imply that your dumping caused the league to fly apart (which it couldn't have since it's still around).

it did cause a lot of animosity though.

[Judge Jude]

from The Dane:

"I want to use a strategy that I know will improve my team (for this year or next), a strategy that is vetted through personal experience and countless examples from peers. This strategy is within the bounds of the rules of the game. This strategy is also somewhat mirrored by MLB. But, I shouldn't use it because... I might hurt someone's feelings in the league?"

and now I think we two may have squared the circle.

we both agree that bitching about dump trades in general is lame, in part because MLB clubs do it, too.

but as was noted earlier, no MLB team rolls out a roster on Opening Day and then dumps its high-priced stars a week or a couple of weeks later.

I actually like June 1 as the first 'dump deal' day. No need to panic about being 'first to market,' and any owner can't gripe about not realizing Joe Blow would dump so soon, either.

I guess that was my 'thing' about such early deals - not only does it cause discord, but it's so unlike real baseball (last season's Marlins offseason was odd, but no rival owners had to adjust for it in the bigs. They had plenty of time...)

[DMT]

I actually like June 1 as the first 'dump deal' day. No need to panic about being 'first to market,' and any owner can't gripe about not realizing Joe Blow would dump so soon, either.

I agree and tried but failed to get others in RJEL to adopt it. Right now it's May 1st as our salary cap increases to its max on that date.

[TopChuckie]

I think a real sports-world analogy is an NFL team who is 2-12 and tied with two other teams for worst record in the league. It is entirely within their rights, and the rules, to tank their last two games in order to get the #1 pick in the draft. But do we like it? Does the league like it? Is it good for the game and the league for this to happen, knowingly happen? Why not, it's what is best for their team, right? What if your team is fighting for a playoff spot and that 2-12 team is playing against the team your team is fighting with for that playoff spot? How do you feel about the 2-12 team laying down then? Is that good for the game?

The NBA must have felt they had a problem with this, that's why they instituted the lottery system, to lessen the benefits of finishing last and thereby lessen the motivation to finish last.

This analogy only really touches on the effect of a team not trying to play their best, it doesn't really even address the balance of power shift that a dump trade creates. Imagine that instead of just not trying to win, that 2-12 team also gave it's 5 best players to that team your team was trying to beat out for a playoff spot.

What is best for a game is for all teams to try to do their best at all times. I understand sometimes one's personal interest can supersede the interests of the league. That's why I try to set up a system where those two things are congruent; what is best for the league is also what is best for an individual team, i.e. a team trying to finish as high in the standings as possible, whether it be in the money or just outside the money but in the best position to rebuild.