For fantasy junkies like me – and probably you – deep keeper and dynasty leagues are the zenith of modern civilization. I’m not here to extol their virtues. It suffices to say that they scratch a certain itch – the one you had as a kid when you were daydreaming about running your own major league club.
These deep formats also have something in common. No matter what, somebody is eventually going to make a horrific-looking trade. However, the way a trade looks on paper can be deceptive. Yesterday, the Cardinals traded a lot for Paul Goldschmidt. Some (ahem, me) might say they dealt too much. They also unmistakably improved their 2019 roster in a way that only minimally weakens their future chances at winning. It’s important to consider how a deal affects competition.
Another consideration is that apparently lopsided trades still work out in the “losing” owner’s favor pretty frequently. I’m going to make up some numbers now. Based on all the trades I’ve seen that are widely panned as unfair but also aren’t clearly unconscionable, I estimate somewhere between 35 to 40 percent of them ultimately favor the loser. From my perspective, the crowds aren’t very wise. So, even though your rival probably gotten more in a sketchy looking swap, it doesn’t mean they’re totally screwed. This is akin to winning a hand of Texas Hold ‘Em after being behind on the flop. It happens all the time.
So, the lede is thoroughly buried. Now why are we here again? To talk about unconscionable trades and the immediate steps a good commissioner should take. While the design of a league should encourage trading – negotiations are half the fun! – too many terrible trades can be ruinous.
Read the rest of this entry »