Deep Dynasty: A Story About Quantity Versus Quality
Late last night, my co-owner Tom Trudeau and I pulled off a doozy of a blockbuster in Dynasty To Be Named Later (DTBNL), a semi-experimental 25-team league for my patrons. We roster 45 players and can keep 30 at no cost. The resulting chaos is promising to put a strain on some of the non-traditional features of this league. This post is, at its heart, a story. So let’s tell it chronologically.
Earlier in the offseason, we had three owners ghost on us. They indicated their desire to return in early October but later missed the payment deadline by over a month. They also did not participate in a Rule 5-like draft in December. I conscripted one of my patrons to make their Rule 5 picks for them. A week ago, when I determined the teams were well and truly abandoned, he got first pick of the scraps (all three clubs were pretty solid). A new patron and an existing co-manager nabbed the other two clubs.
One of those teams featured an an interesting combination of star power mixed with some solid veterans. The depth, in my opinion, wasn’t quite sufficient to seriously contend right now. It would have required heroic efforts to discover enough talent with the resources on hand.
Part of the problem was with his prospects. They’re of the Justin Williams/Jameson Hannah ilk. They’re not un-interesting in a 25-team, roster 45 league. Nor are they the sorts of talents rebuilding owners crave. It’s fair to wonder if there is anywhere close to 30 should-be-kept players on this roster. This is a classic opportunity to trade quality for quantity.
Having ostensibly diagnosed this, our new owner posted the availability of Christian Yelich in our dedicated Discord channel. To wit:
Hi guys. Let’s talk yelich. Top 5 asset. I will entertain offers. Let me be clear though – looking for volume and value. Not looking to punt, but will take future value type guys in a package. Come strong or don’t come.
This request is tailor made for my roster of young hitting prospects. We have a surplus of volume and value stockpiled specifically for these opportunities. Most other teams either lack prospect firepower or are unwilling to include four or more touted names in a deal. Even for a player of Yelich’s ilk.
I fired off a list of 11 players aged 24 and under for this owner to choose from. He arrived at Luis Urias, Ke’Bryan Hayes, Cristian Pache, and Taylor Trammell. We found the juice to be worth the squeeze and accepted. We also received Mike Siani and Beau Burrows in the deal.
Digression
Before we touch on the next chapter of the epic, I’d like to quickly address how league depth affects prospect value. Typically, the deeper the league, the more valuable the prospects. If your experience is tied to shallower formats, this deal will look lopsided.
In this particular format, it’s challenging to add young players of this ilk. Doubly so for those near their MLB debut. Urias is an apparent starter while Hayes, Pache, and Trammell must be placed on the 40-man roster after this season. We’ll probably see at least two of them for a healthy chunk of 2020. All four are aged 22 or younger.
This package not only addresses a specific weakness of this owner (their lack of impact/proximate prospects), it also supplies immediate depth to a roster that still includes Marcus Semien, Rafael Devers, David Dahl, Jose Abreu, Luis Severino, and Carlos Carrasco.
From my perspective, it’s a classic win-win.
/Digression
Unsurprisingly, the reaction to the trade on Discord was full of sour grapes. One person even claimed it was one of the worst dynasty trades they’ve ever seen. This is when one of the unusual features of the league came into play.
Our league does not include a veto feature. Instead, the owners involved in a trade have a 24-hour period to revoke a trade. Doing so comes at a small penalty of rendering those players untradeable for a period of 14 days. This is standard boilerplate for leagues I run – I despise vetoes, but there is merit to having a process in place to address terrible trades. Here’s the full rule.
“24 Hour Revocability” any party to a trade may back out for any reason within 24 hours. This is done by contacting the commissioner. The owner(s) who back out may not trade the players involved for a period of 14 days from the original trade. For example, if I trade Max Muncy for Kevin Kiermaier and change my mind, I cannot trade Max Muncy for two weeks. This penalty is waived in the event of major injury during the 24-hour period. “Major injury” to be defined on a case-by-case basis at the commissioner’s discretion. These shall be listed in this document to ensure consistency. Note: It is poor form to back out of a trade. To clarify, this does not apply to verbal or written agreements – only those accepted through the FanTrax trade tool.
Managers who aren’t involved in a trade are allowed to lobby by submitting non-binding counter-proposals to indicate what they believe the player in question is actually worth. In this case, my trade partner is feeling pressure to use the rule (but has not yet done so) because of the overwhelming consensus that he made a bad trade.
I’m unaware of anybody making an attempt to match my offer let alone top it. And to be fair to everyone involved, nobody openly suggested he revoke the trade. That was his idea in response to the vitriol of other owners. A couple participants played devil’s advocate in the ensuing discussions while one especially active manager mostly posted pictures of gophers.
The drama is ongoing. The ending is unknown. Tune in next week for the thrilling conclusion.
You can follow me on twitter @BaseballATeam
Seems like if they want to back out, they should be able to with no real consternation. It’s in the rules, fairly explicitly laid out, that they could back out for any reason.
Of course, I agree entirely. I’m a big advocate of this rule, it’s extremely helpful in dynasty and deep keeper leagues. My co-manager is spitting furious over it.
(He also forgets that I leveraged this rule earlier in the year to undo one of his trades and get Trammel instead)
It seems like a good rule. My only worry with it (maybe worry is not even the right word), is that there are always owners in every league who will complain about a trade being light on the return but will then not be willing to offer anything up for the player involved.
Definitely. But what I find is that most people intuitively understand this. If nobody is sending them firm offers that are clearly superior, it’s an obvious sign that the trade is roughly the best they can get. And if somebody comes in offering 50% more, well that’s a good thing for everybody to know in my book.
“My co-manager is spitting furious over it.” Ah, the real drama in the comments ; )
In my experience it becomes a lot easier to invoke the rule if the second party is fine with it (not that I did anyway).
Will someone pony up even better prospects? Cliffhanger!
For that, we probably have to wait 2 weeks to find out!
I feel like the waiting period should be in-season, rather than calendar days. There’s effectively no penalty for them backing out in the offseason.
As a fan of Pache and Trammell I would take that deal for Yelich. I would probably try to flip Urias and Hayes if I could as I expect them to have low ceilings for fantasy. Though risky it is better than keeping Yelich when your team needs depth…but I can see trying to wait for a package that includes at least one established major leaguer.
Often, when a manager puts a player out there, he/she will get lowballed to death. With four strong prospects in a prospect-desperate league, I think this deal looks fine. Everyone had a chance at Yelich and you won out in the manager’s eyes. The manager could have, however, put out a teaser to everyone like “I’ve got an offer of four top 50 prospects for Yelich, can anyone top that?” before clicking accept, but broadcasting that might have risked your acceptance of the deal.
There’s a decent reason to believe that at least 2+ of those prospects will prove to be solid major leaguers, so five years down the line it might be you who regrets sending so-and-so away. However, you’re trying to win now and he’s clearly trying to win later. Win-win, as you said.
The weird part is I’m not trying to win now. Beau Burrows is my second pitcher. The other is Dane Dunning.
But I am trying to aggregate talent so the point still stands.
How much of the outrage can be attributed to your roster construction with Yelich? My experience is that when a single owner controls too much elite talent and has a stranglehold on the league, it affects league morale more than the return on any particular trade.
As I just noted above, I don’t have pitchers yet so there isn’t much scope for people to be angry. Although I’m inching closer and closer… The top/MLB end of the roster is Yelich, Soto, Bregman, Robles, Reynolds, Riley, Adames, Clint Frazier, Cole Tucker, Josh Naylor, and Josh VanMeter. Yea, it falls off fast.
And anticipating any follow up questions, prospects include: Royce, Tyler Freeman, Nolan Jones, Luis Garcia the Washington, Noelvi, Perdomo, Canario, Lewin Diaz, Luisangel, and Slapdick Edwards (among others).
I’m in a couple fairly deep dynasty leagues, and honestly I see no problem with this trade. Examining the perimeter pieces first, Burrows is truly a spare piece at this point in his prospectdom and should be very cheap. He’s a lottery ticket to become a #4 starter. Siani, tbh, I didn’t even know who he is, but upon looking him up he seems like a serviceable prospect. All told, this is basically Yelich for your 4 prospects, whom of which, are all highly regarded and are in the upper minors.
To me personally, this latter point is a huge deal, because your counterparty has a decent enough roster that adding MLB-ready talent matters, so adding a couple top prospects that are in A ball or lower doesn’t do much cus he needs to wait 2-3 years for them to have an impact. On top of that, prospects actually come to fruition at only a 30-40% rate, so having guys further along the spectrum is much less risky no matter the prospect grade.
In terms of the prospects themselves, Urias is in the majors, Hayes will be this year, Pache and Trammel likely this year, and all are top 25 or top 50 at worst prospects who have garnered generally consensus reviews of their status. Some counterarguments would be that Urias has flopped at the MLB level so far (happens a lot though for prospects early on), Hayes and Pache are more known for their defense (though both could still be solid offensive fantasy contributors), and Trammel had a down year. It’s hard to find perfect prospects though, many have flaws.
Really the only way to improve this deal would be to swap in a bonafide top 5 or 10 prospect, or add in a 1st round draft pick (if you have those), and maybe that’s what your leaguemates are looking for, but unless someone is willing to offer that plus 3 other great prospects, I think this deal makes sense.
My feeling is I don’t like any of the prospects he got – I would think he could get at least one top 20 type talent plus more for Yelich and I’m not a fan of Hayes, Trammel, Pache or Urias. But still, a trade is a trade and honestly a few years later no one will remember. I have to tell myself that when I see these deals…even if I am upset I won’t care in 2 months.
Concur. Most of those guys are defense-first types, which might be great for real life but doesn’t do you a ton of good in fantasy. Yelich just turned 28, and is an every-category monster. I get that this is a league in which pretty much every starter in the league is going to be kept, but none of these other guys are starters (yet) either.
The rule is a good idea and he should use it. A trade of this sort (rare as it may be) is almost always a loser for the person receiving the prospects.
Without any other information about the league: what type of prospects should a rebuilding team be aiming for when trading yelich in your opinion?
Would it be spoiling it too much to list the 11 players the owner has to choose from (though maybe it can be pieced together from your previous comments).
Was the objection in the trade itself, or that the other owners felt he/they should have chosen a different package of players from you and your partner?
LOL, good to know this stuff goes on in other leagues too. I like your trade, I agree smells like a win-win. I despise vetoes as well. Interesting 24 hour rule. May consider that in the future.
It’s a really bad trade even considering that’s kind of what you get if you trade a cheap top 5 guy for prospects. It’s sort of defensible if you’re super high on trammel and urias, but it’s still bad. You really want to get 2 top 10 prospects, plus. Or better yet, a young ~50-75 rank mlb hitter, young pitcher similar value, and a top 20 prospect. Say Gallo, Gore, and Urias.
Yeah I mean it’s basically four good-ish lottery tickets for one of the game’s very biggest studs.
Even top 10 prospects are lottery tickets, just believed to be supposedly less chancy than the ones ranked later. For instance, I’m glad I never ended up with Alex Reyes given how things seemed to have turned out. Also, at least four pretty decent lottery tickets are better than, say, one really sexy one that may not work out (i.e. Wander Franco).
And yet, the other owner still should have gotten more for Yelich.
This is a 30 keeper dynasty league. Why do you expect to return that for yelich? Why would someone trade 2 top 10 prospects during the off-season unless they were in absolute win-now mode? This doesn’t seem like advice that fits the format
In that context, then, it seems like just keeping Yelich is his best move. Yelich has still got many good season left, and the odds of these four producing more in their entire careers than Yelich does in the remainder of his career is exceedingly small. Brad is not trying to win now; given his previous comments about how he trades, he clearly sees this trade as a big win for him, and it is obvious why.
The more a fantasy owner has to defend a trade, the more glaring the flashing red light that it might be unbalanced. Writing an entire article about a single transaction in a random league no one else is a member of is a pretty fair amount of defending.
Love the rule, Brad, I just sent a screenshot to my commissioner. I want to try and implement it in our league next season.
Thanks Brad for a interesting and fun post. I am wondering about this piece of the trade recission dynamic:
“Managers who aren’t involved in a trade are allowed to lobby by submitting non-binding counter-proposals to indicate what they believe the player in question is actually worth.”
If the submitted offers are non-binding, how much value-added are they to the process?
As a party to a trade, I’d be interested in what other owners would actually send me instead of what I am getting. But if owners sent me non-binding offers, I’d mostly figure they are doing so to push me off the trade. I know you and the other owners in your league are more than sophisticated enough to realize that, so just wondering how useful the non-binding offer dynamic is in practice.
I do think the 24-hour window is neat. It may not happen in your league, but sometimes in ours a legit complaint is that an owner will deal a desirable guy without even letting others know he is available. Among its other advantages, your rule provides transparency in that respect by giving others a chance to go after a guy before the trade is finalized.
Thanks again!
The non-binding aspect isn’t explicitly described anywhere because it’s more of a de facto situation. Since the players involved in the trade cannot be dealt for 14 days (and ostensibly this process is occurring before the trade is even revoked), it’s actually impossible to submit a binding offer.
It is outlined in the constitution that only proposals made through the trade wizard are binding. Verbal and written agreements are not.
Ah, yes of course. Makes sense in context of the 14-day rule. Thanks!