Defensive Trading — Brilliant or Crazy?

Trading in fantasy leagues is hard, frustrating, and annoying. I honestly hate thinking about trading, but still don’t prefer the NFBC format that doesn’t permit trades because I still want to be rewarded for building a deep roster. Trading in keeper leagues is on a whole different level. And it’s not a good level. It’s frustrating times 10. Now, the league is divided into 2021 contenders and those playing for the future, so depending on who you might want to trade, you may only have half the league as possible trading partners. You think the team in third to last place wants your $30 Joey Gallo? Of course not. And do you think the team in third place and within striking distance of first wants your $3 Nate Pearson? Heck no! So perhaps rather than trade to try increasing your own team’s point total, consider a different path toward the same goal…by trading defensively.

This is my first ever defensive trading story.

I am currently tied for first place in my AL-Only keeper league. I have a 14 stolen base lead over second place in the category. Even if second place could somehow make up that deficit, there’s no chance I could lose more than one point. So it was pretty obvious that I could trade away steals, but as with any category, it’s hard, or impossible, to identify a player who only contributes positive value in said category. It’s difficult to only trade away steals without losing in any other category. A high steals guy is likely to hit at or near the top of the order, which means he’s likely a positive in runs scored. He’s also likely to be a plus in batting average, but that’s a bit less of a given.

Luckily, I owned an almost perfect trade candidate — Myles Straw, at an undesirable keeper price. After being traded to the Indians, he’s played every day and solidified himself in the leadoff role. His 66 runs scored are merely solid, rather than spectacular, while his .267 average is also a slight positive, but won’t make a dramatic difference. He’s essentially as close as you could get to a steals only contributor. With Edward Olivares back in the Majors, I also had a capable replacement and no need to even receive a hitter in return to replace Straw’s empty roster slot.

On the pitching side, I have a 21 saves advantage, which is going to be impossible to make up over the final month. Yeah yeah, you’re going to ask me what the heck I’ve been doing to accrue such a huge lead over second place. Like I said, it’s reallllllllllllly difficult to make trades, so the answer is — I tried to trade closers, but didn’t succeed as much as I had hoped. Aroldis Chapman has been an enigma since I traded for him after the all-star break (I didn’t ask for him, but my trading partner offered to include him, so I said sure why not!). He is also at a fair, rather than undervalued, price, or perhaps overvalued given his recent struggles. So a team playing for the future would have little to no interest here aside from improving their minor league draft pick slot or the pride of finishing in a better place.

With both Straw and Chapman, I owned two players who if jettisoned, shouldn’t cost me any points. So who to offer each player to? That was the challenge. Including myself, the teams in the top four are within only eight points of each other. You better believe that I’m not going to offer either of these players to any of the three other teams gunning for that top spot. So that leaves eight potential trade partners.

The teams at the bottom of the standings have no reason to trade for these players and have already jettisoned all their good players. No player on those teams would represent an upgrade in any category I have a need for. And unless I’m offering a keeper, what’s the motivation for any of those teams to help me win anyhow?

Then it dawned on me — perhaps rather than try making my own team better, I could try making another team better that is close in the steals and saves standings to the team I’m tied for first place with. So I did some research, identified which team each player would most benefit and either help pass my competitor and lose him a point or prevent my competitor from gaining a point by remaining ahead in that category.

After identifying those two teams, I made the following offers:

Myles Straw for $1 FAAB (we start with $100 with a $1 minimum bid)
Aroldis Chapman for $1 FAAB

I didn’t ask for any players in return because my offers would be far less likely to be accepted and there were few players on the two teams that would have represented a real upgrade for me anyway. Would trading me a legitimate contributor for Straw or Chapman even improve my trading partners’ teams? So I made sure there was no excuse not to hit the accept button. I also don’t need the FAAB, so didn’t bother to risk a rejection by asking for too much.

After the two owners emailed me questioning what the heck I’m doing, I assured them it was in good spirits and not a mistake, and so they accepted.

The hope now is the new Straw owner remains a point ahead in steals and prevents my competitor from gaining that point, which he likely would have without the Straw trade. My competitor also recently traded for a closer and likely would have overtaken the team just a couple of saves ahead. With Chapman now on his new team, my hope is that no longer happens.

So rather than try improving my own team by two points, which I felt was an impossible task via trading, I defensively tried to prevent my competitor from gaining two points. While I would have preferred to cause my competitor to lose two points rather than prevent him from gaining them, it didn’t appear possible given the rosters of those just behind him in those categories.

I’m definitely not the first to attempt this strategy, as the commish of the league shared the time he did it in Tout Wars, in the same league I’m in, and I didn’t even realize it. But I’ve never been aware of such trades as they were made and certainly never tried it myself.

So, is this defensive trading strategy brilliant or crazy?





Mike Podhorzer is the 2015 Fantasy Sports Writers Association Baseball Writer of the Year. He produces player projections using his own forecasting system and is the author of the eBook Projecting X 2.0: How to Forecast Baseball Player Performance, which teaches you how to project players yourself. His projections helped him win the inaugural 2013 Tout Wars mixed draft league. Follow Mike on Twitter @MikePodhorzer and contact him via email.

30 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
GGDB
2 years ago

I mean, it makes sense, but I’m not sure the league-mates I have would accept that kind of behavior so would veto the trade.

quincy0191member
2 years ago
Reply to  Mike Podhorzer

It’s not a particularly confusing comment. If you traded $1 FAAB for Cole, Scherzer, Turner, and Vladito, that’s a trade that helps you win. It’s also one that just might get vetoed. The guise of “I think this improves my odds of winning” is usually sufficient but not universally, because:

You’re intentionally making your opponents better, which is at least suspicious. Your reasoning is sound, but that doesn’t mean everyone is going to believe you, and it’s at least hard to reckon that these two teams were both good enough to represent a threat to your closest competition but so bad that they had no players you could use. If that’s actually the case, maybe you need to play with some better people. I understand you’re trying to minimize the chance of rejection, but again if your fellow owners are so fragile in trade negotiations that asking them to part with a mildly useful player or asset (this is a keeper league and you’re trading with teams in contention – can you not get a draft pick or prospect or something?) in return is cause for not only a rejection but no further discussion…again you need to find some better owners.

It just smacks of collusion or under-the-table dealings because you can’t justify the value you’re receiving, and it’s impossible to prove a negative, so you can’t prove you’re not colluding. That means it’s a judgment call for the rest of your league. No matter what, as mentioned elsewhere, there’s clearly a change that should be made to stop this, because if I’m the team you’re trying to slow down I’m pretty peeved that the teams behind me are getting free help.

nrbg27member
2 years ago
Reply to  Mike Podhorzer

Reframed as the deal from the trading partner’s perspective, they are giving up nothing and getting value, which the teams they may leapfrog will care about.

HappyFunBallmember
2 years ago
Reply to  Mike Podhorzer

The reason it smells like collusion is because you are essentially enlisting other teams to help you win for no gain of their own. If Straw and Chapman are not keepers in your league, and if your trading partners are not likely to benefit from picking up those handful of steals or saves, then why are they doing it? Indeed, if your league awards draft slots in a reverse-standings manner, those other two teams are actually hurting their future prospects.

I mean, I wouldn’t veto it but I understand why some might. Also, this is part of why veto trade overrides are an awful concept.

Michael DeYoungmember
2 years ago
Reply to  Mike Podhorzer

This is the key point. The fact that your trade partners still have something to play for. If there was absolutely no value to them for improving their teams, this definitely enters the gray area. In the NL west scenario Quincy lays out below, the Rockies have nothing to play for and in fact are hurting their draft pick by continuing to compete against the division. The difference in format between your fantasy league and real life MLB make the difference.

quincy0191member
2 years ago
Reply to  Mike Podhorzer

Because any time one party gives up something of value for a perfect substitute of no value, it looks like a tax dodge. It’d be one thing if you gave up Straw for another player; players are not interchangeable, and nobody can tell you that your valuation of a player is per se wrong. It’s just different.

But you gave him up for $1 FAAB, which is a perfect substitute – $2 FAAB is objectively a better return than $1, there’s no argument about that. So if everything is aboveboard and we’re operating in a free market, that implies that Straw’s open market value is $1 FAAB. Because if it’s higher, you should’ve been able to get that price from another team. And that’s obviously incorrect as well – Straw’s price is higher than a buck.

OK, now we have a deal where a team has sold a player for less than what they could have sold them for, which means there must be something else of value within this transaction. In this case, that’s diminishing your opponents’ chances of catching you, which is an entirely reasonable explanation. But it’s also totally understandable for other owners to look askance at this and wonder if you’re offering a plausible cover to stop them from asking additional questions. As mentioned, it’s impossible to prove you’re NOT colluding, so questions about a deal are naturally going to arise.

Let’s use an MLB example to make this clearer: grant that you’re the Dodgers, with objectively a better team than two of your division mates who are also threatening your postseason position. For the purposes of this example, let’s also say that you’re done playing the Rockies for the year (that’s not true), but the Giants and Padres both have multiple series against them left. It’s the trade deadline, and you’ve just acquired Trea Turner to play short, and you think Seager’s coming back soon and will move to 3B. With Muncy a capable 2B, you sort of have one too many infielders (yes I know nobody ever has too many good players). You trade Justin Turner to Colorado, and cover his salary, asking only a PTBNL in return. The Rockies are no threat to you – you’re not even playing them again – but if Turner can do some damage to your rivals, it could mean the difference in the division and avoiding the WC game.

MLB is going to heavily investigate that deal. Everyone in the sport is going to look at it as something untoward, even though it’s entirely reasonable to suggest that with a healthy Seager and Trea, Justin Turner isn’t really going to help you much, and any shot at not playing a win-or-go-home is very valuable. You can play with the percentages – realistically of course it’s not going to be better – but the underlying philosophy is the same. There’s a reason teams don’t ever make deals to improve their rivals, even if it is a net increase to their overall odds of a championship, and any system that incentivizes that ought to be changed IMO.

mr_hoggmember
2 years ago
Reply to  quincy0191

A good analogy. What it points up is the importance of keeper value to the ethics of the trade, alongside impact on future draft order, which is covered above. Giving Turner as a gift to the Rockies to help them beat down the Giants is problematic because he will continue to have value for the Rockies going forward. It makes sense that Chapman and Straw aren’t keepers for Pod, but are they for their new teams? The suggestion above is that it’s better if they do, but I’m not sure that’s true?

jdr
2 years ago
Reply to  Mike Podhorzer

Come now, you know exactly why people are questioning the ethics of these deals. No need to play Pollyanna. What you should be trying to steer the conversation toward is whether this is an acceptable risk to you, not whether it’s sort of shady. Which it is. And you know.

Corey2member
2 years ago
Reply to  jdr

This is why league votes on trades are bullshit. The fact that the other owners don’t understand the trade does not mean there’s anything wrong with the trade. We had a trade vetoed in my fantasy football league (my baseball leagues don’t allow league votes to approve), on the basis of alleged “unfairness”. The team that supposedly was the “loser” of this “unfair trade” would have gained points over the season. Owners who had no part in the trade have no business second guessing the decision making process of the people who did.