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 founder of ProjectingX IQ, an advanced fantasy baseball analytics platform that transforms projection data and in-season performance signals into actionable intelligence. He is the 2015 Fantasy Sports Writers Association Baseball Writer of the Year and three-time Tout Wars champion. He is the author of the eBook Projecting X 2.0: How to Forecast Baseball Player Performance, which teaches you how to project players yourself. Follow Mike on X@MikePodhorzer and contact him via email.
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.
I’m confused. Accept that kind of behavior? You mean making two trades I believe will help me win is unacceptable behavior?
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.
Maybe I wasn’t totally clear in my post. The teams I traded with are not in contention. They are mid-pack and at best are just playing for a better draft pick slot and/or pride finishing in 5th, rather than 6th.
How could this possibly be collusion or under the table dealings if I’m the one tied for first and getting nothing in return? It would have to be the opposite — giving up nothing and getting value — that would smell of collusion.
I’m pretty shocked the comments are questioning the ethics of the deal, rather than the strategy of trading defensively versus improving my team. I didn’t think there was any question the deal was ethical!
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.
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.
It’s not reverse standings — the first non-money finish (5th place) gets the 1st pick, and the order continues down to 12th place, followed by 4th – 1st. So yes, my trading partners are definitely improving their teams and trying to move up in the minor league draft pick rankings.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
As a relatively new fantasy player, it is difficult to suss out the unwritten rules of conduct (or whether there really are any other than play by the actual rules and try to win). My instinct, like GGDB’s, is that this would get a veto or worse get me kicked out of my league. It is not exactly “anti-competitive” because you are trying to win. And even though $1 FAAB is not “fair value” for Chapman and Straw, you are getting value in virtue of the standings hit to your opponents. Is this different than the last-place team in my redraft league offering me her best player for nothing in order to screw over someone in first she doesn’t like? As for how that could possibly be fair, e.g., what if it affects draft order next year? In any case, this strategy is a great example of how the game of fantasy baseball differs from the game of baseball.
Smart move, bad rule set to incentivize it.
Hmm, what rule set are you referring to that would incentivize this type of trade?
One overbroad possibility: this really only applies to roto and categories. It would be harder to make this kind of deal in a points league — though one can imagine trying to send good players to a team that can knock out a strong but playoff-fringe opponent.
The rule set you are playing with.
Can I call it crazy brilliant? Very creative.
While I think its a good idea, I have a hard time believing that you couldn’t get anything in return. I think you should have tried to get 50% of their value first.
I don’t know if it’s smart or crazy, but I absolutely love it
No issues with this at all. Don’t see it as an ethical issue if it’s within the ruleset, and it’s just smart play. I have done this in a roto league a few times, especially in the saves category. My league doesn’t allow trading for FAAB, and it has to be for a player. So no one has ever questioned me on it since i got a player in return, even if I dropped them after that. My optics were better than your trade(s) I guess. I think Nathan was saying the league’s ruleset shouldn’t allow a team to trade any player for $1 FAAB. So the ruleset doesn’t “incentivize” this trade so much as “allow” it. and in my opinion you’re just taking advantage of the rules which is not bad or unethical, just smart. If people in your league don’t like it, I don’t think they should veto it or complain. They should just acknowledge you are a smart player and propose a rule change in the offseason, which is Nathan’s point, I am pretty sure.
I’d say make it less obvious. Take on a player(s) or value, that although perceptible smaller you can easily say there is a value you prefer. Just plausible deniability to collusion questions. You are simply following the ‘enemy of my enemy is my friend’ and will easily have people getting frustrated.
However, this may cause infighting and therefore factions could form between members. In my keeper league, we have friends that feel better about trading away talent to certain people and ignore listening to equal or better offers. While it isn’t collusion, it pisses everyone off. So just be careful this doesn’t create strife amongst the league.
Don’t make it less obvious.
You either do it, because you believe that it is both within the rules, and generally ethical conduct.
Or you don’t do it, because you believe that it is either against the rules, or unethical (or both)
If you do it, but “make it less obvious” it means that you believe it’s wrong, but you’re doing it anyway. Don’t try to cover things up. If you feel like you’ll have to cover something up, don’t do it.
If you do it, and your league-mates don’t like it, they’ll make a new rule (or punish you under the existing rule you incorrectly interpreted).
You’re not wrong, but I’m generally with the group that calls trades of this sort very shady.
Whenever I see an apparently unbalanced (but legal) trade in a league of mine, I look for a chance to get even (find a better trade), not get mad (try to veto). In this case, the second place team might respond by doing the same thing — or the outright-collusive Cole and Vladito for a buck could happen — and you’d be in a poor position to protest that. Of course, there is a difference, but it’s a pretty nuanced one, and nobody wants to hear nuance from the first place team trying a weird strategy.
So while I wouldn’t veto this trade, personally, I think you’re embarking on a bit of a slippery slope for the Integrity Of The League. And … maybe this league is different, but I’ve found that people really don’t like people who push the Integrity Of The League limits just for a point or two.
did you consider the possibility that your trade partners could flip these guys in another deal to one of the teams chasing you?
Great point. I guess theory is the leads are very safe.
Brilliant move, my question is, you state Straw has an undesirable Keeper price, is that your opinion or will he be dropped at the end of the year? The owner you moved him to may decide the category bump he gets with Straw plus additional Runs hopefully next year is worth the price you were unwilling to pay. Regarding Chapman that was the right move also, you have a gap and holding him gives you no additional advantage.
I have tried similar moves in the past just not in FAAB leagues, so I was always getting a player in return whether I wanted them or not. We instituted a hold for 4 weeks baring an injury for any players traded, to prevent a trade and dump.
These are the perfectly legal trades that end leagues.
Excellent strategy. I once traded Manny similarly to a similar end. It’s a cutthroat world we players live in. Do what you have to. If the other owners had thought of it first, they’d have done it to you.
I have done this, but it’s almost as difficult as an ordinary trade. Worse, I have seen the new owner flip my dumped guy to the exact team I was trying to stop initially for a low price that still netted the seller a profit. Basically, one guy got a risk free arbitrage and I gave an asset away to my direct competition