Dump Trading Madness: A Follow-Up
On Tuesday, I described the issues us keeper league owners face in handling “dump” trades, using my current AL-Only keeper league as an example of the madness that began about two weeks ago. One commenter suggested I publish a follow-up summarizing some of the best solutions and outlining the pros and cons of each. Since the post did receive some excellent comments, this is that requested follow-up.
First, let me begin by saying that in no way do I want to prevent and eliminate dump deals. They come with the keeper league territory and are part of the whole point of playing in such a format. In redraft leagues, you have no choice but to play for this year. In keeper leagues, if your whole team busts, hits the IL, or you’re just a weak fantasy player, and find yourself at the bottom, you have the option of giving up this year in the hopes of collecting enough keeper talent to compete in future years.
My issue really stems from diluting the importance of a good auction and in-season team management as the top half of the league races to steal as many high-end players as possible. Suddenly, the auction has far less importance as you could just trade a minor leaguer for Alex Bregman (who was actually part of a dump deal) a month and a half into the season. In my opinion, the auction should always be the most important factor in a fantasy team’s success, and in keeper leagues, the quality of your keepers should probably rank as second most important. Dump dealing reduces the importance of both and boosts trading with the bottom rung as vital to finishing in the money.
So what are some solutions? Let’s highlight some of the best from the comments, with some pros and cons of each that I was able to think of.
Advertising Intention to Dump
Pros:
- Offers every team a fair chance to make their best offer(s) to dumping team
- Theoretically, dumping team will receive better offers than if negotiating with just one owner
Con:
- Eliminates advantage savvier owner seeking out potentially dumping team will have in striking first with an offer
Institute Salary Floor (either sum only active players or active and IL players)
Pro:
- Curbs how much a dumping team can trade away, so the owner doesn’t end up fielding a squad of $1 players, potentially dramatically altering the future standings
Con:
- Equates auction salary to actual in-season value, which is flawed as breakouts and busts emerge (think about a trade involving an expensive Jose Ramirez and cheap Daniel Vogelbach, which isn’t even necessarily a dump trade, but wouldn’t be allowed if it put the Vogelbach recipient below the floor)
Reduce # of Minor Leaguers Kept (we are allowed to keep up to 8)
Pros:
- No more trading a solid Major Leaguer for the 250th best prospect, because that 250th best prospect is unlikely to be rostered
- Fewer minor leaguers means dumpers will think longer and harder about the return he receives, now giving up 25% of his minor leaguers, rather than 12.5%
Con:
- Reduces the fun factor of diving deeper into the prospect pool for that hidden future gem
Increase Salary of Minor Leaguers (from our league’s Facebook Groups thread)
Pro:
- Reduces the value of minor leaguers, which would reduce the returns they bring back and the number of dump trades being made
Con:
- Minimizes the value of discovering a top prospect early as his profit potential is reduced with the increased salary
***
As you can see, I did a pretty poor job of coming up with several pros and cons for each. Maybe there are no additional pros and cons, or perhaps I need help brainstorming!
Personally, I am definitely a proponent of decreasing the number of minor leaguers kept and perhaps marginally increasing their salaries. I’m wishy-washy about the salary floor given the example in my Con, but like the concept and believe it’s worth further discussion.
A dumper advertising his intentions is certainly in that owner’s best interests. It totally sucks when a dump trade is accepted and you didn’t even know the team had already made the decision to dump and those stars were available. Of course, when you’re the one hounding the bottom rung owner if he’s ready to dump, are the only one negotiating with him, and agree to a trade, you’re loving it and pat yourself on the back for paying attention, being proactive, and savvy. So I go back and forth on whether advertising intentions should be mandated by the league constitution or simply a smart decision made by the dumper.
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.
Yes, I was really impressed by the comments yesterday. A lot of bright people read your work.
Who are you calling bright?
You really don’t need to solve the “problem”. Dump trades are part of both fantasy and….AND MLB. But I understand there are many out there that see it as a problem. You just need to stomach this format.
Did you read the articles? The mere existence of dump trades is not the “problem.”
Regarding the salary floor problem w/ Ramirez for Vogelbach and the inability for it to accommodate breakouts. This might be more trouble than it’s worth, but you could calculate “trade salaries” continuously throughout the year. It could be as simple as how many dollars they’ve been worth to-date, annualized. That value would only be used in the event of a trade; else, the auction price is used for keeper considerations.
For the traded breakout player’s keeper price, I think it would be preferable to revert to the auction price rather than using the in-season “trade salary” as the basis the price to keep him. This preserves the breakout player’s value as a keeper.
It is needlessly complicated.
If you have a salary cap and floor, that just creates the opportunity for dead contract trades. A player of marginal utility but a high price gets put in a deal with a cheap breakout to make it salary neutral.
The lower number of total keepers. the less dumping that occurs. Might want to consider scaling back to 4-10 keepers total
IMO reducing the number of MiLB keepers is the easiest and least distasteful of all the options. I’ve always struggled to understand the difference between keeper leagues and dynasty leagues, but people speak about them differently so there must be some difference. Having so many MiLB keepers definitely feels “more” dynasty than keeper.
I am rarely in favor of mandating how managers run their teams, and think if someone chooses to act sub-optimally that is their right, except in cases of clear collusion. And the other options make things overly complicated.
This post should be downvoted heavily since I basically contributed nothing new to the conversation, lol.
The primary distinction between keeper and dynasty is that in a dynasty your entire roster carries over from year to year. In keeper, only a certain number of players (based on league rules) are eligible to stay.
And I agree, I think lowering the amount of minor league keepers is the easiest route here. If only the top 75 or so are owned, then it cuts their value by a lot.
Otherwise, in this situation, I’d advocate a mindset of “if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em.” In this kind of league, if you’re aware that these dump trades happen, and that you can’t do much to change them, it’s your imperative to then become the best dump trader because it’s part of the game. I get that aesthetically it’s not as fun for people who value the draft/auction and FA adds, but that’s how the cookie crumbles
Agree with JonV. I would add that another important difference between keeper and dynasty is the length of time a player can be owned…often 3 years in keeper and forever in dynasty. In keeper leagues, there are always players in the final year of their contracts. These players, along with players who are simply too expensive to be kept, are the players the dumpee targets. The dumper will want players who can help them win in the future, which are prospects AND cheap players who will be paid less than their anticipated value earned in future years. If it is a deep league, competing teams will not be loaded top to bottom with studs. They will have rostered some moderate-value, low-salary players who are made excellent trade chips in dump trades.
In my opinion, there is no role for an extended rebuild in a 3-yr keeper. When you find yourself in a position to dump, you should target next year as your all-in. Trade away your assets for maximal value (expected production-salary) and/or top level prospects. You’ll need a strong draft and in-season management to win next year, which is as it should be. It is important to understand that your window is just around the corner, and that middle tier prospects aren’t likely to help you get there. On the other hand, if you are in a dynasty league, the rebuild may be longer and mid level prospects might be useful contributors down the road. The value of mid level prospects is vastly different between keeper and dynasty. Know your league. When you dump, it doesn’t help you to trade one player who won’t help you next year for another player who won’t help you either.
I’m in a keep-5-forever league that’s approaching 20 years old and we have plenty of these dump trades every year.
Honestly, I love em. I’ve been on both sides of plenty of them, and I’ve had moments of terror when someone chasing me or I’m chasing for a title makes a huge move to improve his position. When those happened I didn’t think “this sucks and the rules should be changed,” rather, I thought “OK, it’s my move!!” And sure, I’ve made some very ill-advised deals in futile pursuits of the title, and on at least one occasion I’ve traded for someone simply to keep him off my competition’s roster. But on the whole I really think they add an element of excitement to title races. We don’t even have a trade deadline in our league (although there are MAJOR restrictions for off-season trades).
Also, thanks for the clarification about the differences between keepers and dynasties.
How do you enforce the advertising rule? Where do you draw the line at what is considered a dump trade? If without advertising I trade a top 10 pitcher for the consensus #2 prospect am I dumping or am I just really excited to own my new favorite player? Why should I get to make that trade if I’m the 2nd place team with a surplus of pitching but have it subject to scrutiny if I’m the 7th place team with a losing record? This sounds like an invitation for trade vetoes which isn’t good for any format.
Simple. An agreed upon trade has to be open to public comment for 24? 48? hours before it goes final. During that time the rest of the league is free to make better offers, and either party to the original trade may withdraw in favor of a new deal, at no penalty.
Rather than giving veto power to someone who may exercise it for purely selfish reasons, this helps to handle the “bad trade” problem by allowing for market correction.
If your league uses standings to determine draft order, consider a modified version of the gold plan:
https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/shane-doan-tanking-gold-plan-nhl-lottery-draft/
My dynasty league uses it, and it encourages the worst teams to field competitive lineups at the end of the year in order to earn the top picks in the next year’s amateur draft.
With no fans, no tickets to sell, and no TV revenue, where is the incentive to try to field a decent team once you realize you are not going to win? Third place is the same as 12th place in Ottoneu leagues. Why spend all summer fiddling with a mediocre lineup trying to compile 17K points and finish 5th, when you could dump your stars and load up on cheap players with upside for next year?
When 1 contender brushes off a trade offer asking for their best prospect, that team has no basis to complain when the rebuilding team makes a similar trade with another contender.
The risk of dump trades is functional… It forces contenders who don’t want to get outdone to consider trading their top prospects when they have the chance.
There are plenty of answers to your first question: Pride and fun for example.
Also, most people who think by MAY that they have no chance of winning are wrong about that.
No need for us to agree. But in my experience I have been able to win a lot of leagues by dumping players one year and then using the resulting huge amount of cap space in the following draft to add a few superstars. I find that to be fun, and I take pride in winning titles some years, and in adding key prospects other years.
If you have (e.g.) Goldschmidt at $55 on a mediocre team, you can trade him with a $55 loan to a contender and add (e.g.) Casey Mize at $3. Rather than finish 4th back to back years, I find it more fun to finish 11th in year 1 and win the title year 2.
I have no disagreement with your point of view, or even the strategy you describe. I just think people tend to over-rate the permanence of the standings in the early/mid part of the season.
There is actually a middle ground here. You can keep the number of MiLB keepers the same and their price the same…as long as they are held by the acquiring team. For example, maybe Gavin Lux is drafted by Team X in the 22nd round of a draft, or for $2 in the auction. As long as he’s held by his acquiring team, his keeper cost stays the same. If he is traded, it’s escalated by 5 rounds, or $5, or some derivative thereof. In this way, the first mover advantage of drafting or picking up a player as a FA stays in place, and the value of the player to the team dumping is reduced (thereby potentially reducing the load of players they move to a contender).
I kind of love this idea. I just wonder if league owners will even value prospects less if their salaries do escalate after being traded for. Will this actually affect owner behavior? It would certainly cause me to value minor leaguers less, but I could see a scenario where it makes some of the owners, including me, even angrier when someone trades Mookie Betts for the 121st best minor league prospect escalating to $10 that is unlikely to see the Majors until 2021! Is this change really enough to stop these kinds of ridiculous trades? I guess we won’t know until a change is made.
It probably needs to be done in conjunction with some other incentive that makes finishing higher in the standings more appealing. Could be FAAB for the next year, real dollar penalty for finishing lower in the standings (our 12 team league has a $100 penalty for 12th, $75 for 11th, $50 for 10th, $25 for 9th, nothing for 8th, then gradually increasing payouts for 7th through 1st place).
In a similar vein, if you have escalators at the end of the year where player costs increase year over year, you can always stop this and look to modify it someway. i.e., have some sort of maximum $ value a player can reach, and to get any higher they have to actually earn that dollar amount? Or maybe if you allow teams to bid up other players in the offseason like in otteneau you also allow the manager who had his players bid up the option to REDUCE the salary of any player who did not meet his target $$ value? So, maybe you own Betts at $50…you are thinking about dumping him, but he’s been good this year and maybe you can reduce his salary next year to $40 because he didn’t make $50 for you this year?
But what if said prospect is not dealt in a “dump” trade?
What if two owners simply want to make a 1-for-1 deal to swap two prospects they have differing values on? Now both prospects are significant less valuable even though they were traded in a regular “fair” deal.
A lot of the dump-trades I have seen happened AFTER the dumping team shopped his players around and got no offers. I have been in that position before – contending teams repeatedly brushing off my trade offers for their top prospects.
If contenders don’t take dumping teams up on their offers, they should not be shocked when dumping teams take what they can get from other contenders.
Dump trades force contending teams to consider trading their top prospects, or at least take rebuilding teams seriously when they make offers. If you are offered Bregman for your prospect, and you brush the offer off without so much as a counter offer, don’t be shocked when your rival adds Bregman a week later.
In my 12T mixer with relatively deep rosters and 5 minors slots, we combat tanking by instituting a loser’s bracket for the #1 overall pick (the first two rounds of players are not eligible to be kept).
If you’re not in the playoffs or the money, the prospect of owning Mike Trout next year should be enough for non-playoff teams to be incentivized to improve or at least maintain their roster strength until the end of the year.
I don’t know how this would work for auction leagues, but perhaps the winner of the loser’s bracket could get an extra 5% of their budget or something.
While you entirely divorce how well a player drafts from how well he or she benefits from dump trades, those two skills are better described as friends with benefits.
At least that’s the case in my deep auction league whose 17-man reserves means the league collectively rosters between 100 and 150 minor leaguers (with the balance of spots filled by MLB reserves and injured players). If you draft well, securing talent before it is realized, you gain among other owners a reputation as an astute finder of underrated talent , and those owners tend to want your prospects more than the prospects of other teams.
That is also true in the auction: An owner who consistently nabs players for great values than have better assets to trade as keepers to become the beneficiary of dump trades.
FWIW, I don’t think your “con” issue with a salary floor is that big of an issue having played in a league that has one for over a decade. And the pros you list are true (I wasn’t in the league then, but I have been told that it was instituted a year after a team ended up with less than $30 in salary—with a 24-player roster). The way we avoid your con issue is two-fold—(1) injured players (or players who have been sent to the minors) who are traded have no salary floor value (i.e. they cannot be used as salary chits; the team that has them when they get hurt can have them count), and (2) the Jose Ramirez issue you mention just rarely happens—usually teams that spend a bunch on busts are not contenders so they can’t go to a last place team in a dump trade anyway.
Cutting back the number of keepers will help balance the draft as being the most important part of the season. Our league allows you to keep 8 out of 24 roster slots/year so there’s always an abundance of talent. Cutting down on the number of minor league slots will also help because it allows the influx of new talent throughout the season as prospects come up and move into the top 50.
2 ideas that our league has to keep owners involved after they dump that haven’t been mentioned yet are
1) We offer teams that don’t finish in the money a small amount off of their entry fee next year if they win a category – this is really nice because in addition to keeping bottom teams involved, it makes it a bit more difficult to pick up points for the teams in the money
2) Teams that finish out of the money get picks in the reserve round based on how they finish. I.E. if top 4 get paid, guy who comes in 5th gets the 1st pick, 6th gets 2nd, and so on. This also gives incentive to compete even if you won’t win
Both rules have worked out very well as owners remain engaged all season