The Power of Precedents
Yesterday, we had a innocuous little trade in the Screw Cancer ottoneu league between one of the new owners and an existing club. The new guy sent $15 Michael Brantley for a $4 Eduardo Rodriguez. Those are two very cut-able players. However, nobody is going to shred your fantasy credentials if you keep them.
A glance into the trade notes reveals why this little detail rated an article – a $2 loan to the new owner of Brantley, to be distributed after the draft. Fine, right? $13 Brantley for $6 ERod smells fine. You see, there’s just one problem with that – offseason loans are specifically disallowed in ottoneu.
This article has an alternative title – The Reason Why You Need Clear And Enforceable Rules. In the case of this trade, we quickly and civilly stepped in and said “woah, not allowed. See rule.” The two parties involved apologized and decided to keep the trade without the loan. It was a pain free resolution. No hurt feelings.
And really, for this specific swap, it would not have mattered to anybody if we allowed the loan. Who cares about $2? My concern, which I noted to the league, is that loans in ottoneu are already poorly understood “assets.” They’re often treated as a throw-in so a non-contender can get a nice keeper. In some cases, the cash is actually the biggest acquisition in a swap. If we collectively struggle to receive value for in-season loans, it probably doesn’t make sense to manually allow offseason loans. It’s also a hassle for the commissioner.
Had we simply allowed these two owners to self-police, it’s almost certain it would have had no effect upon the 2018 season. The bigger issue is the precedent. If they can swap $2, then I can swap $5. Pretty soon, we’re at the bottom of the slippery slope with $3 Ronald Acuna being traded for $65 Clayton Kershaw, $25 Gregory Polanco, and an $87 loan.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with that, but it is a complication of a format that’s already complicated. And one of the hallmark features of ottoneu is that teams all have to whittle their way back down to the same budget over the winter. It creates interesting opportunities.
In non-ottoneu formats, I usually use the phrase “loans are expressly prohibited.” This covers auction and FAAB budgets along with player transfers. If anybody tries to set up any type of loan… “hey, it’s prohibited. Expressly.”
Loans aren’t the only issue in want of clear rules. The when, why, and how of trade vetoes should always be clearly delineated. Too often, vetoes are simply used as an indication that you wouldn’t take one side of the trade. You think it’s lopsided.
Aww, you didn’t get to win the crappy trade. Shall I loan you my tiny violin? Sorry, I can’t. Loans are expressly prohibited.
In my opinion, and it is just an opinion, lopsided trades aren’t a reason to veto a deal. Again, it’s too easy to find yourself on the slick slope. A terrible trade is vetoed. Then a questionable trade is vetoed. Feelings are hurt. Everybody vetoes everything because it happened to them. League dies.
My leagues reflect this ideal. Rather than use a veto process, I allow for a 24 hour period to rescind trades – no questions asked. If you see a bad deal, convince the owners involved that it’s a bad deal. To add some stickiness to trades and prevent excessive tampering, if an owner rescinds a trade, they can’t trade the players involved for 10 days. In this case, I’ve created a very custom experience while also addressing the issues that can occasionally ruin leagues with vetoes. It’s worked very well.
There are plenty of other scenarios where clear rules can help to keep things civil. Let’s talk about them in the comments.
You can follow me on twitter @BaseballATeam
The trickiest one I ran into is the Ottoneu rule that: “Each team should maintain at all times a roster of 22 major-league players that can fill out a starting lineup. The remaining 18 roster spots can be used for reserves, consisting of both major and minor leaguers.”
There is no mechanism built in to make sure a team complies with this requirement and the use of the word “should” makes it unclear if this is an enforceable rule. In one league, there was a team that went so hard into a rebuild that they did not have 22 major league players well into the season. There was some consternation but it was eventually settled on it being unenforceable because “should,” and because we figured it would be a nightmare enforcing compliance if someone was close to the line and then players hit the DL or get sent down, etc.
That one could probably use some updating… I’ve always treated it as optional. However, ottoneu leagues are not deep enough to reward a pure prospects approach. Salaries inflate too rapidly on the guys who turn into serious producers. You’ll never turn the corner. Hence, you definitely should keep a full active roster.
“Should” means it’s ultimately optional. If you want it to be mandatory, the word needs to be “shall”.
Right, treat it as sage advice because the alternative DOES NOT WORK.
Ugh, I so much agree with you on trade vetoes. Sure, you don’t want collusion, but how often is that really a problem, especially in leagues with little or no real money on the line? Let guys manage their own rosters. If somebody gets traded for “too little,” why didn’t you make a better offer? And if you wouldn’t have made a better offer or weren’t communicating with other owners to know who was available, how can you blame an owner for taking the offer that was on the table?
Ottoneu and other keeper/dynasty formats are horrible for this. An owner is out of contention in July and has a $85 Trout. He looks at his roster and decides he’s not going to keep Trout at that price, so he figures any return is better than just cutting him in the offseason. Trout gets traded for a couple of mid-range assets, and the league loses its collective shit.
That scenario is an excellent example of loan money not being properly valued. The cash is worth 2 mid-range assets. The player is worth one monster.
The challenge is that the contender has to feel like they’re getting a lot better because they’re ruining their roster for future seasons. I find it’s best to target elite injured players in these scenarios. Years ago, I went and snagged a ~$30 Paul Goldschmidt from a contender right after he broke his hand. Was a win-win.
I’m not trying to argue what a half-season of Trout should cost. That depends on how many owners are in contention at the trade deadline, what their needs are, what assets they have to trade, etc., and at the end of the day he’s worth exactly what you can get for him, no more and no less.
It’s fine for an owner to look at a trade in their league think the seller didn’t get enough, or the buyer gave up too much, or present vs. future value isn’t being balanced correctly, or whatever. But it really grinds my gears when people say the trade shouldn’t go through just because they don’t agree with the player valuation or the thought process that went into the trade.
Besides, it’s much more productive to just take notes on who’s making bad trades and start making offers to put yourself on the good side of those deals.
Sure, but my league had a coup when someone traded Khris Davis for Chris Sale three weeks into last season in a redraft format.
The broad arguments about valuation not being justification for veto fail at the extremes, and kind’ve ignore that most people are trying to ask “At what extreme is it no longer okay?”
Though we had another owner who voted down literally every trade that didn’t involve him. It never really affected if the trades went through, but they certainly exist.
I assume the owner who traded Sale was happy with his pitching depth but felt he needed a 40 HR bat. Nothing wrong with that.
I disagree that the argument fails at the extremes. If you veto based on valuation, you’re basically just telling one owner they’re too dumb to make trades. I’m a nice guy (not really), so I don’t want to do that.
I suppose at some point there’s a presumption of bad-faith dealing because it’s almost impossible to imagine a rational justification for the trade. But the issue there isn’t valuation.