The Unwritten Rules: “Don’t Be That Guy”
I have been “that guy”. If we are honest, we all have been. Typically, when we really dislike something or someone it can be traced to a trait we own or exhibit.
I thought I’d start this piece with a funny anecdote about something people do in real life that I hate, but also do. When I had a hard time thinking of something that I do and also complain about, I texted my wife for inspiration. She responded with a 5,000+ word text of examples that felt a little more accusatory than helpful and may or may not have started an argument and caused some resentment. So, yeah… I am “that guy.” I think if most people are honest, there are moments when they have been as well.
Last week on I posted this on twitter:
When trading, what are some of the annoying things other people do?
— Justin Mason (@JustinMasonFWFB) June 16, 2017
There were some great responses and I encourage you to go through the thread and read them all. I have taken my ten favorite and decided to examine the most unpopular trading maneuvers.
The Neg
Trash the guy on your roster that he is wanting to trade for.
— joseph pytleski (@ShoelessJoeHQ) June 16, 2017
It is completely transparent. There is very few things worse than the guy who gives you a long diatribe about how awful your player is, how he is going to regress, or how awful the struggling star you have is and then offer to take him off your hands for you. If you didn’t like the guy, you wouldn’t be asking for him in a trade. It isn’t a good negotiating technique, it comes off as desperate, like the guy that bad mouths his friend’s spouse because he is “secretly” in love with her. This isn’t an awful VH1 TV show, we all know what is going on. Don’t be that guy!
The Trash for Treasure
Quantity for quality. Don’t send me 4 average players for Mookie Betts. I also have to drop 3 players. Just don’t.
— Greg Shirron (@KJH05) June 16, 2017
The idea behind this trade is simple math. Player A + Player B + Player C = Stud Player D. However, this doesn’t account for Newton’s 3rd Law of Motion:
“For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.”
Meaning that if I acquire three of your average player for one of my good players, then I have to drop two players. Not to mention the fact that why would I want to jettison my stud for no real gain? This typically only works in extremely deep formats where there is no depth available on the waiver wire, but even then it makes little or no sense for the parties involved. The same can be said for the reverse of this. No, I am not going to trade Clayton Kershaw and Nolan Arenado for Mike Trout. Don’t be that guy.
The Must Win Guy
have to win the trade rather than a fair trade for both.
— Ray Guilfoyle (@RotoRay_LAD) June 16, 2017
I say this all the time:
Trading is a like a relationship, if you are selfish, you will be spending the fun times by yourself.
You have to give something to get something in this world and that applies to trading. If you have to win or screw over your trading partner everytime you make a deal, eventually you will find yourself without any trading partners. A good trade helps both parties achieve what they set out to do, improve their teams. The purpose of trades should never be to win that trade, it should be to win your league. Don’t be that guy.
Captain Oblivious
Offer you categories or positions that you simply do not need
— Dov Witkes (@dov44) June 16, 2017
“I’ll give you Corey Kluber for Kenley Jansen.” Wow, that would be a great offer if I wasn’t middle of the pack in the category and within a couple saves of guys ahead and behind me, but you would know that if you checked my team’s spot in the standings! You obviously know what your team needs, but can’t bother to take the 90 seconds it would take you to figure out what my team needs.
Also included in this type of trader is the one that asks for your best prospects when you are rebuilding in exchange for aging veterans. Don’t be that guy.
The Low Baller
When someone starts the negotiation with an idea and its a total low ball offer for a top player/when they say they do a trade then pull out
— Donny Miller (@DonnyMillerFWFB) June 16, 2017
Most times, when a trade gets offered it is not the best available deal, but sometimes the lesser offer becomes insulting. While you want to make a profit on a deal, typically offers like these tend to shut down negotiations before they begin. It is better to offer something fair from the get go and continue to work from there than to insult the intelligence of your trading partner. Don’t be that guy.
The Re-Negotiator
Rejecting a trade offer that both parties verbally agreed upon – guy in my league considers that counter-offering.
— Richie Oliver (@secondhandsmug) June 16, 2017
I ran into this for the first time last season. An owner sent me an offer via Facebook messenger believing that I would never accept it outright because of the love I had for the player I would be giving up. When I said ok, he started trying to renegotiate the terms of the deal. Not only did I not want to deal with this particular owner, but this led me to explaining to him that I wouldn’t be exploring any other deals with him in the future. This type of maneuvering breaks trust between trading partners that can rarely be earned again. You shouldn’t be willing to send an offer if you aren’t willing to have the other person accept it. This also includes those people that use verbiage like “would you consider Player A for Player B” as a means of attempting to gain information to extract more value later. If I can’t trust your word is your bond, then I won’t trust you in the future. Don’t be that guy.
The “No” Means “Maybe” Guy
Continuously asking for the player you’ve told them is 100% unavailable.
— Steve (@Scraig31) June 16, 2017
I have never really gotten why people make guys completely unavailable, but if someone says “No Way” then let it be. Further persistence on said player will only annoy the owner to the point where they don’t want to deal with you any longer. You aren’t going to wear the other person down, so maybe try asking about a different player or talking to a different owner in the league. Don’t be that guy.
The Houdini
Not acknowledge the trade. Either accept or decline but don’t let it sit there entire time
— brad traylor (@BTray75) June 16, 2017
Full disclosure: I have totally done this and it is really uncool. In my defense, it is because I play in 16 leagues and am extremely busy, so sometimes I don’t realize I have an offer. It is always best to keep an open line of communication with your league mates so this doesn’t happen. However, there are people that will just let offers sit for days, knowing that they have an offer there. I don’t know the strategic advantage to doing this, but it is extremely frustrating. That is why I like the function on some sites which allow trades to expire after a certain amount of time. You should pay attention and respond in a timely fashion. I’ll stop being that guy.
The Dump Truck
One final take: the guy who plays hardball with you, then gives it away elsewhere; and the dumping team that snap-sells to the first caller.
— scott pianowski (@scott_pianowski) June 16, 2017
Shop around! There is nothing more frustrating when you get a notification about a trade in your league that you would have given up more to acquire the player(s) in the deal. When making a trade you should always attempt to get the best possible deal and market your available players to the entire league. Don’t be that guy.
The Insta-Veto
I was surprised no one brought this one up. I have been in multiple leagues over the years with owners that want to veto any trade they aren’t in. It is the reason that I prefer to play in leagues without league voting when it comes to trading. Vetoes should be reserved for preventing collusion. Value is subjective and the purpose of vetoes shouldn’t be a judgment of someone’s perceived value of a player or players. If you don’t like trading, go play NFBC. If you think vetoes should be used as a strategic tool, then you are kind of a jerk. Don’t be that guy.
Justin is the co-host on The Sleeper and The Bust Podcast and writes for Rotographs covering the Roto Riteup as well as other periodic articles. In addition to his work at Rotographs, Justin is the lead fantasy writer/analyst and co-owner for FriendswithFantasyBenefits.com, and the owner of The Great Fantasy Baseball Invitational. He is also a certified addiction treatment counselor. Follow Justin on Twitter @JustinMasonFWFB.
I’ve been The Houdini, but as a reaction to The Lowballer. Lowball trades that make no sense, I don’t even bother to respond. It’s insulting.
Earlier this year a guy joined one of my leagues. On joining, he posted “don’t try to take advantage of me. I know baseball!”…a week ago he offered me Dansby Swanson and Ivan Nova for Michael Conforto. *Headdesk*
Whoops, I’ve been the veto jerk. It’s more because I’ve seen a team completely mortgage their future and I am afraid they are just going to quit the league the following year if it doesn’t end up working out.
The way to fix this is to require people to put the following season’s dues in the pot before making future-mortgaging trades. Then if they bolt they’ve forfeited next year’s buy-in.
That requires being in a money league, no thanks, this is about pride not money.
The problem becomes that if you don’t let people manage their teams they way they desire you risk them leaving as well. I’m an anti-veto guy. Should be reserved for preventing collusion.
Collusion is a myth (at least in keeper leagues) anyway.
On point with all of these. This should be required reading for my league.
Thank you!
I concur. You nailed every annoying fantasy tick I could think of…and you did so without rancor, thanks. The main change that I’ve noticed in 20 years of playing this funky little game is that owners are so much smarter now. My pet generalization: Every owner has weaknesses but being dumb about the value of players is usually not one of them so, yes, fair trade offers save time.
Holy shit. Sole-power veto is a thing? To me, that would be the first sign of a poorly run league. I’d be out so fast.
I am on the other spectrum, not one of my leagues has a veto process. And I won’t play in one that does.
Hmmm, I guess I should ask why you see a veto process as a bad thing? I guess I prefer a democratic process for mediating possibly bad deals. I guess it also depends on the admin that has sole veto power. I don’t trust people. Lol.
I see no reason to veto any of the trades stated in the comments. Some may not be even, but good for the owner who got ahead and the other owner may know something others don’t.
Trades don’t have to be fair looking for everyone, just to the two owners making it.
So you play in leagues with no vetoes at all? I’d be totally fine with that. I guess I’m arguing against leagues where one person, and one person only can protest/veto. To me that’s too easily exploitable.
My league has always just had commissioner approval and I’ve always just looked up at the email or notification, smiled, maybe texted one side or the other, then hit approve. Deals are between owners, not the league. Imagine if all MLB owners could veto every trade. Nothing would happen.
Also, a lot of trades I’ve made where I’ve been like, “Yeah I really pulled a fast one, ” and other managers are like, “whoa how’d you do that,” end up really sucking for me despite the immediate accolades. Let the trades fly and see what happens; nobody can totally predict how it’ll go.
“I don’t trust people” — yeah exactly. I trust one person (the commish) more than a group of a dozen others. If the commish sucks and vetoes stuff that shouldn’t be, then he’s out as the commish. And if the commish needs to veto a trade, then that means someone should be getting kicked out of the league for collusion (or for making an absurd deal). You traded Trout for Trea Turner? Yeah you’re out of the league (and the trade is reversed). Find another owner who isn’t an idiot.
But when you open trades up to voting, there’s always some dick that will complain about a trade being unfair or whatever. I say let people manage their teams how they want. If you wouldn’t have done a deal that I made, then tough. There’s a certain “you know it when you see it” to this. But I’ve been in leagues with voting and something like a fifth of all deals get vetoed for no good reason.
@Enthusiastic I guess that makes too much sense to argue against. Maybe I’ve just been fortunate enough to be in leagues where stuff generally doesn’t get flagged by members unless its absolutely dumb…but I could totally see how community vote could end up like community micromanagement. Honestly I think Jeff’s “no veto” leagues are the best idea. I don’t know why we even get offended by one-sided deals. If a guy wants to gut his own team then that’s one easier matchup for me…
“I don’t trust people”
Yet you trust the entire league to veto for the right reason (hint: there is only one).
Because a league should not be run as a democracy. I’ve been playing leagues long enough to realize a strong league needs a strong commissioner when it comes to topics such as veto power.
The No Vetoes approach definitely works better when most of your leagues are with industry folks and other highly competent players. The better the league, the less necessary are vetoes.
It is, but you need a strong and fair commissioner that won’t use it to his advantage
Had a guy trade away his Seung Hwan Oh this year (early before his struggles) for Kevin Gausman in a league with losses as a category which further depletes Gausman’s already shit value. When I called him out on it his excuse was “I’m punting saves”. Fine, just get something, anything of value for them. Not Kevin freaking Gausman. So frustrating.
I am the “re-negotiator” and I honestly still see nothing wrong with it. I don’t know where someone else values my/their players. It’s a jumping off point, not an official offer. I try to come with a competitive offer from the get-go, and if the other manager says that’s good for them, I still need to make sure it makes mathematical sense for my team. If I had to do that analysis before I started negotiations for every potential deal without knowing exactly how the other team values players, it’d be a HUGE time waste.
Don’t offer it if it doesn’t make sense to you. Stop being a re-negotiator. I’m surprised anyone wants to “negotiate” with you. Poor, poor sportsmanship.
If you tweak your approach, you won’t piss people off. I suggest frameworks. So I might say, I want to swap players X and Y for player Z and something else. Is that an acceptable framework? If yes, then we get down to the business of negotiating details – often at least one of X, Y, or Z aren’t even in the final deal.
This is an excellent way of approaching trades, and me and one guy in my league pretty much have this down to an art form. We keep an eye on each other’s team, and if someone goes down, and free agency is ugly, we’ll usually try work out a trade.
Maybe once we might have made a kind of concrete offer to each other over two and a half seasons? Otherwise, it’s usually, “I’m looking to acquire Player X, I think Player Y helps your team, perhaps there are these filler guys we can add to the trade to either balance it out, or help fill some holes on our rosters”.
There’s been times where we’ve pulled off blockbuster trades in the span of three messages. There’s also been times when talks lead nowhere. We’ve both won trades, we’ve both lost trades, and we’ve both had trades where both teams equally benefitted from the trade.
And then there’s the one guy in our league who does every single one of these, except for trashing guys on your roster he wants to trade for. He’s especially bad at the quantity-for-quality part. And there’s no such thing as a quick trade negotiation with this guy. It’s basically gotten to the point that I just don’t trade with the guy unless it’s one of those rare times he’s negotiating in good faith, or he has something I need, that no one else has/no one else can afford to trade.
It’s fine to have preliminary discussion to roughly gauge the other owner’s values, but don’t make an offer until AFTER you make sure it makes sense for your own team.
To clarify: these are discussions having over text, chat, and email that typically start with me saying: “just spitballing, how far off is player x for player y”. To me, that is not an official offer, but the other owner might say “yeah I can do that”. I might not be comfortable with that deal after checking the net affect on my team. I pivot the discussion to something that better suits my needs.
At no point has anyone ever gotten mad at me or refused to negotiate moving forward. In fact, I easily get more deals done than the average manager.
OK, maybe you’re not the re-negotiator after all.
Your first post made it seem like you want to make the other team pinpoint their valuation before you even bother to do it – even though you are the one initiating the trade.
The only time I think that is acceptable is when you make the offer and the other party takes a few days to get back to you. For example if you text someone an offer involving one of your SP’s and then in the next two days a few of your pitchers get hammered or injured. 3 days later the other owner says yes. However that’s why I always tell the other party to make the offer through our league’s website if they are serious. Once it is accepted it is binding
The guy who pulls The Houdini or otherwise stalls on a proposal, then finally approves it when player on his side of the trade gets injured or demoted (and notices before you).
I play in a league with a team that admittedly Houdinis for this exact reason. Super annoying.
Does anyone think the following trade is acceptable in a keeper league? Trea Turner, M. Cabrera, R. Hill, and Bundy for N. Cruz, Dee Gordon, Kluber, and Cmart. Keep in mind that we can only keep a total of four players and one has to be a pitcher. I know vetoes are mostly used for collusion, but this is a big overpay for Turner. For reference, I had a trade in May or early June of last season where I was sending V. Velasquez for Felix. It got overturned because people didn’t like it. Obviously, it wasn’t collusion. One side of the trade above said vetoes should only be for collusion. I’m pissed cause I would’ve given up a draft pick for those pitchers.
Trea/Miggy is pretty equivalent to Dee/Cruz, but Klubes/Cmart absolutely blows Hill/Bundy away. Then again I am of the opinion that people should be allowed to make crappy trades as long as there’s no collusion evident.
Can’t. If you’re going to have limited keeper rules, you have to expect trades like this to happen.
Yea, this swap is fine. Guy wanted to trade a lot for Turner and maybe Miggy. Nothing wrong with that.
Right, it seems like Turner and Kluber are likely the only keepers in this format. So the team that upgraded his future has to sacrifice its present. Those are the classic mechanics of keeper trades.
I swapped Chapman, Votto, CMart, deGrom, and Springer for Pollock, Gleyber, Moncada, Duffy, and Keuchel in 3 separate deals. It looks like I got fleeced but really I was not competing and every salary I swapped out was unaffordable beyond this season and every player I traded for has a salary that I can afford for at least 2 and probably 3 years. And I know Votto and Springer will be back in the auction pool next spring. In keeper leagues, there should be no inclination to veto any move (unless collusion).
The one I have seen recently is an owner looking to trade, we start the conversation, and they will never make an offer. And if I make one, I get lambasted. I feel these guys are only looking for a lopsided trade so they can send it into the CBS podcast to get it graded as an A.
My home league always has trouble with the veto. We are a redraft league with 12 members, and we always have a little trouble filling the 12th spot. This year the 12th member is a guy that knows baseball somewhat, but has never played fantasy baseball. He offered Machado, Jay Bruce, and Verlander to one of our league’s members for Eugenio Suarez, Duvall, and Vargas. The league member getting Machado immediately accepted it, but the trade was quickly vetoed by a league vote. 1-2 members have always argued that all trades should be put through except in case of collusion, but these types of trades, to most of our league, seem to be a good example of when the veto might be fair. We’ve vetoed several other trades that were nearly as bad.
I know the simple solution may be to play with 10 if this continues to be a problem, and we will probably do that, but we prefer 12. I am looking for more takes on this use of the veto – could anyone help us out?
My league is exactly like this and we also usually rotate the last team or 2 to new members. We simply implemented harsher veto rules. For a trade to be vetoed, 8 out of the 10 people not involved in the trade need to veto it. It’s not perfect but in three years since its’ implementation we’ve only vetoed 1 trade. If a trade is that unbalanced that the rest of the league is up in arms about it, they can have a voice, but it needs to be an overwhelming veto rather than just half the league voting against it.
I’ll say this about the “must win” category – if your team is balanced, successful, and not playing out of their minds, then why would you make a fair trade? The only reason to trade in that scenario is to attempt arbitrage.
Sometimes, just like in real baseball, you need to make trades that are going to keep talent away from your opponents. Also, it’s always best to protect yourself against injuries to your major guys that could derail your season (and with the amount of injuries this year, that’s a very real possibility this year). I’m also the guy who leads out league in add/drops every year (although there’s one guy challenging me for that crown this year). I was actually a distant second place for a while, but I’ve had a pretty savage run of injuries, which means add/drops on activations or placement on the DL (if I have room… there’s been times I’ve had 6 guys DL eligible, with only 2 spots), I’m a pitcher streamer, I have no problem picking up and playing guys on hot streaks and dropping then when they go cold, or keeping them if they keep well (this year’s great finds: Ryan Zimmermann, Ryon Healy, Travis Shaw, Yonder Alonso, and you could probably put Jed Lowrie in there as well for offense, Jose Berrios, Corey Knuebel, possibly Jeff Hoffman, and Jimmy Nelson right as he got hot for pitching).
I know only part of that covers any trading aspect, but the bigger point is, it’s always possible to make your team better, it’s always possible to protect yourself from injuries, and there’s really no reason NOT to keep better, free talent away from your opponents. Plus, I definitely have myself some more trade chips I an use if, say, I wanted to go “all in”. Two of three of Healy, Shaw, and Alonso (and possibly Zimmermann if I’m going REALLY big… I do have Freddie Freeman coming back), will probably get traded to upgrade in other places. I’ve had quite a few people ask about Berrios.
I’ve got a loaded roster despite having to carry DL guys on my bench. I’ve got interest in guys I’ve acquired for free, who would bring back someone who could put me over the top. I trade in good faith. I may make a slight overpay on an “all-in” trade, should I make one, but that’s pretty much necessary as my injured guys come back, and I need roster spots.
My biggest trade pet peeve is when owners reject trades, but don’t give any indication of why. Do you not want to give up the player being asked for? Do you not like the player being offered? Do you not want to make moves at those positions? Are you not interested in trading at all? Or is there interest, but its just not enough? Give some info so we can go back and forth or I can know to move on to another owner.
I almost added this one! Communication is vital when trading
Related to that–and sorry if I sound like Dr. Phil–but having good cheer & not caring TOO, TOO much helps. There’s a fine line between playing a game well and playing it too hard and too seriously. And it is a game, despite often feeling like it’s…more than a game. A perky attitude (or something like that, something that gives you a little distance) can save you from being crushed or petulant when things turn out wrong.
Maybe you just don’t like the offer, don’t feel desperate to make a trade, and therefore don’t want to go through the considerable effort to reconstruct trades that you wouldn’t have made if they had never approached you. If you want to reject a trade without explanation when you just have no interest in what they’re proposing, I say fine, just do it quickly and politely.
I tend to reject low ball offers and trash-for-treasure trades without comment.
I don’t mind that at all. Just because you make an offer, the other owner is not under an obligation to give away information to you. It may be disadvantageous for them to show their hand.
If someone rejects an offer, either they are not interested and you can move on to another owner or they are playing coy. But either way, moving on to another owner is the right play for you, because if they were coy, you called their bluff and eliminated any negotiating advantage they thought they had, and if they weren’t interested you didn’t waste your time.
I agreed to trade Greg Holland for Miggy a few weeks ago, and the league vetoed it! The most frustrating thing was that the team I was trading with was ahead in most offensive categories and had Miggy on their bench. They needed help with saves, ERA, and WHIP. But did anyone bother to even realize that? For a moment I thought maybe they felt I wasn’t getting a fair deal!
Wow. That kind of veto’ing is nothing but micro-management. It reeks of jealousy, as do many vetoes that I read about, come to think about it.
I sent an offer around the deadline a couple years ago for a prospect in the evening. Woke up the next morning and went to work, (my job doesn’t lend itself to checking my phone/email a lot of the time and I sometimes work long hours.)
I got finished my work day, went home and checked and they accepted; the guy included a gleeful message that the prospect had been traded to the NL that day (it’s an AL only league).
He knew the guy had been moved, and accepted my offer before CBS updated the site.
I know part of that is my fault, but still.
Maybe the lesson here is don’t be me OR that guy in that particular scenario….
See now this is one of the situations where I think a veto is called for, or at the very least the owner on the receiving end of a player who was hurt or traded while a trade was open should have an option to void the deal.
It is ultimately the owner’s responsibility, but to have a guy injured or traded after a trade was sent and then have the other owner pounce is not really in the spirit of trading.
This specific situation is one all leagues should have a rule covering because on the off chance it happens, it has the potential to create a ton of drama.
I have to admit, I’ve been the veto-happy guy once before. It was late in the season, we had a trade deadline, and I was in 4th place. Top 4 places make the playoffs. The 5th place owner made a trade that would help him and threaten my playoff spot, so I gathered the other top 3 owners and we vetoed. He finished in 5th place, and I firmly believe the trade would have propelled him to 4th, maybe even 3rd.
I feel bad about it to this day. He missed out on the playoffs. Thankfully, it wasn’t a cash prize league.
My league has rules where you can keep up to 5 players for up to two consecutive seasons. A player traded Trout, Arenado, and Miggy for Trea Turner, Alonso, Conforto, and Berrios. Was I in the wrong for believing that this was veto worthy?
Not a great trade but not veto worthy. Trout is the best but Turner is probably a 1st round pick in redraft leagues next year. Arenado is also a 1st rounder but Conforto and Berrios probably have pretty good value in keeper leagues. Miggy is a diminishing asset
How about the owner that wants you to do all the work in a trade? For example getting a text like ” What do you want for Bellinger?” Feels really lazy to me. You want him from me how about you take the time to look at my team and come up with something that makes sense.
I also had teams combine this with the “Neg”.
Example- “What do you want for Alex Wood? Keep in mind that I am loaded with pitching so he would probably only be my #6 SP”
Another one I just thought of ” The Over-reactor”. You spend days working on a fair deal that you both agree to but the other team pulls out at the last minute because his player had 1 good game or your player had 1 bad game that night