Worst Trade Ever – And What To Do About It
For fantasy junkies like me – and probably you – deep keeper and dynasty leagues are the zenith of modern civilization. I’m not here to extol their virtues. It suffices to say that they scratch a certain itch – the one you had as a kid when you were daydreaming about running your own major league club.
These deep formats also have something in common. No matter what, somebody is eventually going to make a horrific-looking trade. However, the way a trade looks on paper can be deceptive. Yesterday, the Cardinals traded a lot for Paul Goldschmidt. Some (ahem, me) might say they dealt too much. They also unmistakably improved their 2019 roster in a way that only minimally weakens their future chances at winning. It’s important to consider how a deal affects competition.
Another consideration is that apparently lopsided trades still work out in the “losing” owner’s favor pretty frequently. I’m going to make up some numbers now. Based on all the trades I’ve seen that are widely panned as unfair but also aren’t clearly unconscionable, I estimate somewhere between 35 to 40 percent of them ultimately favor the loser. From my perspective, the crowds aren’t very wise. So, even though your rival probably gotten more in a sketchy looking swap, it doesn’t mean they’re totally screwed. This is akin to winning a hand of Texas Hold ‘Em after being behind on the flop. It happens all the time.
So, the lede is thoroughly buried. Now why are we here again? To talk about unconscionable trades and the immediate steps a good commissioner should take. While the design of a league should encourage trading – negotiations are half the fun! – too many terrible trades can be ruinous.
This is one of the first questions I received during my chat on Tuesday:
To me, this hugs the line between exceptionally bad and unfathomable. In other words, we’re in unconscionable-adjacent territory. Prospects like Dylan Cease gain value in deep formats, but so do young superstars like Alex Bregman. If the Bregman owner received Maikel Franco, Cease, another Cease, and a third Cease, it would still look like a bad trade.
In leagues I run, I address terrible trades in two ways. It’s important to note that the following is intended for highly competitive leagues. More casual formats should be met with more casual rules.
Take Backsies
I make all trades revocable for 24 hours. You may revoke a trade for any reason such as an ill-timed injury or a much better, late offer. An important caveat – if you revoke a trade, you may not deal those players for a period of 14 days. During the season, this serves as a strong disincentive to any shenanigans.
In an offseason scenario like the above Bregman trade, it’s not such a big deal to realize you could have gotten twice as much and back out the trade. Of course, cancelling a trade is poor form. In fact, it’s codified as such in the draft constitution for the Dynasty To Be Named Later (DTBNL).
“24 Hour Revocability” any party to a trade may back out for any reason within 24 hours. This is done by contacting the commissioner. The owner(s) who back out may not trade the players involved for a period of 14 days from the original trade. For example, if I trade Max Muncy for Kevin Kiermaier and change my mind, I cannot trade Max Muncy for two weeks. This penalty is waived in the event of major injury. “Major injury” to be defined on a case-by-case basis at the commissioner’s discretion. Note: It is poor form to back out of a trade.
I tend to trust myself to make fair decisions as the commissioner. For a more neutral version of this rule, simply drop the clauses about injury.
Just… Leave
The second way I deal with unconscionable trades is more… draconian. Here are two more trade-related items from the aforementioned DTBNL Constitution:
- Vetoes are at the Commissioner’s discretion. There is no voting process. Generally, trades will be allowed unless they are grossly unconscionable. A vetoed trade is likely to be accompanied by the removal of the offending owner. This is a highly unlikely scenario.
- The Commissioner reserves the right to demand a rationalization for any trade. The rationalization may be published to the league.
Two things are happening here related to unconscionable trades. If an owner makes a deal that is so terrible it simply can’t be allowed, then I see no reason to retain that owner. However, I will give them a chance to explain their side of things. Perhaps I’ll upgrade my opinion. Notably, I have never vetoed a trade.
When To Veto
One example of a trade I would have vetoed comes to mind. The “losing” owner of this deal quit our 20 team, keep 28 dynasty about a month after making this swap. The commissioner then tried to undo the trade, but it was already too late. The time to act is immediately or not at all.
Ironically (or not), this trade involves Bregman, Franco, and Cease. It’s also an example of a terrible looking trade aging well for the losing owner. I mean, he still screwed up badly, but at least those prospects improved as a group.
You can follow me on twitter @BaseballATeam
In my league, we had an owner last year who made trade decisions that vastly affected the entire season. He would trade for players and demand we give up player X in said trade, and then he’d immediately drop player X.
For example, he traded Kershaw and Shin-Soo Choo for Benintendi, Tanaka, and Gsellman, and then he just dropped Benintendi.
His rationale was simple, yet controversial: our league has a free agent auction. With limited dollars to spend, dropping Benintendi back into the pool caused a feeding frenzy, and he knew that he could take that element of one owners game away by getting them to buy Benintendi. (Of the $300 auction dollars available, Benintendi went for over $200.)
In a trade he did with me, he demanded that I include Adam Jones. Now, I don’t usually care about players like Jones, but my OF depth was thin and Jones was better than any one on the waiver wire. This kid knew this and demanded I include him in the trade. I obliged. Minutes after the trade went through, I notice he dropped Jones. Someone else picked him up. I could have kept Jones and done the trade without him if that were the case. This is a bad faith trade, in my opinion. He had no intention of using the player he acquired, just simply wanted to make sure he was off my team.
How do you handle guys who just do things to troll the league? We have a hard time finding active players, and this guy is active. Do you ban him? Are you allowed to reverse trades? What do you do?
I think I’d have to see this free agent auction at work. Are you referring to a FAAB or a more distinct draft?
It’s a bizarre approach if he’s actually trying to be competitive. If you have to give up a Benintendi to each team in exchange for waiver wire supremacy, I kind of doubt you’ll be in a position to take advantage. That leads me to believe he is just trolling in which case a replacement might be in order.
You might ask him to prove the math of his strategy. Alternatively, tighten up the rules and see how he responds. If he finds a new way to troll, then you know you can get rid of him.
It’s an FAAB league.
And I don’t think he’s all that interested in being a jerk. He’s a nice guy and I think he actually believes it’s a strategy that works (it didn’t), but it’s still incredibly frustrating when I have to give up players I could have just kept.
What kind of rules would you suggest that would help with this kind of thing? We’ve discussed allowing the power to put Benintendi on the original team, but acquiring Kershaw for the price of Robert Gsellman and Masahiro Tanaka is completely unfair. We discussed reverting the trade, but the owner that had Kershaw wanted to keep him. So we explored options.
You could try to use a can’t cut list. I usually shy away from those, but I’ve never had this problem. It won’t affect guys like Jones, but it’ll prevent Benintendi-level drops.
I would expect that if he continues to do it, and it continues to not work the way he thinks it will, that sooner or later it’s going to do two things:
1) Kick him right in the … standings
2) Cause other owners to stop making deals with him
So either the behavior will correct itself, or he’ll end up simply donating to the winner’s prize every year.
I agree with HappyFunBall. If you’re willing to trade players away, you have to be prepared that they might eventually go to another team. If that’s too frustrating …. don’t trade with this guy.
Hes a nice guy who thinks what hes doing is helping his team? And you want to…kick him out?? Make him stop doing these things?? lol am I missing something?? Id give this guy a discount on his buy in and PRAY he got lucky once in a while. You guys ARE nerds.
Regardless of whether it is effective strategy or not, I see nothing wrong with what this guy is doing. “It annoys me” is not a valid justification for a rule change. The appropriate response is simply not to trade with him any more. Unless he’s working a rules exploit that needs to be plugged or he’s actively and deliberately working against the interests of the league, I see no reason or justification for booting him or changing rules. It’s your job to adapt.
Probably have to change the rules here if you want to keep him in the league. You could add a ‘do not drop’ list to your league, or penalize managers for dropping players before a set amount of time. Tricky spot, though. I appreciate the guy’s craftiness.
We have one. At the time, it didn’t include Benintendi.
…
And that’s a big reason why I don’t use them. How is Benintendi not on a can’t cut list?
To be honest, we used the ESPN standard can’t cut list.
And we don’t like to dictate how teams can play, maybe to too large an extent. But this wasn’t so much about the guy dropping Benintendi as it is about the bad faith trades. The guy who owned Benintendi could have held onto him if he was just going to get cut.
Simplest answer seems to be a league rule that anyone cut after a trade (would have to define how long after) can go back to the previous team. So in these Benintendi or Jones cases, if he’s cut within, say, a week of the trade, whoever dealt him gets first dibs on taking them back.
We don’t have free-agent auctions. FAs, including players cut the previous week, are available to teams each week in reverse order of standings. This might be helpful to you: we do have a rule that says any player that is cut can be picked up at his dollar value at the time of his release — again, in reverse order of standings.
So if, say, a team cut Benintendi priced at $X, any team could pick him up at $X. The team that makes the cut can still pick the player up at the same price, but they’re last in line behind all the other teams for picking him up.
I’m not sure I’ve ever read a more confusing fantasy baseball scenario/strategy.
So what you’re telling me is, this guy values how much FAAB other teams in the league have over actual talent?
Unless I’m misunderstanding, he’s acquiring Benintendi at a certain price (let’s say $5) and then cutting him so that, in theory, a team will spend $30 on him, thus taking that FAAB off the table. Is that correct? How is that even a remotely logical tactic? You’re cutting good players at below market prices in order to get an edge in… FAAB?
What you’re describing is just bizarre and this guy sounds like he’s a huge detriment to a league.
Galaxy Brain at work
It’s not a good strategy and it didn’t pay any dividends for him. But it’s incredibly frustrating.
Edit: our league is pretty active, so good players who are on the waiver wire tend to get pretty gnarly prices (someone dropped Eugenio Suarez last year and I had to put almost 45 on him to land him). So there is some effectiveness in drawing an owner out of his FAAB money. I won several matches because the owner couldn’t afford to add pitching at the cost I was paying for it. So his strategy isn’t horrible in theory. But dropping Benintendi for that purpose is rather stupid.
We’re a pretty laid back group and we do fantasy baseball for a very minimal cost (which just started in our 6th year of being a league), so kicking guys out isn’t optimal, especially guys we know.
I’ll definitely look into some of these rule options and see how we can implement them without interfering too much into how owners run their teams.
Honestly, it seems easier and more productive to just dump this guy and find a new owner. I don’t really understand investing your time and energy to rewrite rules around this clown. In fact, I imagine once you do that, he’ll have some other strategy to deploy.
The game is fantasy baseball. What you described above is not fantasy baseball. He’s playing some other game he’s fabricated.
statbook, I’m confused. You keep saying the guy’s strategy is not effective, just annoying, but then later explained how you were able to take advantage of times the other owners in your league had depleted their faab money. Seems like he has a definite goal and is executing it.
That Jones move is legit though, if you’re a competitor and he doesn’t need Jones at all, taking him away from you is a big win for him. Kind of a dick move but it’s a competitive one.
It also gives the player an advantage in waiver $s. That’s a pretty ingenious strategy honestly.
I don’t think that math runs. If it takes Benintendi to remove 2/3rds of somebody’s budget, that only means this owner can safely acquire any player for $101 when only bidding against this one specific rival. By the time he actually develops a true advantage, he’s given away 11 Benintendis. All to more easily acquire 1 foolishly cut Matt Carpenter at best?
If you thought the trade was good for you, even with your sending him Jones; then the trade offer without Jones was really in your favor.
lol I would never cut this guy and honestly would love to have him in my league. The idea of a “troll manager” sounds awesome to me, honestly. And he even has logical reasons for doing these whacky things…its like a bond villain almost. I always felt that if you pay your buy in you can do whatever you want, period. Theres no reason his tactics should effect anyone more than anyone else, and as long everyone knows about it and acts accordingly, I dont see any harm.
We’re not real GM’s. Its like…its own thing
I have no problem at all with that. Strategically dropping a player and thus making him eligible to be picked up as a free agent can be just that – strategic.
If you think he’s doing it simply to cause havoc in the league, that’s one thing – the commission should give him one warning and then kick him out. But it sounds like there are legitimate reasons for him dropping these players.
Your league sounds like it has problems. A league is only as good as its owners.
I think it’s happened twice over about 10 combined seasons of it being available. Once was before I attached any penalties to using it. People got mad because the guy just made the first trade to force everybody to make their best offer (they were also mad because I wound up with the best offer). The second time was a case of injury and/or shenanigans. I forget the exact details.
I have found that, over time, some of these lopsided trades look relatively even once certain prospects come of age. It pains me to see someone having a much better chance of winning a league in the now, but they may regret their move later when they actually need the talent of the prospect.
In the past, I’ve traded Nola and Soto (separate trades) for ‘win now’ players that made the trades look very much in my favor at the time. Now those trades look quite even. This is why I’d have trouble as a commish to veto/ban someone based on a hunch… I have no idea how things are really going to work out.
This is absolutely true. I received numerous messages congratulating me for fleecing one of my top rivals last winter. I got Jose Altuve, Adrian Beltre, and Yonder Alonso from him. I gave him Mookie Betts. Whoops.
Another bad trade that evoked plenty of kudos a couple years ago involved Eugenio Suarez, Carter Kieboom, and Jesus Sanchez for Bradley Zimmer. Whoops.
Weird things happen in baseball…
I got kind of roasted in my dynasty league for trading Smoak+Grandal for Posey to a new owner. People complaining how it’s not fair to take advantage of them. Grandal out-earned Posey (points league).
This is true but at the time of the trade, every player has a value and a market – and if a trade vastly undervalues one side based on the values at the time of the trade, it’s most likely a bad trade. How things actually end up isn’t very important, I’d argue.
For example, say you traded, I don’t know, Goldschmidt and Carlos Martinez for Brendan Rodgers in July of 2017. Not totally unreasonable. But if you could have gotten Acuna instead of Rodgers, based on the dynamics of your league, you got ripped off. But if there was no market for your stars (maybe all other contenders didn’t have cap space for them and already picked up big stars in dump trades), Rodgers might be the best you can do.
Cistulli would’ve edited “ironically” to “coincidentally”
I prefer adding subtext immediately calling myself out for misusing a word.
I’ve been in an 11-team, AL-only, 4×4 league, $260 budgets, for more than 20 years, and we’ve largely solved the problem of lopsided trades. Our rule: any player priced at $25 or more is a Star Player.
A team that trades 1 more Star Player than it receives makes an unbalanced trade — no such trade can be unbalanced by more than one player (eg, 1 Star Player for no Star Players, or 2 Star Players for 1 Star Player).
A team can make up to three unbalanced trades each season, but can only make one unbalanced trade per season with the same team. The limits on unbalanced trade don’t apply in the off-season.
I believe the original Rotisserie league had a similar rule.
There’s still some grousing about some trades, but everyone knows exactly what’s an acceptable (and legal) trade and what’s not.
Priced?
As in, they bought that player, or do you use an agreed upon list (i.e. auction calculator)?
Yes, they bought that player at $25 or more in the auction that season, or kept a player at that price (we can keep up to 13 players, including Toppers) prior to the auction.
How do you account for injuries or (real life) trades that change a player’s value? How do you account for differing opinions of a player’s value? I could legitimately think my “star” is about to fall off a cliff and want to trade him for a “non-star” player I think is about to bust out. What if I have a rash of injuries and want to deal a “star” for depth? What if someone overpays for someone in the auction making him a star when his value is not nearly that high in real life?
The idea of restrictive rules like that is just very distasteful to me. People should be allowed to run their team however they see fit, except in case of legit collusion. There have been plenty of examples in this thread listing trades that “looked” awful but ended up being fine (or even better for the “losing” team). I’ve made tons of trades that by your rules would have been deemed unbalanced in MY favor that I regret the hell out of.
How do you handle former keepers who are in the final year of their contracts? They’d likely have a salary under $25 but would definitely be “star” players. Do teams ever get around the rule by including these types of players?
Maybe a bit off topic, but “While the design of a league should encourage trading – negotiations are half the fun!” Totally agree. I’m in two Ottoneu leagues where there is near-zero offseason activity. The majority of owners are not checking in on their teams or responding to messages. Is this a clear signal to move on from the leagues? Have you ever quit a league due to inactivity? Do I post something about the lack of league activity on the message board, in a tactful way, before abandoning ship? Thanks!
Ideally, ottoneu leagues should be pretty active in the offseason. I feel like that’s 75% of the value add – active fantasy baseball stuff in the winter. How are the leagues during the regular season? If it’s just a matter of teams liking to walk away for a few months, then that’s not an automatic deal breaker.
What you might try is adding one team in a league with a history of being active in the offseason. Then, assuming you like it, offload one of the old, less active leagues the following offseason. Rinse and repeat as necessary.
Who has the the right to veto commissioner trades in leagues where the commissioner has all the power?
I used to provide an outcry provision to cover this, but it was never used so I dropped. If you’re worried, set a manual voting system for commissioner trades. I’d recommend a greater than 75% veto required to overturn a trade.
That 24 hour rule…wow. That would take some getting used to.
What the heck happened where this sort of rule needed to be enacted in this league?
I have been playing this game for 25+ years and if I was in a league with this rule, most every trade (except for the truly 50/50 ones…which aren’t many) would use this rule. One side always has some element of buyer’s or seller’s remorse…I don’t think the 14 day penalty would be much of a deterrent.
Prospects are overrated. It seems GMs are obsessed with cost controllable players. The vast majority of cost controllable players aren’t anything special and are replaceable with low cost veteran free agents. Yea some will outperform what they are being paid but for the most part not really.
I would rather have a superstar even for one season.
I assume you’re talking about real baseball? If so, many prospects will bust, and some will be worth many, many times what they are paid in their first 6 years. Teams essentially need some of the bargains to have a shot at being a dominant team.
Or in other words, paying market rate for low cost veteran free agents is a great way to finish .500 at best.
If you’re talking about fantasy baseball: you shouldn’t want a superstar at all if your has no chance at winning (or finishing in the money, or whatever your goal is), and you can trade your superstars to recharge for next year.
We have a simple rule where if a very high percentage of teams vote to overturn the trade (I think something like 3/4), then it’s overturned – simple as that. They can vote against it for any reason whatsoever.
The idea is that if that many teams vote against it, it’s bad. And since the bar is so high, it’s very unlikely to be met simply with teams who are voting in their own self-interests.
Finally, the vote is public, and if a team votes against a legit trade, they’ll look very bad. It’s very rare to have any team vote against a trade. In 10 years or so, there have probably only been 6 or 7 trades that got *any* veto votes. Of those, probably 3 or 4 were actually vetoed, and they were all truly cringe-worthy.
I happen to be in that league… and the actual trade was:
Bregman
for
Franco
Cease
Chatham
Triggs
Tuivailala
I understand why the questioner abbreviated the deal, but the three extra pieces do have a bit of value in a 30-teamer with unlimited benches.
The GM who dealt away Bregman won the league in 2016 and has earned a bit more leeway to make “bad” trades as a result. I’m on the Trade Committee in the league and I likely would have cast a veto if it was a newer GM dealing Bregman. But recent champions get more slack.
The trade seems “fine” but dumb. I use competitive balance or known cheating as the yard stick to veto. Known cheating is hard to gauge other than an accidental email. Competitive balance to me means get Bergman, altuve, Kershaw, betts, Goldschmidt etc all in one deal. Rarely is a trade so bad that it upset the balance. Even if you give up nothing e.g. really bad prospects, if you only get one or 2 superstars then input won’t hand you the league.
Some managers who make bad dumb trades for prospects by giving up established young mlb talent are simply never going to win or compete in the league. They will always be in rebuild mode because as soon as their prospect is mlb ready, they would trade them for the next prospect. These guys constantly dream about the future while forgetting the present.
As for the bad Goldschmidt trade by Arizona, as a sports bettor, I cannot complain. This is going to present many early season betting opportunities where you can make thousands in profit.
That 24 hour rule is interesting. Does anyone ever back out on a deal?