Are dump deals driving you nuts?
Keeper leaguers, heads up! It is time. Every season it happens, and every season there is outrage. Teams at the bottom of the standings give up this season and make trades to prepare themselves for the next season. The reverse is also true. Teams at the top of the standings will deal away a stud in order to compete for this season. At issue is the premium of production for this season that is paid to get the stud. Obviously, there are plenty of teams near the bottom that are willing to give up a larger amount of production this year for the keeper rights to Albert Pujols (or the like). This drives the price up. The result is a series of deals in which that premium escalates, as teams are forced to dump protectable players in order to compete.
So here is the discussion part. Where do you stand on the dumping of players? Should it be allowed? Is there a limit on how big that premium should be? With whom does the responsibility of keeping a deal fair lay? With the people making the trade? With the people voting to approve the trade? With the commissioner? Is there a way to change this process? Pick a question or questions to answer (or ask one I missed) in the comments section and let us hear your voice…
written by Keith J. Giordano
Loading ...
{ 14 comments… read them below or add one }
My answers to your questions are:
1. dumping players is fine, so long as the trade is fair.
2. yes
3. there is definitely a limit to how big that premium should be. we’re talking today’s numbers vs the value of having the “dumped” player for the following season. Obviously in the deal, the production that will be received for said player will likely be greater than the production level from said player in the current year. therefore, that overage should equal the “keeper value”. Now while the “keeper value” is an intangible and everyone values players differently, we can certainly see when enough is enough with respect to how much the overage should be. we may value players differently, but we all know who everyone is and our values are not so far off.
4. the responsibility lies with those making the trade.
5. yes
6. voters definitely need to take responsibility for evaluating any trade that is put up for a vote, but the burden should still be on those that are making the deal.
7. while the commissioner is entitled to discuss anything with the teams making the trade, it is his/her responsibility to remain impartial. as a commissioner, myself, i have made a comment to each team in a dump deal when one has been presented to me to put up for a league vote. “really? you don’t think that might be excessive?” — that might certainly come out of my mouth, but I would never tell teams that they can’t offer up any deal they want to be put up for a vote based on my opinion. I’m no bud selig.
8. there is no way to restrict the process. you just have to hope that the league vetoes the egregious dump deals and eventually people will stop submitting them.
I just wrote an article for addictfantasysports.com that should be published today on this topic. hopefully we’ll get some more chatter. i’m VERY curious to hear what others have to say….
We almost had a problem in my keeper league with this too. The bottom line is that it’s the 2 teams involved that need to make sure the deal is satisfactory to the league so it gets passed via trade voting. But in almost every deal, there’s always someone who has some problem and complains that it’s unfair. My feeling is, unless there’s blatant collusion, the deal should pass. I almost never vote no. Let the others work around it. That’s baseball. The always vague “player to be named later”? Always a one-sided deal.
what bothers me about this is that some team in 13th place is going to decide who wins the league by trading massive amounts of production this season for production in the future. often times the player that gets dumped is no sure thing. hamliton is an example that has been dumped in both my keeper leagues. the guy had one good season (really only half of one) and now trading him nets my competition a huge surge in production. i have a problem with this. its one thing to give up a ton for a stud like pujols or hanley. its another to give up that ton for some injured (and injury prone) OF that has only had one good year
I agree with Keith, a team in last place can deal away huge production, for a keeper for next year, and really there is no downside for that last place team. One option I’ve been pushing with one of my leagues where we have these types of dump trades is to tier entry fees by standings. So top third does not pay entry fee, middle third pays normal entry fee, and bottom third pays twice entry fee. It still might not be enough incentive to stop the trade, but it might give a little more drive to those teams out of the money to improve/hold their position.
Well, first off I think Howard the Commissioner in the first response post, thinks exactly that way, by appeasing the teams that are in the bottom tiers, keeps these teams coming back year after year.
My thoughts on dump trades are this, because every dump trade I’ve seen in my fantasy life has looked lop sided, it bugs me. Not only is the person dumping taking a HUGE gamble on the players he’s (expecting) to be superstars which no one can predict, but it also boosts the team receiving the players and making them (in most cases) markedly better for this season, which in turn hurts the integrity of the league imho.
Dump trades are a part of the business, but there has to be something done to penalize, control, or officiate the trade or teams.
Another problem is when one or more dump trades are vetoed, because the trade is unfair according to their league mates, they just draw up another trade that may or may not look better on paper, but it’s still a dump trade.
In a league where there is no voting on trades, then dump trades should never be allowed, period! Unless of course they are fair, in which no one could possibly tell because it’s presumptuous at best.
In most cases these trades are made in keeper leagues, and that’s another thing to consider, is one team trading bonafide keepers and the other trading prospects? How could this be fair?
Thanks for the chatter, Don!
I think one of the biggest issues that happens in these dump deals is the definition of a “bonafide keeper”. Where do you draw the line for that?
Hanley Ramirez, Albert Pujols, Alex Rodriguez, David Wright, and Chase Utley — to me, these guys are bonafide keepers. Rock solid production year in, year out and at the top of their position each season.
Josh Hamilton, Nate McLouth, Jayson Werth, Carlos Quentin, and Matt Kemp? Bonafide keepers? I don’t think so. Sure, on some of the weaker teams, these borderline guys may be considered a keeper, but are these guys worth the same amount in a deal as the aforementioned studs? No way.
And that, is where I think one of the biggest problems lies in this issue. You’ve got a team up top quoting first half numbers for McLouth, telling the league what he’s on pace to do and shopping him around like he’s a keeper for next year.
And sorry Keith, but same with Jayson Werth. I’m just using another example and I don’t mean to single you out, but you have gone on record as being a huge Werth fan (Bleacher Banter 3/4/09) and you did shop him around 2 leagues last season.
While his season may be going well right now (although the .260 avg stinks) he’s not nearly in the same class as the other top players. Did he go 20-20 last year? Yes he did. But that’s one year. One year among several other injury plagued, can’t crack the lineup seasons. I know you didn’t protect him, but you shopped him around the league as if he was. I can’t blame you for making the effort, but then what happens when someone bites on the deal? What happens when someone offers you a 4 for 1 because they’re sold on your assessment of him? Are you going to accept the offer and hope the league votes it through or are you going to tell the owner that he’s giving up way too much for a player who, in actuality, has only had one decent year?
That to me…the definition of what a true bonafide keeper is…leads to the biggest problems with dump trades.
oh howard.
im sorry to say that you are mixed up. i was not shopping werth during last season (in fact i was shopping mclouth and was by no means looking for a 4-1). i was shopping werth in the off season for a couple bid dollars. i was not looking to give him up in a dump deal at all.
but theoretically, if someone offered me an unfair deal, which is what i assume is the point you are trying to convey with the 4-1 (since 4 shitty players for him may be fair) i would counter it with a fair offer, as i have in the past.
to single me out as an example and use wrong information in hypothetical scenarios paints me in a bad way, and more than that it ticks me off. either use a fake name, or get your facts straight.
i have a very good record on dump deals. i rarely make them, and when i do it is usually 2 good players for my better player.
i look forward to convering what future dump deals are made and by who as the trading deadline approches…
Perhaps I was mistaken about you shopping Werth last season. Yes, you did shop him hard in the off-season for bid money, but for the sake of full disclosure for our readers, it is a rule in our league that any player traded for in the off-season MUST be protected. Therefore, to shop Werth in the off-season is shopping him as a keeper.
As for McLouth, you most certainly did shop him as a keeper.
I also never said you were asking for a 4 for 1 deal. What I said was, “What happens when someone offers you a 4 for 1 because they’re sold on your assessment of him?” There’s most definitely a difference there.
And your response to that, is definitely different today than it has been in the past. There was certainly a time when you were ok with the dump deals and said that a team should “get the best possible deal for a player” and if the league votes it through, they vote it through. I don’t remember the specific deal, but it was the one from our Japanese comrade that started the whole dump deal craze in the Cooperstown league.
Like I said, my apologies for singling you out, but in the discussion of “bonafide keepers” we’ve had plenty of debates as to who’s worthy and who isn’t. McLouth and Werth were just two names of guys you’ve shopped recently that fit the profile.
what howard is failing to see, is that all bonifide keepers were at one point, not. getting the next stud starts before they are studs. i mean, wouldnt you rather pay much less for a potential stud than having to wait until you tank a season to give up tons for a guy that is already proven?
shopping your studs around for 4 guys is all well and good, but there is nothing that says you cant shop around potential keepers for less. when a team has nothing to lose since they are not going to finish in the money, i dont see it as a poor strategy to trade for guys that may be keepers if they keep it up all season.
the central point here is how much is being given up. who cares if mclouth doesnt turn out to be a keeper if all you gave up for him is two everyday outfielders that are ok but not keepers? if mclouth kicks ass all season, you keep him, if he doesnt, you havent lost a thing.
the bigger issue here to me is overpaying for those “bonafide keepers” i dont care if it is the best player in the game, giving up a ton of production for him changes the entire landscape of the league and is the root of this problem.
so sure, i may shop around potential keepers for a couple guys, but what i do not do is get or give 5 good players for 1 guy and 4 stiffs.
never said you did…
i agree with you regarding the central point of the argument. the main issue is how much is being given up for specific players.
one of the biggest problems is that the bottom feeders of the league don’t care what they are giving up. They’re just trying to glom keepers for the following season, and like I said before, there’s nothing wrong with that. that’s what keeps them involved in a season where their team stinks.
i don’t see a 4 for one for a guy like pujols, wright or utley as being outlandish. they are premium players and have an intrinsic value in a keeper league from year to year that cannot truly be measured.
it’s the josh hamiltons of the world that are the problem. a guy like that shoudn’t fetch nearly the bounty a guy like hanley should, but yet we still see that happen each year.
which is why we vote
I would like to just chime in on a point made by Keith;
“the central point here is how much is being given up. who cares if mclouth doesnt turn out to be a keeper if all you gave up for him is two everyday outfielders that are ok but not keepers? if mclouth kicks ass all season, you keep him, if he doesnt, you havent lost a thing.”
I would care very much if I could have turned around and used those two everyday outfielders to package them up for a bonafide keeper such as a Pujols, Utley or Howard-but, was caught-up in the HYPE of an unproven player, only to not protect them at the end of the year and go into the next year feeling duped…
Yes-it is your responsibility as an owner to do your homework, but there have been cases in both our league and another that I have recently heard about and was once an owner in, where owners sometimes feel pressured to pull the trigger or make a trade before they truly feel comfortable about it because they are made to feel that they are stupid or making a HUGE mistake if they pass up on a guy….
Bottom line-if you are making a deal for a keeper-look at 3 year averages and if they don’t have 3 years under their belts-then they are a RISK…PERIOD!
I think Doobie has a good idea with the 3 year rule, but people are so enamored by the fact of “the next best thing” they are willing to mortgage the farm and HOPE to be a force in the next few years.
I am not a big fan of vetoing trades unless I suspect some sort of collusion, but when a dump trade is introduced, I find myself in a peculiar predicament because they are so “off standard” and a big reach.
Here is a sample dump trade offer going on right now in our league……..
Team A trades Curtis Granderson, Edwin Jackson, Derek Lee, and Joe Nathan to team B for Adrian Gonzalez, Matt Laporta and Carlos Quentin! Who’s the dumping team?
If you ask me, and the league did which got my veto for the trade, there isn’t a bonafide keeper in the bunch, Joe Nathan might be as consistent as they come for a closer , but who considers a closer as a bonafide keeper?
Team B is getting four starters all at different positions, and all of them from serviceable to very good players, whereas team A is getting Adrian Gonzalez, a hopeful, and a hurt OF.
How could you NOT veto this trade?
You probably guessed by now that team A is the dumping team, because he got absolutely nothing back in return for what he gave up, except for a glorified prospect! On the other side of the coin team B got some help in many areas which is not right to the rest of the league imho.
Classic dump trade there. I’m actually a big fan of Adrian Gonzalez and have protected him now for the last 2 seasons, but yes….Team B isn’t offering much else back. LaPorta is still a few years away from even being considered a protect unless you’re talking about a dynasty league where it wouldn’t cost much to protect him. And Quentin, while yes, his HR power is solid, this injury problem lessens the likelihood that he could even be considered a bonafide protect.
Like I’ve said before, I understand the concept of the dump trade and it’s difficult to differentiate between actual value and potential keeper value. If a team wants to trade a stud away, then they can’t just give one player and a mess of crappy parts. Something else on their side of the deal needs to have some intrinsic value, like guys that still have some trade value that the dumping team can still use in other deals.