Trade Options

[Demreb]

For the last few years there has been concern about Dump Trades. The Constitution discourages them, but they still take place. A few trades recently have caused more than one owner to comment that they (the trades) are undermining the value of the draft.

Let's talk about it. We should see all twelve owners log in and voice their opinion, no matter where they are on the Trade Spectrum.

Here are some possibilities:

• We don't do anything.
  
• We outlaw all inseason trades
  
• We modify current trade rules
  

If we modify currently trade rules, here are three comments I've heard made.

1) We could move the trade deadline up to something like May 15th. That would allow us to evaluate our teams needs, but most likely prevent anyone from feeling they are completely out of contention and need to dump.

2) We could incorporate a salary limitation with trades. In order to complete a trade there cannot be (for example) more than a 20 cent difference in salaries being traded. So if I want to trade Teixeira (.42), I have to acquire at least .22 in salary in return, whether it's from one player or multiple players.

3) In order to complete a trade legally, each team must be able to field a team of 23 active players and not fill their active roster with minor leaguers, disabled players, etc.

I realize that I have started listing solutions to what the league may feel is not a problem. Please voice your thoughts, any and all you have regarding the current trade rules as well as the trades that have taken place over the last few years.

[morkertt]

Great thread. I think the issue of dump trades is one that every league deals with. We have dealt with it in the other league I compete in as well. We’ve pretty much had a hands-off trade policy, however, lately, it has been called into question. We’ve decided that, for now, if more than one owner feels the trade is way out of whack, the board will review and rule on the trade. We’ve only had to do this once and ended up upholding the deal.

I like the idea of a salary limitation of sorts. The only problem with this is that true values of players change through the season. For example, a trade of Andruw Jones for Jay Bruce may look lopsided because of the contracts of the two, but, I think we’d all want the Bruce side of the deal in this one. Maybe there is a way to figure present market value for each player (what they’d go for if draft day were today) and then set the salary limitations. I’m not sure who would decide this value but if it were deemed a Bruce was worth .25 and a Jones worth .15, a more true evaluation of the trade could be made.

I’ve benefited on both sides of these “dump” trades but have also been a frustrated observer of many. When first seeing the Stones/Line trade, my first thought was, “dang, I wish I could’ve pulled that off”, followed by frustration of the likelihood of an improbable title lost. I’d be in favor of modifying the rules, but as a newcomer, want to respect the climate of the league.

I’ve been very impressed by the organization of this league and am thrilled to be a part of it. I look forward to good discussion on this issue (may even get some ideas for my other league!).

-Tim

[redhots]

My .02 for what it's worth.

I feel that dump trades are important for teams looking toward the next season and for helping teams attempt to achieve or seal the title this year. With that being said I believe that dump trades should also be fair when you are looking at the players involved and the value they provide the team this year as well as the team looking at next year.

This is a tough proposition because it all comes down to "value" and we all "value" players differently. We currently have the salary cap which is designed to limit the lopsidedness of dump trades. Are we saying that the salary cap doesn't work at all? I think it works to an extent. The only problem with the extent to which it works is that the salaries are all determined on auction day with the "perceived value" of the players. We know that when the season is going those values are far from accurate to their earnings and that takes away from the effectiveness of the salary cap somewhat.

The deal between Stones and Kenndoza is what started this whole discussion with references to a deal between the same two teams last year. Did the deal last year seal the title for Kenn? It did not as it came down to the last day to determine the title.

How do we determine a fair dump trade that is still good for the league?

Is dealing two high priced studs for one low priced keeper stud fair?
We also need to keep in mind the intentions of the owners making the trades and keep it in perspective. What may first seem like a lopsided trade may be able to be explained if the owners are given the opportunity. I'm not saying we should have to explain every detail of every trade we make but if we are looking at evaluating trades from the outside we should have the insider details from the owners making the trades. Sometimes trades are made simply for category purposes so what looks like an unfair trade makes sense because one category is super bunched up and that one base stealer could potentially gain his new owner several standings points even if he provides nothing else and the owner acquiring him gave up a stud to get him.

I don't know what the answers are and I look forward to further discussion on the topic.

I don't like moving the trade deadline up to May. I like the emphasis being on the auction but there has to be other ways to help this.

Another idea would be some type of league wide owner veto vote for any trade questioned. If we are supposed to have league ethic "gentlemen's rules" on trades with the best interest of the league in mind then maybe the owner's should vote on trades questioned by any owner. The owners involved in the trade would have to have the opportunity to explain the trade. Sometimes owners are out of touch for lengths of time like when I was in Vegas for 8 days so should owners trades really be held up waiting for a trade to go through while another owner is out of touch for whatever reason.

I'm not sure that's the answer either but it's an idea. Tim mentioned a board evaluating and voting on trades which would be our committee of which we as a league vote the members to keep the best interests of the league in mind so that would be another option.

I look forward to more discussion on this topic.

Maybe David could post a quick post on the blog for owners to visit here and chime in.

On a side note.......I had the opportunity to meet up with David last night. It was an enjoyable couple of hours where we had a few beers, watched some baseball, and chatted about everything from fantasy baseball, real baseball, family stuff, etc........it was a good time to say the least. We are all busy with our "real lives" and it would be tough to do but I would love to try to get a more regular meet up like that together for our more local owners (and out of towners when they are in town).

Bob

[Copperfields]

Jul 22, 2008 12:25:43 GMT -5 redhots said:

The deal between Stones and Kenndoza is what started this whole discussion with references to a deal between the same two teams last year. Did the deal last year seal the title for Kenn? It did not as it came down to the last day to determine the title.

I think there’s a major flaw in this argument. Yes, the race came down to the final day, but should it have? In order to have such a close finish, Kenndoza Line needed every single bit of what they got in the Stones bonanza. If the Line had gotten two fewer RS last year, the Ruffins would have won the Championship. Considering the amount of offense acquired by Kenndoza in that deal, it’s clear that the trade not only sealed the title for Kenn, but without it the Ruffins would have likely run away with it.

That’s not to belittle the Line’s title, or even make any commentary on the appropriateness of the trade, but I don’t think it’s right to say that the trade didn’t decide the Championship. It was a major factor.

Now, dump trades are SUPPOSED to be a factor in the race, and I don’t think dump trades themselves are a problem. They help ensure parity in the league from season to season, and certainly make things interesting.

It’s the attitude of the person doing the dumping that’s the problem, and I’m not sure that is something we can create rules to address. Just as they say you can’t legislate against stupidity, I think it’s difficult to legislate against someone who has decided to play for next year and gives no regard for the other owners he leaves behind who are still focused on the current season.

It’s the attitude of “I’m going to dump at all costs” that leads to trades that change the entire landscape of a season. Or the attitude of “I want these 3 guys as keepers and am willing to give you whatever it takes to get them.” It’s those kinds of deals that turn a pennant race into a farce.

Trying to avoid that type of approach toward rebuilding is what led to the anti-dumping clause in the Constitution. We tried to appeal to the better nature of owners, asking them to respect the integrity of a pennant race they may not have the chance of winning but can still play a role in. Unfortunately, that culture-based soft approach isn’t working – the temptation to get a head start on next year is proving too great in some cases, to the detriment of the current season.

Maybe we need to do a better job of emphasizing the expectations surrounding rebuilding trades, or go into more detail about what’s meant by the “integrity of the league”. It’s clear that simply setting out expectations within the Constitution isn’t getting the job done, and that type of thing will only work if all 12 owners understand it and are willing to respect it. The firestorm after the trade last year did nothing to prevent the same thing from happening again, so setting expectations without any repercussions for violating them clearly isn’t working.

I’m happy to discuss any options for additional/different rules to curb this type of thing. I’m not certain anything will actually be effective, but I’m up for discussing it. Who has the best Draft is no longer nearly as important as who can find the friendliest trading partner. I, for one, am having trouble seeing the point of doing this anymore. I mean, really, why put in the time and effort just to have someone who has dropped out kick over the table?

[Demreb]

First of all, let me thank the three owners who have already voiced their opinions. If we add Steve and The Professor's comments from David's blog, then we're up to five (or six, since I started this thread). Other than David and The Professor, no one seems to have a strong opinion. Let me amend that. Steve has a strong opinion defending the trade, which he should since he made the deal. But according to David's post on his blog, there are a bunch of owners e-mailing David with their negative feelings about the trade. They should go public, or stay quiet. David's right, the Constitution does not allow for the Co-Commissioners or Executive Committee to take matters into their own hands.

One of the many special things about this league is the integrity with which it is run. Many new, previous and prospective owners have complained about their other fantasy leagues and how the commissioners in those leagues would adjudicate matters based on what was best for the commissioner's team.

We are part of an amazing thing here. But some owners don't seem to care.

At the risk of offending some (but then again, I've been offended the last two years by the actions of others, so why hell should I care if I offend them?) I'm going to voice my opinion.

The first deal this year that was ridiculous was the Bulls/Better trade where Matt got Johnson, Zambrano, Saito and Cordero (or some other stud closer - they tend to blur in my mind). That deal should never have been made. I can look at Moore Better and say "He's a new owner, maybe doesn't have a feel for what's equitable." But Matt - you know better. Two stud closers and one and a half stud starters (and two studs if Johnson is his normal self - or pitches against the Cubs - for the last four months of the year) for what you gave up? When I read the report of the deal my first thought is "You went after a newbie and took advantage." Yes Zambrano and Saito went on the DL and Cordero has been ineffective, but so what? If you knew that before the deal you wouldn't have accepted it in the first place.

This latest deal with the Stones/Line is also bad. I will point to The Professor's post where he puts things much more eloquently than I could ever hope to. But I agree with his comments.

But I will add this. This is the second year in a row a hugely questionable deal was consummated among the same two owners. I agree with Steve that each of us has found people in the league that are easier to deal with than others. But this goes beyond that.

Let me tell you what you've done. Last year four teams were equally matched and would have experienced perhaps (I know this is my opinion, but this is my response to this thread) the most competitive pennant race in CFCL history.

This year we had seven teams that were within four or five points of each other and all the categories were tight. A creative free agent call up or a FAIR trade among those teams could have easiliy kept four or five of the teams vying for the title well into late September. Now it seems like that's gone. Since the trade the Stones have picked up 11 points. In two weeks? C'mon guys. That's like Sosa reporting to spring training bulging out of his jersey saying he put on 30 pounds of muscle during the off season. Thirty pounds in three months?

David referenced the Intergrity of the league and that owners involved in dump trades should take into consideration their actions and the consequences of the pennant race.

Do you think the Ruffins would have traded Votto if they knew that an egregious dump trade was just around the corner?

Do you think the Rebels would have traded Pence AND Fielder if it was going to mean having no chance at the title? No f**k**g way.

Now I know there's a certain amount of caveat emptor out there, and I fully expected there to be other owners wanting to make a run. That's why I was still in conversation with some teams about adding speed and pitching to my team. But I never expected (ESPECIALLY with the fallout from last year's trade) that there would be a trade that would cause my trade to be utterly pointless.

Here's another thing to consider (and understand that the numbers of players I'm about to list is a generalization). If you're a non-contending team and have six players that really aren't helping you this year, guess what? YOU DON'T HAVE TO TRADE ALL OF THEM!!! And if you're hell bent on trading all of them, YOU DON'T HAVE TO TRADE ALL OF THEM TO ONE f**k**g TEAM!! In fact you could probably get more for them by trading them in parts to two or three teams.

There are two hugely sad and disappointing things about all of this. As guys I like you both. You're fun to be around at the draft, good people with a lot of integrity (if you're not involved in a trade). You may believe otherwise base on the tone of this post, but I like both of you. This isn't personal. It's rotisserie. You've made a mockery of two pennant races in successive years. And based on last year's comments and this year's from Steve at least, neither of you seem to care.

But here's the most damaging of all. Whenever I happen to engage in a conversation with someone about Fantasy Baseball, I tell them with pride that I've been part of a league that's been around for 25 years. And in the back of my mind I see us all sitting around the table in Oak Brook when we're in our sixties and even seventies, bidding on players that aren't even born yet.

Instead the three longest tenured owners (25, 25 and 24 years) have all expressed that maybe it's time to quit. It's not sour grapes, Steve. It's utter disgust - that the most exciting day of the year for almost all of us (Draft Day) has been rendered meaningless.

[stones]

Nevermind

[stones]

Jul 22, 2008 22:58:28 GMT -5 Demreb said:

First of all, let me thank the three owners who have already voiced their opinions. If we add Steve and The Professor's comments from David's blog, then we're up to five (or six, since I started this thread). Other than David and The Professor, no one seems to have a strong opinion. Let me amend that. Steve has a strong opinion defending the trade, which he should since he made the deal. But according to David's post on his blog, there are a bunch of owners e-mailing David with their negative feelings about the trade. They should go public, or stay quiet. David's right, the Constitution does not allow for the Co-Commissioners or Executive Committee to take matters into their own hands.

One of the many special things about this league is the integrity with which it is run. Many new, previous and prospective owners have complained about their other fantasy leagues and how the commissioners in those leagues would adjudicate matters based on what was best for the commissioner's team.

We are part of an amazing thing here. But some owners don't seem to care.

At the risk of offending some (but then again, I've been offended the last two years by the actions of others, so why hell should I care if I offend them?) I'm going to voice my opinion.

The first deal this year that was ridiculous was the Bulls/Better trade where Matt got Johnson, Zambrano, Saito and Cordero (or some other stud closer - they tend to blur in my mind). That deal should never have been made. I can look at Moore Better and say "He's a new owner, maybe doesn't have a feel for what's equitable." But Matt - you know better. Two stud closers and one and a half stud starters (and two studs if Johnson is his normal self - or pitches against the Cubs - for the last four months of the year) for what you gave up? When I read the report of the deal my first thought is "You went after a newbie and took advantage." Yes Zambrano and Saito went on the DL and Cordero has been ineffective, but so what? If you knew that before the deal you wouldn't have accepted it in the first place.

This latest deal with the Stones/Line is also bad. I will point to The Professor's post where he puts things much more eloquently than I could ever hope to. But I agree with his comments.

But I will add this. This is the second year in a row a hugely questionable deal was consummated among the same two owners. I agree with Steve that each of us has found people in the league that are easier to deal with than others. But this goes beyond that.

Let me tell you what you've done. Last year four teams were equally matched and would have experienced perhaps (I know this is my opinion, but this is my response to this thread) the most competitive pennant race in CFCL history.

This year we had seven teams that were within four or five points of each other and all the categories were tight. A creative free agent call up or a FAIR trade among those teams could have easiliy kept four or five of the teams vying for the title well into late September. Now it seems like that's gone. Since the trade the Stones have picked up 11 points. In two weeks? C'mon guys. That's like Sosa reporting to spring training bulging out of his jersey saying he put on 30 pounds of muscle during the off season. Thirty pounds in three months?

David referenced the Intergrity of the league and that owners involved in dump trades should take into consideration their actions and the consequences of the pennant race.

Do you think the Ruffins would have traded Votto if they knew that an egregious dump trade was just around the corner?

Do you think the Rebels would have traded Pence AND Fielder if it was going to mean having no chance at the title? No f**k**g way.

Now I know there's a certain amount of caveat emptor out there, and I fully expected there to be other owners wanting to make a run. That's why I was still in conversation with some teams about adding speed and pitching to my team. But I never expected (ESPECIALLY with the fallout from last year's trade) that there would be a trade that would cause my trade to be utterly pointless.

Here's another thing to consider (and understand that the numbers of players I'm about to list is a generalization). If you're a non-contending team and have six players that really aren't helping you this year, guess what? YOU DON'T HAVE TO TRADE ALL OF THEM!!! And if you're hell bent on trading all of them, YOU DON'T HAVE TO TRADE ALL OF THEM TO ONE f**k**g TEAM!! In fact you could probably get more for them by trading them in parts to two or three teams.

There are two hugely sad and disappointing things about all of this. As guys I like you both. You're fun to be around at the draft, good people with a lot of integrity (if you're not involved in a trade). You may believe otherwise base on the tone of this post, but I like both of you. This isn't personal. It's rotisserie. You've made a mockery of two pennant races in successive years. And based on last year's comments and this year's from Steve at least, neither of you seem to care.

But here's the most damaging of all. Whenever I happen to engage in a conversation with someone about Fantasy Baseball, I tell them with pride that I've been part of a league that's been around for 25 years. And in the back of my mind I see us all sitting around the table in Oak Brook when we're in our sixties and even seventies, bidding on players that aren't even born yet.

Instead the three longest tenured owners (25, 25 and 24 years) have all expressed that maybe it's time to quit. It's not sour grapes, Steve. It's utter disgust - that the most exciting day of the year for almost all of us (Draft Day) has been rendered meaningless.

I never intended to be the cause of the league's demise, and therefore, please accept this post as my resignation from the Stones. Good luck all. Sorry its come to this.

[kenndoza (archived)]

A quick note from one of the sources of all this trouble: since I've made this deal I had a major crisis at work AND then went on vacation to a remote area of New Mexico. I returned late last night and read with great interest all of the comments, and I understand the frustration of others. I would like to respond to many of the comments, but I will be unable to do so until this evening once I get home from work and the kid is asleep.

I *do* want to say right now that I very much enjoy this league and that I apologize for being responsible for the recent stress and unpleasantness. I do not wish to see anyone leave the league due to this trade, whether it is out of frustration, ejection (which has not been discussed, at least publically), or duty.

[Copperfields]

Jul 23, 2008 0:45:37 GMT -5 stones said:

I never intended to be the cause of the league's demise, and therefore, please accept this post as my resignation from the Stones. Good luck all. Sorry its come to this.

Wow. Ok, let’s everyone step back from the ledge for a minute, OK? While there are clearly great differences of opinions on trades (both dumps in general and in terms of specific deals), I think one thing we agree on is that no one wants anyone to leave the league over this.

First off, no one has said the league has demised or will demise (sorry to use a noun as a verb, which I’m not sure “demise” is). Yes, at various times over the past week or so Rich, Dave, and I have questioned our desire to compete in a league where trading in July has a larger impact on success than drafting and other elements of the game. But I don’t think any of us have given up hope that it’s possible to work through this. Believe it or not, the three of us have been through this same debate before - long before the rest of the current owners joined the league. And maybe that's part of the reason for our current views on dumping. There's probably a little "oh no, not this again" going on.

Regardless, I think it’s worthwhile seeing the discussion started in this thread through before jumping ship.

Steve, I know you’re a passionate man (I have my sources), and I’m hoping your last post here was a knee-jerk reaction to some very strong, fiery talk in Rich’s message (and I’m also hoping your last post won’t be your last post, if you know what I mean).

Rich started this discussion – with your encouragement and support –with two very reasoned and balanced messages: a Monroe Doctrine article (richbentel.blogspot.com/2008/07/its-broken-so-lets-fix-it.html), which in your comments you said was well-written and very fair, and the post kicking off this thread, which I (and it seems others) feel was a good start to a constructive discussion.

When Rich made his most recent post, however, it appears he let his emotions do the typing. That’s not to say what he wrote should be discounted – I imagine it’s an honest account of how he feels and there was clearly a lot of pent-up frustration vented. And it’s Rich’s right to do that, just as it would be your right to post an equally emotional rebuttal or counter-argument. I think it’s important to get those feelings expressed, so everyone understands the emotions driving the discussion.

I don’t want to speak for Rich or act as his apologist, but now that he has vented his spleen, I’m sure Rich would step back from the emotions a bit, get past what’s gotten us to this point, and focus on how best to move forward. Likewise, I’m hopeful that after the initial sting of Rich’s post has subsided you’ll be able to look past what’s been written and rethink your decision to resign. We’re going to continue this discussion (hopefully with more reason and less emotion), and you’re an important voice that I’d like to have involved in it.

Certainly, there are things to work through. I don’t know whether it was the content of Rich’s post or its tone (or both) that caused your reaction. But I’m hopeful after a little cooling off we can advance the debate less emotionally and more analytically; less personally and more generally.

A Roto league doesn’t last for 25 years without its share of controversies, divisions, crisises, and knock down drag out arguments. We’ve gotten past things like this in the past (including a number of doozies about dump trades), and I’d like to think we can come through this one as well. Maybe a little bruised and battered, but also likely stronger and ready to face the next 25 years.

Steve, I’m sure I’m not alone in hoping that when the dust clears you’ll be bruised and battered. I mean along with the rest of us, of course, but most importantly still part of us.

David

[Copperfields]

Jul 23, 2008 8:38:09 GMT -5 kenndoza (archived) said:

I do not wish to see anyone leave the league due to this trade, whether it is out of frustration, ejection (which has not been discussed, at least publically), or duty.

Ejection has not been discussed, nor will it be. I don't think anyone other than Mr Anonymous sees anything underhanded in this situation, which would be the only thing justifying ejection. And now that he's cooled off, I doubt Mr Anonymous sees it anymore either.

[davidsruffins (archived)]

I agree with David that we have to step back and take a breath. Moreover, what we have here is not only a crisis, but an opportunity, or as the Chinese say, a "crisitunity." (If you know not of what I speak, click away... www.tv.com/video/Fpv8I4wsjl0s8hLamob109GaRSpQFRSX/crisis-opportunity?o=hulu)

I do not wish to see anyone leave the league due to this trade, whether it is out of frustration, ejection (which has not been discussed, at least publically), or duty.

Kenn, thanks for making this point. I don't want to see anyone leave over this either. And I hope Steve reconsiders. I also want to thank Rich for starting this thread and making the point that this isn't personal, it's rotisserie. We're talking baseball, after all, or at least a geeky version thereof. Of course, on the other hand, this IS important, given all the hoops we jump through to get to the draft, all the sleep we deprive ourselves of to see the West Coast scores, and all the work we procrastinate, such as the paper I should be writing, to compose these kinds of posts. (By the way, Rich, your vignette regarding us drafting into our seventies has given me pause. I guess as long as we can meet close to a bathroom and a defibrillator, I'm there.)

I want to do two things. First, I want to show in very plain terms how out of balance the trade under discussion was. I’ve read some posts – not just from the owners involved – that suggest that some aren't so sure. I do this because if we can’t agree that this deal was unacceptable, then maybe we need to legislate trades more strictly than I’d like. Moreover, David, Rich, and I may be more attuned to this in a here-we-go-again way, but I think it's with good reason.

As I tried to make clear in my blog post, I take Steve 100% at his word that the deal came together without anything untoward discussed or implied. He doesn’t have to convince me of that. I buy it and know how these things work. ("OK, if I'm going to ship player X to you, I'll need player Y in return, etc., etc.) Second, again, I am, for the sake of argument willing to stipulate that Kenn wins this deal beyond this season. My point is that even given that, the trade represents unacceptable dumping and undermines the integrity of the draft.

Here’s the trade expressed in terms of the amount of standings points each player has contributed to their rotisserie team to this point in the season. These numbers should be viewed in the relative, not absolute sense. In other words, these are the amount of points contributed, not specifically to the Stones and Dozers, but to a team in a league in which category differences are equally dispersed (e.g., the team with the most R’s has 1000, second-place team has 950, third place 900, etc.). This is quick and dirty; I assure you that I do in fact have a day job, so forgive me if I’ve forgotten to carry a one somewhere along the line.

Pujols	13.5	Kemp	9.5
Martin	10.0	Blum	0.5
Matsui	5.4	Rabelo	0.0
Winn	8.4	Stewart	0.4
Santana	9.5	Lincecum	10.0
Campillo	6.0	Gallardo	0.5
Riske	0.4
Ayala	0.7
	53.9		20.9

Now, if the balance of the league views this as acceptable because of the future potential of the deal, I respect that but disagree strongly. For every one point going one way, about 2.5 go the other. That might be just fine if we were talking about a one-for-one, or two-for-two deal. But eight-for-eight? Look at the total difference in standings points. Wow. Pennant race over.

Because so much of the focus of our discussion has been on this trade, the second thing I want to do is turn the spotlight on myself. Steve's and Kenn's ears must be burning. It's time for someone else to take some heat. Depending on your perspective, it sounds either mighty impressive or kind of poignant, in the cute but sad, WALL-E way, that I've been in this league for, gulp, 24 years. (Speaking of this, does any one else have the experience I frequently do, in which you mention you've been in a fantasy baseball league for X amount of years, and the response is something along the lines of "Huh." As if the person doesn't know whether to shake your hand or have you committed.)

The focus on David, Rich, and I being in the league going on forever suggests some sort of deeper, mystical appreciation for league mores generally, and what “integrity of the league” means specifically. David and Rich do, and always have enjoyed that kind of understanding. They gave birth to this thing, after all. (While Rich, by the by, chose to EXCLUDE me from the inaugural year. But that’s a WHOLE different post. Personally, I think Rich looked into the future and wanted to hang that over my head forever. “Thank you, Mr. President, I accept the Medal of Freedom on behalf of the CFCL, a league I co-created 75 years ago.” Then in a conspiratorial whisper only President Richard “boy thingy” Cheney IV can hear, “This poseur standing next to me has only been in the league 74 years. How ‘bout we ship the old bastard to Gitmo?”)

As for me, well, I was a little slower to catch on. In the late ‘90s, I came down with JD Drew-itis, an affliction from which 15 years in the league had failed to inoculate me. I forget – and don’t particularly want to be reminded – of the details, but for some reason, I woke up one morning convinced that I needed Drew on my roster in perpetuity. If memory serves, I could have just as easily chosen to take a shot at the money, but instead decided to white-flag the season to add Drew for the future. Drew was, after all, a surefire, first-ballot Hall of Famer. (Anyone need any stock tips? Call me.) From the Ruffins’ perspective, my reasoning was rock solid, sort of. Sure, my trading partner (long gone from the league) wins the deal this year. But I win it starting next year. After all, the guys I’m giving up are either playing out their options or too expensive to keep. The other owner didn’t especially want to trade Drew, but I kept upping the ante until I made him an offer he couldn’t refuse. Thus, the trade certainly made sense for him, and surprise, surprise, he went on to win the title.

So here was a trade that made a reasonable amount of sense from the perspectives of the owners involved, but utterly undermined league integrity. I essentially decided a pennant race because I happened to think Drew was the next Willie Mays and the owner who happened to own Drew had the building blocks for a title. (And, to be sure, he couldn’t refuse my considerable trading charms.) I choose to embarrass myself in this way, to point out that I had been in the league about 15 years before making the CFCL decision that I most regret. (Well, that, and uttering the word “fifty” after the name "Dwight Gooden." But THAT’s a whole different post as well.) What was the remedy for my egregious misstep? Talking about it. To his everlasting credit, Dave, who suffered most from my deal – he finished second that year – reminded me that CFCL owners are responsible to ourselves, our trading partners, <I>and</i> the league in general. I shipped a bucketful of talent in the Drew trade, talent that meant little to me, but a lot to my fellow owners with designs on a championship. I imagine some of the moves made by other owners that year looked a tad foolish once I decided to step in and work my magic.

This is all a really long-winded way to say that maybe we can solve this problem by talking about it. David wrote:

Maybe we need to do a better job of emphasizing the expectations surrounding rebuilding trades, or go into more detail about what’s meant by the “integrity of the league”. It’s clear that simply setting out expectations within the Constitution isn’t getting the job done, and that type of thing will only work if all 12 owners understand it and are willing to respect it. The firestorm after the trade last year did nothing to prevent the same thing from happening again, so setting expectations without any repercussions for violating them clearly isn’t working.

I can’t speak to last year. Cosmically speaking, I had no business winning given that I completely lost track of my team for weeks at a time and left injured players to collect dust on my active roster. Three months in Italy has its drawbacks, I guess. The fact that I was in it to the bitter, extended end was some kind of miracle. But as to David’s points, first, we should talk about and try to be more precise in what we mean by integrity. Second, I don’t think we <I>really</i> had a discussion after last year’s controversy like the at times (overly) blunt one we’ve begun here. So let’s have it. I’m glad Kenn, and I hope Steve, will join it. It's nothing personal, it's rotisserie. Hell, I'm still here. Dave still talks to me (albeit grudgingly and only via intermediaries). And I think it's safe to say that I've never forgotten to take account of my responsibility to the league in offering and making trades, whether I'm trying to climb or play for the future.

Here are my two cents: I’d hate to legislate too aggressively. I think the idea of moving the trade deadline up a bit is reasonable and not too onerous. Banning trades is overkill. Salary restrictions are dicey for the reasons Tim discusses. A trade oversight committee raises all sorts of thorny conflict-of-interest problems that are bound to inject hard feelings into the equation. I’m certainly willing to talk about all of these proposals in more detail, but this is where I stand right now. I’d prefer to put some meat on the bones of the integrity clause and remind ourselves in some way every year where our responsibilities lie.

We are not a cutthroat league. If we were, we’d be paying players in dollars, not cents. We show up at the draft every year, not because we’re desperate for the trophy David hands out – although it’s damned nice – but because we love baseball and this is an incredibly fun and interesting way to appreciate it on an entirely different level. I don’t mean this to sound naive. We all want to win and the league is at its best when everyone is involved and going for the money. But at the end of the day, as I learned from the Drew fiasco, trades that satisfy your itch while unfairly upending the pennant race aren’t worth it.

[moorebetter]

Just a quick note, but I never made a trade with the Bulls.

As someone who has no chance of winning this year, I feel the trades I have made simply leave my team in a better position. We all value players differently, so I feel the most important opinions on a trade valuation fall with the owners involved. If they both feel it was a win, win situation than it is.

I obviously was not involved last year, but it sounds as though the trade made the league more competative in the end rather than one person running away with the title. The Stones are the clear front runner, but he gave up the future of his team. If someone wants to contend with him this year, they can do the same.

That being said, I don't mind the rules the way they are. Just my opinion.

[Demreb]

While most of you may not want to hear more from the Deep South after my spleenectomy last night, I did feel the need to respond to a few things.

1) Michael Moore - Sorry. I didn't do the research right since I thought I knew what I was talking about. I believe it was the Clowns/Bulls deal I was referencing.

2) This was never meant to be an attack on Steve. He is an upstanding guy whom I have a ton of respect for. My tirade was on lopsided deals in general. As I re-read my post today, I realized that Steve, or anyone else, could have interpreted the post as a communique directed to Steve. It wasn't. I named Steve once or twice based on his comments from previous posts (e.g. "sour grapes").

3) My intent was not to have anyone quit. I started the post to get the discussion going. I wrote the MD article to point out I felt there was a problem. But I had (as you can tell) strong feelings about how things have played out the last two years and decided to voice those opinions. In writing the MD I tried to pull from David's talent of showing both sides of an issue. In starting the thread I wanted to continue that theme to spark conversation. But I also felt it necessary to show where the Rebels stood on this issue. The early returns from other owners seemed to be straddling the fence a bit and "waiting to hear what others say".

4) I wish I could say I was prescient enough to have considered the ramifications of not inviting the Ruffins to join the CFCL in its inaugural season. The truth is Dave wouldn't give me the time of day that year in high school. And how is that since I was a Stud Senior and he was a lowly Junior? Simply that he was just a lot cooler than I was (still is actually). I promise when I get my Medal of Freedom, sending Dave to Gitmo will be the furthest thing from my mind.

5) I really, really don't want Steve to quit. While we haven't had the chance to sup and share a stogie over Cognac, I consider Steve to be all right in the strictest sense. If he's lost his joie de vivre of CFCL life, I respect that. I just hope I wasn't the one that dislodged his joie from his vivre.

Dave is right. This is important in a geeky way, but it's not important. We all have important things to deal with (ailing family members, stress at work, impending Vice President choice to fret over) that are much more important that who we virtually own and don't own. As has been said about Sports Talk Radio - this is the candy store part of life. It's pretty cool that emotions are running high. It shows that we want to have the best dang candy store on the block. We already do, by the way. And we need all twelve owners to keep it at its best.

[kenndoza (archived)]

As I said earlier today, I’ve been out of commission for the last several days and was unable to respond to the many comments, let alone run my team (Ian Stewart got called up and had the week of his life before I even had the chance to activate him). I plan on continuing to compete the rest of this season, even though it’s clear that I’m not going to win in 2008. If nothing else, I have to beat Coulter.

I really appreciate the thorough and thoughtful comments we’ve seen so far. Even the people who are most bothered have kept it civil, and just as a side note, I’m partuclarly impressed by all of the good writers we have in this league. I like to think I’m a good writer, but I have much to learn from you all.

It has been pointed out that the trade left my roster severely depleted, and while it’s true that I was forced to put (minor leaguer) Mike Rabelo at the catcher position, I felt that he was the best catcher I was going to get back. I could’ve asked for Lo Duca or Valentin instead to replace Martin, but I figure at one cent and with the possibility that he could win the Marlins starting job next year and hit 10 homers, he was the guy to go after as the replacement catcher. As for my pitching staff, it was already decimated by injuries even BEFORE the trade, and among the guys I “activated” after the trade were Soriano and Miller, who were due to be activated shortly. I have Carpenter and possibly Gallardo coming soon, as well as other guys, and in the meantime, I’d rather have zeroes than the middle relievers I’d been throwing out there anyway. If Lincecum and Nolasco (tonight’s start notwithstanding) are getting the majority of my innings, I might actually *gain* a few pitching points (provided I make it to 1000 innings, which could be close).

David M. also mentioned in one of his comments that in my email to him I spent more time defending it than anything else. That’s true, but that’s only because I knew there would be problems with the deal, particularly given what happened last year. I’m not stupid, and I’m not a jerk, and I’ll freely admit that if I were not a part of this deal, I’d probably have a similar response to many of you, but the response I most identified with was Tim’s (“dang, I wish I could’ve pulled that off, followed by frustration of the likelihood of an improbable title lost.”)

Last year’s pennant race was an unbelievable experience for me, and not just because I won. It literally came down to the 14th and last inning of the 163rd game of the season. I mean how cool is that? And while David points out (correctly, I’ll agree), that I would not have won without making that trade, that only shows that I *had* to make a trade in order to compete for the championship. So it’s July of 2007, no one has made a trade ALL SEASON, and I have a chance to win. My projections say it can’t be done unless I make a move, especially given that everyone else is probably about to make a trade. I gotta do whatever it takes – within the rules – to win, right? Steve was in the same position last week, and he did the same thing. I don’t think anyone would argue, when you take the “integrity of the league” aspect out of it, that either of us made a mistake. Even with the lopsidedness of the deal that David H. illustrated, I’m very very excited about the six keepers I got back (seven if Rabelo pans out).

But the real crux of the issue is of course the “integrity of league” part. I ran a hoops league for a long time. Maybe not 25 years, but it started out of my dorm room and cost me thousands of dollars to maintain due to flying back and forth every year. When we had controversies like this I felt it. I know the pain that David and the other long-timers (and to a newbie like me, I’m willing to give Mr. Holian his 25th year so he can avoid a trip to Gitmo) feel, and I’m not even talking about missing out on a championship. You’re a part of something for so long and you feel an ownership to it. That was actually the hardest part for me – that I might be personally hurting some of you. For that, I sincerely apologize.

But I don’t apologize for trying to make my team better for 2009. I’m no shark, and I know these trades aren’t made in a vacuum, but I looked at the other contenders in this league, and I went after the team that could give me the most attractive package. I made and received offers from other contending teams, but nothing was going to compare to the six guys I got. Some teams had already been picked clean due to other dump deals. Some teams had a few guys I wanted but had owners reluctant to part with them. In some cases, I couldn’t even get one solid minor league prospect for a top major league player. I knew I had to up the ante to get even one guy I wanted from those owners. Imagine how excited I was when Steve tantalized me with Lincecum, Gallardo, and Alvarez. Once it became possible that I could get them all, I probably got a little desperate, and I piled on until I got them all.

David M. said “It’s the attitude of ‘I’m going to dump at all costs’ that leads to trades that change the entire landscape of a season. Or the attitude of ‘I want these 3 guys as keepers and am willing to give you whatever it takes to get them.’ It’s those kinds of deals that turn a pennant race into a farce.” I’m willing to concede that point, but my goal is to win, and part of making a trade is not only strengthening your own team but weakening the other teams. I *want* to up the price on trades. I *want* to shorten the list of contending teams. If I can drive up the price of a good keeper (or a good non-keeper) by making a deal, that’s not a bad long-term strategy. It’s not all that different from driving the price up on draft day when you know an owner loves (or better yet, needs) a player.

So if trades of this sort are to be discouraged, I’ll be disappointed to no longer have these types of strategies in my arsenal, but I’ll adapt and will welcome the new challenge. I don’t think moving up the trade deadline will solve much of anything, other than giving the dumpees even more time with their big hauls. I also don’t think you should be forced to put active players on your roster at the conclusion of a trade (though I would be amenable to “freezing” inactive players if they’re kept on an active roster for a predetermined amount of time). The only way to prevent the dumping that many find objectionable is to have penalties and/or incentives, like monthly bonuses or something like that.

I have more to say, but I’ve been typing for 90 minutes now and need to go to sleep. I look forward to continuing this conversation. The CFCL is great, and I love being a part of it.

[stones]

OK, its probably time I say something.

First, about me quitting: I am still not sure where I stand on this. My inclination is to step away, but instead I will take the suggested “step back” and rethink this for another day or two.

In the interim, I need to dispel the notion that one person, or post, drove me to my decision. This isn’t, and will not be, the result of a knee jerk reaction some have suggested. In particular, Rich’s comments, though strong, were not the cause. I've heard them all before!

Second, regarding my sudden silence (unusual as it may be!): I think I posted somewhere, or it may have been in a deleted post, that I am having internet connectivity issues at home. And, work has been extremely busy, leaving little time to prepare the manifesto type responses I feel are necessary to fully restate my positions and provide responses to many of the comments made thus far. I really was not "in hiding" awaiting Kenn’s take on things!

Lastly, the Brewers are now one game back and coming on strong! Next week might be a lot of fun...well, maybe!

More on all of this later.