The Z Files: Trading Ethics

It's that time of the season. The trade deadline is approaching, so the internet is inundated with pieces entitled, "Tricks of the Trade", or the "Art of the Deal." In fact, this week's Tout Wars Round Table asked, "Please share a solid piece of advice with respect to negotiating a fantasy baseball deal." Look for it to be posted early next week.

Speaking of Tout Wars, there has been a few social media discussions about trader ethics among the Touts. One was a topic we covered a few years ago in a round table:

If your team is destined to not win this season, will you trade with a competing team to improve your finish?

Here is a link to the piece for those curious. I opted not to repose it to the Touts, instead posting the following tweet:

Here is my reply from the aforementioned Tout Table. Most of the words hold true to this day.

To be candid, I continue to struggle with this. My head says every point counts. My heart says don't influence the top of the standings in a redraft format. Then the head says by not making a move, I'm in fact influencing the results. So while I usually won't seek out deals to move me from 13th to 11th, I'll consider them if approached, with the condition I let the league know I'm open for business. This way, if the consummated deal indeed aids someone at the top of the heap, the other contenders had an equal chance to work something out with me. This said, all bets are off in Tout Wars where I want every FAAB dollar I can muster and assume my brethren do as well.

Herein is the key. Some leagues offer some sort of reward for higher finishes. Perhaps it's a better draft pick next season. As mentioned, Tout Wars deducts FAAB for the ensuing season if you finish below a preset threshold. The mindset is different if something is on the line.

Let's use Tout Wars as an example. I've backed off the stance indicated in the final sentence. Yes, I still want as much of a free agent budget as possible, but I'm not sure five standings points to avoid a $50 FAB deduction is equal to five points yielding a league championship. I'll still manage my roster to squeeze out every point and perhaps deal with teams not in contention. 

The counter to this is by not consummating a fair trade with a contender, I am still affecting the standings since the team which would have been victimized by another contender benefits from the lack of a trade. This came up in the replies to the tweet:

Patrick Davitt and I have discussed this conundrum several times on HQ Radio, the weekly BaseballHQ podcast, of which I am a frequent guest. I understand the point about not making a trade with a contender potentially affects the standings as much as making a trade. My question is whether the points I gain with no real consequence other than pride are equal to those elevating a team to the championship. 

Some of the respondents were firm in their reply.

For the record, I don't want to legislate against deals of this nature. In fact, my preference is some sort of incentive to play as hard as possible. The Tout Wars FAB penalty is an example, but as I have discussed, in my mind saving some budget isn't as important as winning a title.

I have never played in a league of this nature, but I have always wanted to try it out. The idea is a rolling champion is crowned every season. Instead of awarding the victory to the team with the highest points total, a sum of three or four years worth of play determines the winner. Obviously, some sort of adjustments need to be made for the first few seasons. Maybe allocate half of the prize pool to that year's winner and half to the team with the highest three or four year total. In a four-year league, the entry fee can be, say, 50 jellybeans for the first three seasons with all going to that year's highest finishers. Then, in year four, raise the ante to 100 jellybeans and allocate them 50/50, half to the single season top teams and half to the four-year leaders. This way, every point counts. The five points gained one season get carried over for three more aggregate totals.

The second poll presented rendered surprising results, at least to me.

Almost two-thirds or those responding don't announce the availability of a difference-making player. Some feel it is an obligation to do it and I assumed the majority would at minimum prefer it be done. I guess not.

Personally, I am under the impression one garners better offers if everyone knows a good player is on the block. Some agreed.

Others did not.

And then there was this intriguing exchange I had with follower.

Isn't that what makes this so fun - no right/wrong? I will say this. In keeper leagues, I strongly suggest letting everyone know when you're dealing current assets for building blocks. Sure, it should be obvious, but being transparent in scenarios of this nature really help keep hard feelings to a minimum. That said, many feel the cattle call for stars is incumbent for all leagues.

What say you? On the off chance you're experiencing a tough year, will you deal with a likely top finisher to improve your position? What's your policy of dealing away a top player -- let the league know, or approach teams individually?