Back from the Bar

I have returned from a great long weekend. In my email inbox was a league-wide query about trading from the Cartel:

As were approaching the Dump Deal season, an annual occurrence for me, I’m interested in any input on how to keep it as fair as possible?

Mr. Leaguer responded as follows:

I generally consider a "fair" dump deal as one where one team gets about 1.5 times as much present value in the deal, giving up future keepers. Shop around, don't give all the good players to one team, and make the keepers received be really good ones.

The second sentence provides good advice to us all. Dumpers will get the most value by shopping patiently to all of the teams who have the kinds of keepers that they want. We all have a responsibility to not to significantly affect the race for the money, so you should not give too much value to any one team.

And finally, and most importantly, assuming you have real value to trade away, go for quality keepers, not a large quantity of average keepers. The Busch Leaguers dynasty has been based on 2 trades each providing one incredibly great keeper: Albert Pujols at $3 and Eric Gagne at $2, each with 2 years remaining plus extension. No offense to Mr. Leaguer, but I think anyone in the league with only those two keepers plus $275 to spend would have finished the auction with a competitive, possibly winning team.

The first sentence is fascinating to me. Mr. Leaguer actually reduced reasonable trading to a formula, 1.5 times the present value. I really admire his attempt to provide some rational thinking about this.

That said, even he will admit that an actual formula is impossible because not every keeper's contract is equal. Looking at our team, Milton Bradley is a keeper at 7-23. We think Jayson Werth is a keeper, possibly extendable, at 6-1. Brett Tomko looks like a keeper at 6x-5. And probably Pedro Martinez is a keeper at 7-30. These are all different quality keepers and represent different values. And each team will evaluate each of these keeper values differently. None of those keeper contracts compares with Pujols at $3 or Gagne at $2. But you rarely get an opportunity to trade for an elite keeper.

Furthermore, dumped quality players are worth differing values to each contending team. A team with upside in specific categories might give up more for players that can help in those categories. If you’ve got a legitimate base stealer right now or a legitimate closer, some teams might pay well to fix those categories.

Larry thinks starting pitchers are getting no respect because of open FAAB. I think this is baloney. Greg is going to get some decent value for Josh Beckett. And Larry is probably going to get value for Javy Vasquez, though not as much as Beckett. After all, I can still remember that opening day outing by Vasquez.

Also coming into play is the ratio of teams playing for this year versus teams playing for next year. So far only two teams have said uncle, though there is another team floundering at the bottom with only 25 points. Nine teams are at 47 points or more, so it’s theoretically a sellers’ market. This will change later in the season, but for now the dumpers are in a good bargaining situation. Furthermore, we still have 2/3 of the season to play, so a dumpee gets the benefit of the players for 100+games. It’s like the justification for paying big FAAB money for a crossover player at this time in the season.

In answer to the Cartel’s question, I’d say he should identify players he’d like to trade for, and then target those teams. Identify what those teams need to win, and offer that. If the keeper you want on that team is critical to the team’s strategy, you have to replace the stats or don’t waste your effort. And take the initiative. Don’t wait, or else you’ll only be talking to the Old Rips.

But I still admire the attempt to evaluate a reasonable average ratio for a dump deal. There probably is a complicated formula that could be developed, but there are just too many variables for me to figure out. I just have to fly by the seat of my pants.