In most leagues I've been in, one of the biggest problems with preventing dump trades is that there is no mechanism in place for preventing them. Typically, a scenario will go something like this:
Team A's owner decides he's playing for next year, and sends out an e-mail to the league on Tuesday morning (right after the league's transaction deadline) letting everyone know that he's doing so. You're busy at work that day, so you barely have time to put together a fair and decent offer for Team A. You stay late at work to cobble together a decent offer, type up a quick e-mail, and hit the SEND button.
The next morning, while you're checking your league's stat page before you go to work, you nearly spit up your coffee. Team A has sent five of his best players to Team B for one halfway decent freeze and little else. You're pissed off, and understandably so. Your season is probably over. But what makes this worse is that Team A didn't even really consider your offer. You understand that dumping is part of the game in carryover leagues, but you can't believe that A wouldn't even reply to your offer.
After talking to three other owners, you hear the same story from them, too. The players they offered were much better than the garbage that A got in his trade.
You call your commissioner, trying as calmly as possible to share your frustration without making it sound like sour grapes. He tells you that he doesn't like the trade either, but there's not much he can do about it. Mark Teahen is a decent freeze for next year and, while he also thinks A could have gotten more, he's reluctant to question an owner's judgment?
Does this sound familiar?
As I've said before, every league should have a process in place to block trades like this. At the same time, it shouldn't allow trades to get blocked just because one owner has more friends than the other guy and is in second place and he'll lose the league because the guy in first made a savvy trade.
Here's one idea from a league I've played in.
A minimum of three owners can challenge a trade. These challenges are finite; at most, an owner can only challenge three trades a year. This prevents someone from simply challenging every trade. If a challenge is made, an up-and-down vote is held amongst the 10 teams not involved in the trade. Seven teams out of the 10 must vote down the trade to nullify the deal. This prevents a simple majority (which can often be found in leagues where six guys are good friends and the other half don't know each other that well) from simply forming a voting bloc and influencing the league.
If the trade isn't overturned, the challenging teams lose one of their three challenges.
I don't think this idea is perfect, mind you. I'd increase the number of challenging teams to five and make it an eight out of ten vote because I am very reluctant to overturn trades. It's easy to get mad and refuse to see why a dumper might have made a trade. Nevertheless, I do believe a challenge mechanism should be in place.
Another idea from this league is a window after which a team announces that it is dumping before he can make a deal. This league uses a three-day window. This gives everyone a fair shot at making an offer to the team out of the running, so that you avoid the situation where the dumping owner simply makes a trade hours after he announces he's giving up, if he even makes that announcement at all.
I'd be curious to know if any of you have similar rules in place, or if you think they are a good idea.
No comments:
Post a Comment