The Commish

INDEX

NEWS
SCORES
STATS
STANDINGS
TRANSACTIONS
TEAMS
HISTORY
RULEBOOK
SCHEDULE
DOWNLOADS
FORUM
FAQ
JOIN
HOME

FROM THE DESK OF THE COMMISH

August 1, 2001

Dumping All Over Dumping

I had my next "From the Desk" page all written, but it seems like this is the topic of the moment, so I thought it was best to put my old page on the back burner for now.  The topic of today's page is, of course, dumping, and what (if anything) should be done about it.

The Problem

Before we dive into this discussion, we should probably first figure out: a) what the problem is, and b) if it really is a problem.  The problem seems to be that a large number of star players are being traded mid-season, making the league seem less competitive and less realistic to some.  You may remember that the three main objects of this league is to:

  1. Simulate reality as closely as possible.
  2. Provide a league structure and set of rules that is fair to everyone.
  3. Provide even the worst of teams with an opportunity to compete within a reasonable amount of time.

With that in mind, we should first ask whether or not dumping is realistic.  Certainly, it happens in the Major Leagues, but to what scale?   Unfortunately, I couldn't track down a list of all the MLB trades made this season on short notice, but I do know that over the past two weeks alone, "A-list" players like Pedro "I'm No Kevin Brown" Astacio, Ugueth Urbina, Rick Reed, Matt Lawton, Sterling Hitchcock, Todd Jones, Turk Wendell, Fred McGriff, Jermaine Dye and Andres Galarraga have all switched uniforms.

"A-list" players traded in '01:

  • Tim Hudson (5)
  • Trevor Hoffman (1)
  • Manny Ramirez (5)
  • Rick Ankiel (3)
  • Moises Alou (5)
  • Richard Hidalgo (5)
  • Al Leiter (4)
  • Brad Fullmer (4)
  • Jeff Kent (1)
  • Gary Sheffield (1)
  • Mike Sirotka (2)
  • David Wells (4)
  • Bernie Williams (5)
  • Cliff Floyd (5)
  • Jeff D'Amico (3)
  • Derek Jeter (5)
  • Chuck Finley (5)
  • Carl Everett (5)
  • Paul Konerko (5)
  • Tim Salmon (1)
  • Phil Nevin (5)
  • Pudge Rodriguez (5)
  • Livan Hernandez (5)
  • Javy Lopez (5)
  • Miguel Tejada (5)
  • Robb Nen (4)
  • Ryan Dempster (5)
  • Woody Williams (1)
  • Charles Johnson (1)
  • Jason Kendall (4)
  • Keith Foulke (1)

In comparison, the "A-list" of players traded in the BDBL this season appears to the right (note: I'll explain the numbers in parentheses in a minute.)  As you can see, there's quite a bit of difference between the BDBL and reality.  So that answers our first question: BDBL dumping is definitely NOT realistic.

Question #2 is: Is dumping fair?  Well, it's certainly fair to the teams at the top, who get the benefit of all these star players at little to no immediate cost.  And it's certainly fair to the teams at the bottom of the standings who are able to turn around their entire franchise by trading away star players who weren't helping their team anyway (and who often would have been lost at season's end.)

As usual, it's the middle class who are probably treated most unfairly by the system.  If a team is hovering around .500, a handful of games out of playoff contention, that team must decide whether to trade all of their top prospects in order to keep up with the big boys or call it quits and get what they can for their own star players.

But aren't these the same types of decisions made by big league GM's every year?  Last year, the NL champion Mets spent their July filling their gaping hole at shortstop by acquiring Mike Bordick at the expense of a couple of prospects.  This year, the cellar-dwelling Mets spent their July trading one of their best pitchers for an outfielder who will help them down the road.

So is dumping fair?  I'd have to say that it is.

The last question: Does dumping help maintain the league's competitiveness?  I guess it depends on your definition.  In terms of the current division races, dumping probably excludes more teams from the playoff hunt than it includes.  But any team willing to pay the price in prospects can join the party if they have the guts to do so.  So again, my answer to this question would be yes.

Causes

Okay, we've now determined that there is a problem with dumping, and the problem is that it is not realistic.  So what can we do about it?   Before we can solve a problem, though, we have to find out what is causing it.

Why are so many teams trading their star players?   There are basically five good reasons for a team to do so:

  1. The player is a free agent at the end of the season.
  2. The player is currently injured in the Major Leagues and will be useless next season.
  3. The player is currently slumping in the Majors and will be useless next season.
  4. The player is playing in his option year and therefore makes attractive trade bait.
  5. The team is not dumping, but trading (what they perceive to be) quality-for-quality.

There are 31 "A-list" stars in the box above.   Beside each player, I listed the category that corresponds to the numbers above, explaining why the player was traded.  Of those 31 players, here is the breakdown by the above categories:

Category # of players
1 7
2 1
3 2
4 6
5 16

So what does this tell us?  Well, for starters, it looks like we can cut that list of 31 players in half, since 16 of the 31 weren't really dumped at all. 

Let's look at those 16 players for a minute.  Does anyone believe the Yankees would ever trade Derek Jeter under any circumstances?   Probably not, but maybe the Yankees are a bad example.  What if a "mid-market" team like the Giants or Reds owned Jeter, and he had seven years remaining on his contract?  Would they trade him?  Possibly, but not likely.   I think that even if the Expos or Twins owned Jeter, they'd choose to build around him rather than trade him.  Especially since his contract stays exactly the same over those ten years.

Nor do I think that any big league team would trade Tim Hudson, Manny Ramirez, Richard Hidalgo, Bernie Williams, Pudge Rodriguez, Cliff Floyd or Miguel Tejada in the middle of a contract. Yet over the years, we've seen several of these players trade hands.  I'm guilty of it myself, trading franchise pitcher Greg Maddux two years ago.

So if this aspect of the league is unrealistic, I'm afraid the blame for that lies with ourselves, not with the current league structure.

Now, what about those other 15 "A" list players?   Is 15 star-caliber dumps too many to expect in one season?  I'd say it's on the borderline of reality, so let's continue by looking at some solutions to this problem.

Solutions

Solution #1: An in-season salary cap.

This is by far the most popular solution to the great dumping problem, according to the message board.  Bear in mind that we already have a salary cap that pertains to all future contracted salary, so this solution would really only cut out those seven players in "category one."  That said, let's see if a salary cap would have helped this season.

Let's assume that we make the cap $75 million, which seems to be the most popular figure I've seen thrown around lately.  If that's the case, how many teams are above $75 million?  The answer is three: Salem ($81.9m), Bear Country ($81.1m) and Chicago ($77.5m).  But as Chicago GM John Gill recently pointed out, a cap would seem unfair if salaries weren't prorated to reflect the amount of time a player spends on a contending team's roster.  For example, Al Leiter will only pitch two chapters for the Black Sox this season, so realistically, Chicago should only have to pay about $3.3 million of Leiter's salary.  So subtracting the difference would put Chicago's cap at around $70.7 million.  Likewise for the other two teams, who would also probably be under the $75m cap given this condition.

Even if we were to drop the cap to $70 million, we wouldn't be excluding all that many trades from happening.  Only 10 of the 15 players dumped this year carry salaries of at least $5 million.  Combined, those 10 players earn $65m in salary before prorating, which hardly makes a difference when divided among 8-10 competitors.

Aside from that, though, we have to ask what is the true motivation of an in-season cap.  Is it to prevent the good teams from becoming "too good?"  As long as those teams sacrifice their future in order to make these trades, it should all even out in the end and the balance of power should shift naturally.  In fact, the one and only problem I have with dumping is when competitors don't give an even swap of future talent for present talent, which throws off the entire balance.

In the end, the only purpose a cap would really serve would be to restrict the market for non-competitive teams who are looking to trade their $10 million bum for some future prospects.  If there is only one competitive team in the league who can afford to fit that player under their cap, that is what is called a "big time buyer's market."

Solution #2: Allow owners to give contract extensions to one or more players.

This was an idea bounced around at length last year, and was actually brought up for vote (and crushed soon after.)  The idea is that if a team is allowed to extend a player's contract, it will restrict the number of "category one" dumps.  The problem is that it doesn't eliminate the problem, it only postpones it.  Eventually, every player will become a free agent.   And when that day comes, he will be dumped if his team isn't competing.

Solution #3: Institute a "draft lottery" for the bottom-third of teams in the standings.

This solution is directed more toward the problem of teams who dump to get worse rather than teams who dump to get better.  I think it's a good idea that is worth pursuing, but it's just not all that relevant to this particular topic.

Solution #4: Move Contracts Day to the end of the free agent draft (as opposed to the beginning.)

This is another good idea, and another one that we have tossed around for a few years now.  This solution was designed to eliminate those "category four" dumps altogether.  Again, we're only talking about six players, but every little bit helps.  I don't really have a problem with this idea, other than the problems it may cause with record-keeping.  But if it makes the league better, I'd be willing to make that sacrifice.

Solution #5: Hold an auction for the top 48 free agents.

Like Solution #3, this solution is designed more as a way to stop rewarding ineptitude than as a way to cure the dumping problem.  I don't really have an issue with this solution, either.  The biggest problem is figuring out how to do it.

Conclusion

So, we've identified the problem, we've discovered the source of the problem and we've examined all the solutions.  Now what?  Well, if we institute a draft lottery and move Contracts Day to the end of the free agent draft, we may be able to eliminate about a third of our yearly total of dumped superstars.  But that still leaves a larger-than-normal number.  I'm afraid, though, that it may be something that we're just going to have to live with.

Look, there's a reason why they call this hobby "fantasy baseball."  Would the Braves ever trade Greg Maddux?  No, probably not.   But the Salem Cowtippers aren't the Atlanta Braves (thank god!)  You have to remember that BDBL GM's have one huge advantage that Major League GM's do not, and that's the ability to see one year into the future at all times.  That's not realistic at all.  Therefore, our simulation can never be 100 percent realistic, either.

Let's face it.  Trading is fun.  Building a team from scratch is fun.  Re-building a losing franchise into a winner is fun.   Making a great team into an unbeatable team is fun.  It's part of the reason why we all participate in this hobby.  Instead of searching for ways to legislate dumping to an early grave, I think we should accept it for what it is: a chance to have some fun.