Every week, our Fantasy baseball crew will be tackling the biggest topics from around the league in an e-mail discussion. This week's topic: "Is it too early to make trades?"
Chris Towers: From a strictly utilitarian perspective, the best trades are the ones that benefit all parties involved. Two teams with competing interests find equal partners in one another and make a mutually beneficial move that increases both of their chances for eventual victory. They might have different motives and perspectives, but at its core, both teams will come out ahead in an ideal trade.
Of course, that kind of pie-in-the-sky viewpoint isn't how Fantasy players actually operate in the real world. The ideal trade for any Fantasy owner is a landslide victory in their favor; one that increases their odds of winning a championship, while also taking out a competitor.
The most lopsided trades tend to come about as a result of two imbalances: either an imbalance in knowledge, or an imbalance in motivation. The former is a lot harder to get away with these days; if you're playing in a competitive league, you're not going to pull one over on some simpleton. The latter, though isn't hard to pull off, especially early in the season, when Fantasy players are most likely to be desperate.
It's easy to be desperate early on in the season. I've lost A.J. Pollock in my main league, and it's not hard to see a scenario where I get fleeced in a trade for an outfielder because I am dealing from a position of weakness. I won't be making any panic trades just yet, of course, because I am a smart, reasonable person. It's Week 1 -- there is a lot of time to make up ground, and my time is best spent searching the waiver wires for potential breakout candidates like Kevin Pillar, Michael Taylor or Marcell Ozuna, who can help shore up that hole in my outfield without creating a new one.
Why drill a hole in the hull of my lifeboat and use the wood pulp to caulk a different hole?
Al Melchior: I did make a move out of desperation because of losing Pollock, so I have been reminded of the risks of the early-season trade. Then again, that could have happened later in the season as well. And the other owner in the Pollock deal was alert enough to pull off a good trade, so there are opportunities to make good deals early, as well as at other points in the season.
Making a good trade early doesn't require one to take advantage of a panicked owner. There can be opportunities to profit from differences in player evaluation. Last season, I took fliers on Jake Marisnick and Trevor Bauer. Against my better judgment, I held onto them after great starts, even though both were outperforming my best expectations for them. There would have likely been owners who would have overpaid for them. At the very least, in those situations, there is no reason not to test the market.
Chris: Obviously, you should listen to any trade offers that come your way -- they are probably going to come from someone who is desperate! If you get a deal that is too good to pass up, you have to take it, of course. But I don't think there is all that much value in talking about clearly lopsided trades in your favor. Those are the easiest ones in the world to make.
But any trade made with relatively equal value on each side is likely going to be made without enough information to really make a smart decision in the first few weeks of the season. It is a decision that may work out for you, to be sure, but you are leaving your season in the hands of fate to an even greater degree than usual in Fantasy. If you liked a player enough to draft him two weeks ago, nothing that has happened since should really change that.
Let's get out of the realm of the theoretical, though, and start talking about some real-world stakes that our readers may be facing. What would you do with Trevor Story, who just hit his fourth homer in three games, setting a major-league record to start a career? Let's say you have Story on the same team you lost Pollock on, and I offered you Gregory Polanco for Story. How are you responding to that trade? How could you possibly trade Story right now?
Al: I do agree that it's way, way too early to change my perception of a player that I liked well enough to draft. Going back to last year's Marisnick example, the problem there was that I did let a few good weeks change my perception of him for the better. I should have left that for another owner who was willing to pay for that improved outlook.
The Story-for-Polanco example is a good one, and because of Story's unique situation, it could be an exception to the rule. In Roto, I had Polanco valued at $7 and Story at $3. My valuation of Story was depressed because I anticipated that his tenure as a starter could be shortened by Reyes' return. If I go by my rankings and auction values, I should accept that offer in a heartbeat. Story's situation is especially fluid because his value depends on something other than his own performance. In this case, I'd agree that it would be a bad idea to trade Story for Polanco now. However, Story is not untouchable this early in the season. If I could get an even better outfielder than Polanco, I'd pull the trigger. Shin-Soo Choo, for example, was drafted slightly later than Polanco on average, but I like him much more than Polanco. I would consider a Story-for-Choo deal.
Chris: See, I don't see how you could possibly pull the trigger on just about any Story trade right now. Don't you need to see if at least some of this is real? We're talking about a guy who averaged 20 homers and 27 steals per-150 games in the minors, and posted a .279/.350/.514 line as a 22-year-old in Double-A and Triple-A last season. Oh, and HE GETS TO PLAY HALF OF HIS GAMES IN COORS FIELD. I know all about the contact issues, but isn't that less of a threat when you play at a park that sported a collective .344 BABIP last season?
I get that Story is the ultimate sell-high candidate, but this just further underscores why I wouldn't be willing to make any but the most obvious trades right now. Polanco has upside, but I'm not sure he has all that much more upside than Story at this point, and he probably isn't really helping you replace Pollock either. Isn't your highest upside play to hold on to a potential breakout star like Story and play the waiver wire? Isn't the potential of Story-plus-Taylor/Ozuna/Pillar higher than Polanco or even Choo?
Polanco or Choo aren't winning you a championship anyways -- not when you invested a second-round pick in Pollock. But finding two potential breakout stars for the price of nothing just might. Being active on the waiver wire early in the season and targeting high-variance, high-upside players is the best way to augment your roster over the first few weeks. Wait a few weeks to start pulling off trades.
Al: I do want to see how things develop with Story, but there are limits to the upside I'm willing to project for him. As you yourself said, nothing can happen in a handful of games that will or should radically change my view of him. If the goal is to replace all of Pollock's value, I almost certainly need to give up more than Story. However, anything I can do to improve my team is worth doing.
I think the odds of Story-for-Choo accomplishing that are pretty good.It may seem risky to trade Story away right now, but there is also risk to hanging on to him for too long. If he has a bad week, I doubt anyone is offering Choo or someone comparable for him then.