The final post on the trade pipelines and shenanigans in my high stakes league.

Carl von Clausewitz, in his amazing book On War, discussed one of the key theses in understanding war. He wrote that with the potential unlimited application of force, one side is compelled to respond in kind. Without limits, what occurs is a a race to the extremes. If one side uses force without compunction, the other is compelled to respond and each then goes toward the extremes, with the only check on this race being the interests of each and the counter purposes involved.

This is not just an issue of tactics but also of escalation of weapons and technology. War, to Clausewitz, was not just on the battlefield but about policy. The Cold War being an excellent example and proof of Clausewitz’ theories.

What occurred in my high stakes league was a good proof of Clausewitz’ theories as applied to Fantasy Baseball. Without the check of voiding deals (because of the commissioner’s failure to respond) or of ethics of the owners, the response by other owners competing with Team A and Team B was to respond in kind. Team A and B essentially colluded and established a pipeline.

So, what occurred was a race to an extreme. What we saw was the establishment of another two pipelines, (only one of which I will address here) apparently with alleged “trade-back” agreements. As Clausewitz would predict, this was an escalation and the addition of the “trade-back” makes the response more extreme. I am only going to discuss one more of the pipelines. I think that the pipeline below was not cheating or collusion, but was necessitated as an escalation of the tactics of Team A and B.

The situation has gotten so out of control that the commissioner has now advised he will ban any offseason trade-backs of players traded, to which the five teams involved in pipelining objected, naturally.

Aside from a “trade-back” agreement, the other “pipelines” were not nearly as destructive in terms of swapped players. Their corrosive effect is on the good will of the league and the desire of owners to continue to play in a league with shady tactics. One issue for us is the stakes; it is not easy to find high stakes leagues and when you have played in them for a decade it is tough to cut bait.

Here are the contract statuses:
s1–can be kept next year only by increasing salary by 10.
s2–can be kept for one more year at current salary. Or, after this season, they can be signed to a long term contract at an increase of $5 per year.
s3–a guy just auctioned this year. Next year he becomes an s2, and if not signed long term, becomes an s1 and then returns to the free agent pool unless he is signed to the $10 increase.
0P-a free agent picked up this year. Can be kept at a salary of 10 next year.
0L9–a rookie. When they lose rookie status they become 7s2.

Here is the “responsive” pipeline between Teams X and Y. Team X was a strong contender who had an excellent keeper roster and was considered by most to be one of the top two contenders coming out of the auction:

1.Team X trades Luke Scott 10s2, Joe Crede 13s3, Noah Lowry 13s3 for
Team Y trades: Overbay 26 s3, Scott Olsen 7s2.

2. Team X trades: Chris Gomez 0P, John McDonald 0P, Craig Monroe 11s1
Team Y trades:Mark Grudzielanek 7s3

3. Team X trades: Mike Cameron 20s3 and Matt Wise 0P
Team Y trades:Billy Wagner 29 s3 and Paul Maholm 2s3

4. Team X trades Horacio Ramirez 0 L9 and Craig Counsell 0L9
Team Y trades Denys Baez 3s2, Matt Morris 8s3

5. Team X trades Morgan Ensberg 17s3 and Saul Rivera 0L9
Team Y trades Jose Castillo 5s3 and Matt Wise 0L9

6. Team X trades Johnny Damon 30 s3, Rondell White 3s3 and Bobby Seay 0L9
Team Y trades Vernon Wells 35 s3.

Without the issue of “trade-backs”, the net effect with contracts overall is not nearly as damaging as the prior pipeline. The damage is inflicted merely because these teams felt it necessary to respond in kind and to “up the ante” a bit because of an earlier pipeline. That is not to say that the deals are fair; they clearly aren’t in my opinion.

The commissioner thinks that there were trade back agreements, which explains the unfairness if true and is arguably cheating. This makes a huge difference in how and whether these deals are legitimate or not. Of course I have no idea if such an agreement existed, but I hope not.

The interesting thing to me is the vast difference between the intent of the owners involved and the effect on the balance of power. Teams A and B were clearly colluding, protestations to the contrary, and the nature of the deals made and the players involved make it clear. On the other hand, Teams X and Y here were not cheating or colluding, if you subscribe to the definition of collusion as “conspiring to cheat” or something similar, and assuming no trade-back agreement.

Curiously, when the topic of their collusion was brought up again, the owner of Team B (the first colluders) actually said “as long as deals work within the rules, who cares if two guys make 20 deals for 50 players.”

It is a sobering but not unexpected thought that a guy playing for high stakes and who has been in fantasy for 15 years could not see how damaging this position is to the integrity of the league and to its health. The proof of that is the fact that the pipeline between Teams A and B came to pass.

articleId=’16020′;