General Manager’s will consistently fall into the fair-trade fallacy trap—the idea that trades should be equal. They are not.
It is a trap. It is inevitable. Two teams will execute a trade, satisfied with its outcome, only to have one or more league mates ridicule the swap. They will decry the imbalance. Worse yet, they will spew forth the vulgar “C”-word that haunts fantasy leagues everywhere—collusion. The crux of their bitterness is probably the belief that the trade is unfair. And, honestly, there may be merit in the complaint. But highly unlikely is an unbalanced, unfair trade borne of collusion. They are usually the result of desire, need, and desperation.
Everyday life involves transactions that may not be fair or equal. Someone who must sell a home quickly may be motivated to accept far less than what the home is worth. Someone in immediate need of a home may offer well over asking to secure the sale. A person motivated by a need for immediate funds may accept $70 for an item known to be worth $100. One party “makes out” on the transaction, and the other party obtains what they were seeking.
In basic terms, fair value is the amount at which both parties, at large, would routinely transact for a good, given the absence of extenuating circumstances. Economic value, however, is the value a particular entity places on the good based on that entity’s benefit and circumstances. To an outside observer, one party may appear exploited and the other party manipulative. In the end, the transaction was not fair or equitable in an economic sense. But the sale was, most definitely, mutually beneficial.
Must Compete For Resources
Fantasy football is a world where the barter is an integral component of developing teams, improving positions, and dominating opponents. Everyone is competing for wins, and to win, everyone must compete for resources. Enter scarcity. There is a limited number of resources available—at some positions more so—and, as a season progresses, those resources are reduced (predominately by injury). As supply decreases, prices for those resources increase in general. But the precarious state of a given roster, especially if a playoff berth is on the line, is where a GM’s economic value for resources departs fair value.
Many often say that a “fair trade” is one in which both parties benefit from the trade. While “fair trade” may be an inaccurate moniker, a trade that benefits both teams is a good thing. Many people believe that the degree of the benefit each GM derives is unfair, and, certainly, nefarious deeds are afoot. Driving this are third parties evaluating resources by either applying their own valuations or using fair value from external sources (trade calculators, rankings, etc.) This only allows the third party to ascertain if the trade is one they would have accepted. Ultimately, the analysis is irrelevant for the two teams completing the trade. Mutual benefit is not synonymous with equitable or fair value.
Reasonable Person?
Some may apply the “reasonable person” standard to conclude if a trade ran afoul of league rules. Was the trade somehow unethical or an affront to fantasy football mores? Would two reasonable parties have conducted this trade? When someone is up against the proverbial wall, reason and logic do not always prevail. So where is the line drawn?
Perhaps when an action or inaction by one or more GMs is so obvious and egregious, there is no party, internal or external to the league, that would harbor doubt on its impropriety? A trade of Josh Allen and Bijan Robinson for Tom Brady and Marshawn Lynch would trigger immediate, vehement objections. No one could provide support for the trade. Aside from that, unless the trade explicitly violates league rules, there is no violation.
But what about GMs that prey on others within the league? Does a GM have an ethical or moral obligation to be fair to other GMs? Numerous articles address ethics in the fantasy sports realm. But the short answer is if the actions of a GM do not violate league rules, almost always the answer is no.
A poker player adept in the art of reading tells of a novice player who doesn’t alert the player or the poker dealer to those tells. They silently revel in the successes of applied knowledge and skill to position themselves for the best outcome. If a fantasy GM identifies trade partners who have different economic values based on their interpretation and analysis of the resources involved, why would that GM suddenly alert the other GM or the Commissioner? The goal is to compete for wins, and to win, you must compete for resources.
Rules-Parameters on Trades
Commissioners play a significant role in ensuring the integrity of the league while also fostering an environment where GMs are permitted to manage their franchises as they deem prudent. The most obvious and indisputable methods for addressing trade matters are to ensure league rules comprehensively and explicitly define parameters for trades. These are rules that are agreed-upon, revised accordingly, and, via participation in the league, tacitly accepted by the GMs. This is always preferred to the arbitrary and moving-target methodology of allowing a small selection of GMs to veto a trade.
A day when all fantasy football enthusiasts will collectively accept all trades sans complaint is improbable. There will always be trades that offend others. While a few will emanate from a perceived defense of the integrity of the league, most vitriol will come from those who believe their teams’ performances will be directly harmed by the trades. Perhaps the assessment is accurate. But the goal for a GM is to compete for wins, and to win, you must compete for resources—regardless of the impact on other teams.
