Occasionally I receive a question asking about how to make fantasy baseball more enjoyable and while my preference is to write about "real" baseball, there are occasions where a question comes up often enough that while it can't be answered in our weekly "Ask DL" column because of length, it warrants its own response in the form of a short essay.

It seems relatively common that fantasy leaguers have internal disputes about their league trading rules, usually because a non-contending team dumps its best players to a contending team for prospects or some similar event.  It happens all the time and especially for the other contending teams, it can be frustrating to say the least.

Worse yet, and just as common, are emails asking about whether it is "fair play" not to give a team an opportunity to acquire a certain player before making a deal.  For example, early in the season, you might be asked about Mariano Rivera and you say, "no he's not available" and later in the season, you trade him to a different team and the original team feels that feathers have been ruffled and you have shortchanged him.

I know it can be frustrating but there can be good reasons why you might not want to trade a certain player to one team but perhaps you're willing to trade him to another.  A good example of this happened to me a few years ago where a team asked about a certain closer on my team.  I didn't want to give the closer to that team because the race for third place in saves was tight.  When the first place team, in terms of saves, came looking, I knew this closer wouldn't really change the layout of the point totals and so I made a deal and then the grumbling began.  My response to that aspect of trading is this:  Don't worry about it.  Sun Tzu argued that the more irritated your opponents become, the weaker their execution of strategy becomes.  Don't be dishonest but neither should you be worried about whether they're happy with you.

But let me give a general response to those fantasy leaguers who have asked about trading and how to regulate it properly in your league.  I must begin with a true story of my own fantasy baseball frustration.

In the winter prior to the 1992 season, I swung a deal in a 5X5 mixed league to acquire a light-hitting twenty-eight year old backup outfielder in exchange for Jack Clark.  Clark was coming off a year where he had hit .249 with 28 home runs with 75 runs scored and 87 RBI but he wasn't helping me in speed and my forecasts told me that a certain player would break out in 1992.  The outfielder I was acquiring in the deal had hit just .230 in 256 at bats in 1991 and had never hit more than .231 in a four year career as a major league bench warmer.  In particular, he had a much lower salary than Clark and I felt this deal would dramatically improve my keeper list, even if the rest of the league thought I was crazy.  I only care what they think of me when the final standings are published and even at that, I'd rather they think I'm lucky because that helps me the next year and so on.

After the negotiations were complete, we submitted the trade to our league commissioner (who shall remain nameless here for good reason as you will see).  The commissioner phoned me and asked me to explain the deal, particularly because my trading partner was known to be a good friend of mine with whom I had consummated several deals during the 1991 season.  I explained my reasoning and the commissioner announced that the deal appeared suspect and said that it would go to a league-wide vote for approval or veto, as per our league rules.  I sent a letter to each of my opponents, explaining that I had made no secret that I thought Jack Clark was near the end of the line and this outfielder, according to my forecasting methods, would break out in 1992 with a huge season.  Out of the ten teams in the league not owned by either myself or my trading partner, nine of the teams voted against the deal on the grounds that it was lopsided against me.  The deal was thus overturned and because I felt that many future deals might look that way too, by virtue of my forecasting often offering me seemingly unusual results, I immediately announced my withdrawal from the league.

Well, I must tell you that the light-hitting outfielder I was trying to acquire was Brady Anderson.  My forecasting system said that he would break out from his bench role and that he would hit for power and speed in 1992 and be an ultra-bargain.  Anderson went on to have the breakthrough season, topping even my high expectations in 1992, hitting .271 with 21 home runs, 100 runs scored, 80 RBI and most importantly, 53 steals.  Clark went on to hit just .210 in 1992 with 5 home runs, 32 runs scored, 33 RBI and 1 steal.  When the 1992 season was completed, I don't think I could have been angrier that the trade had been overturned, partially because it had led to my departure from the league but more because the results ultimately supported my opinions about both Anderson and Clark and both went in the direction I thought they would and that I had sent to my league mates by regular mail in the winter preceding the season, when making my case for the trade.

I tell the story not to single out a case where I happened to be right about players as I have been wrong many times before.  By virtue of making hundreds of trades over the years in fantasy baseball, I know I will be wrong about a good percentage and some are knowingly made with the current season only in mind, without regard for the long term.  I tell the story because the Brady Anderson / Jack Clark example provides an excellent case where no matter what angle from which an intelligent fan looked at the deal, they would see it as lopsided.  In leagues that allow the right for opponents to vote to veto a trade, most would.

Thus, I caution you that I don't believe veto rights should exist in a league because firstly, your opponents shouldn't be required to explain why they want a player, partially because that offers them both opportunities to know your forecasting methods but more, because it forces them to acknowledge that they believe the player they are acquiring will have a great year, something you do not necessarily want your opponents to know.  Moreover, in principle we play fantasy baseball because we desire to show that our disagreements and differences about the ultimate performances of a player show that we "know more" or "are better forecasters" or are "better fantasy players" or whatever motivates you.  The disagreements about value are at the heart of what we do when we play fantasy baseball and offering a right of veto to your league is creating a situation where you limit the gap between opinions so that certain differences of opinion are acceptable but others are not.  It defeats the purpose because who are my opponents to tell me that I am wrong about a player and vice versa?  The reason we're playing is to prove just that.

Therefore, I offer you the following suggestions on how to regulate trading in your leagues while maintaining the spirit of good sport:

(a) I do not believe that leaguemates should have problems with a team that dumps its good players when it is out of contention, so long as that non-contending team has proven that it is making a deal for the long-term.  In real baseball, we usually know (the Expos this year are a good example of an exception) that the team will exist for the long haul so we have some faith that even salary dumping is done with the long-term in mind, even if it is economic.  The real game of baseball allows player dumping so why shouldn't fantasy baseball?  Instead, require that any team that makes a trade in your final two trading months (e.g. many leagues have July and August deadlines) pay its entire league fee for the subsequent season in advance.  A deposit isn't enough.  Make the team prove with its wallet that it is in your league for the long haul.

(b) Deals will often appear lopsided when there is general disagreement about the future values of players, as there must be for any meaningful league to exist.  Therefore, don't question deals and do not have any rules governing veto.  Instead, specifically state in your rules that no trade can be vetoed without the unanimous consent of every non-involved owner in the league and even that may be going too far and I prefer to eliminate any veto rule.  If you want to prevent or reduce collusion, make a rule that you cannot make a trade with the same team within thirty days of the previous trade with that team.  In real baseball, it is extremely rare for trades between the same two teams even in one season so put such a rule in place.

(c) In combination with a time limit on trading with one team, as suggested above, limit the number of players that can be traded in one deal.  I know this isn't a popular suggestion because many leagues like to have blockbuster fifteen player deals but this, combined with a limitation on how often you can trade with another team, essentially eliminates two team collusion.  I suggest a limit of a total of six players moving in any deal though some might find this too confining.

(d) One idea that is rarely used but that I think would dramatically help with realism is to require a team to pay the portion of a player's salary that is remaining, when they acquire the player.  In other words, if you trade for a player when the season is half over, you should have to immediately pay into the pool half of the remaining net salary increase you gained in a trade.  It seems that most leagues discard salary consideration once the season begins but I like this because it forces you to ante up for players who will help you down the stretch.  It also sweetens the pool because the team that had the player first has already paid for the player during the opening draft/auction but then the team that acquires the player has to pay for getting higher salaried players.

(e) To encourage teams to stay both interested and astute in their trading, offer a meaningful consolation prize by making next year's draft order be based on finishing strong.  I strongly recommend this:  If your league offers prizes to the top five finishers, for example, make the first pick in next year's draft go to the team that finishes sixth, rather than last.  Give the second pick to the seventh place team and so on.  In other words, don't reward futility but rather, reward the team that is closest to contention but which hasn't actually won anything in the current year.  If you are using keeper rules in an auction league, make it that the best "also ran" team gets a bonus optional keeper, if desired.

(f) Create a long-term contract rule for every player.  If you can handle the bookkeeping, this is the most enjoyable way to play fantasy baseball.  Make it so that the larger the length of the contract, the more salary you must pay per year to keep the player.  One good rule says that in $260 leagues, you add $5 for each year on the length of the contract.

(g) Make a rule that if a player is signed to a long-term contract, as described above, that you require that the entire contract be "bought out" should the owner wish to release the player.  That creates interesting Bobby Bonilla like dilemmas for teams and also makes it difficult for teams to dump players because the receiving team knows they're inheriting a long-term salary that they don't want.

(h) If none of these work at all, eliminate trading completely.  It may sound funny but it can really force you to do your homework at draft time and when considering the free agent wire.  While I personally enjoy the trading aspect of fantasy baseball, many successful online games (such as those offered by CDM, for example) are doing just this, making drafting and scouting central to success.