We have a new proposal for H2H leagues. First, let’s look at the problem.

By Brian Mills

One perpetually popular topic of discussion in keeper leagues involves how to structure rules so that rebuilding teams have the ability to make trades for the long term without harming competitive balance.

Every keeper leagues experience this phenomenon in its own way, but there are some commonalities.

In roto leagues, if a team dumps, it may not influence the chances of other competitors winning the league. Of course, trades can shake up how teams stack up to each other in each of the scoring categories. But theoretically, everyone has an equal shot at trading with the “dumping” owner and the absolute quality of each competing team should increase upon the raiding of dumped players.

In head-to-head leagues, things stand slightly differently. In these leagues, owners who give up on a season often cause unintended consequences on others.

The problem lies in scheduling. Teams usually wait until more than half the season is completed to decide to rebuild or continue to compete. As a result, some teams may find themselves with an unfair advantage as they get to face rebuilding teams late in the year. Other teams may find the path to the playoffs getting rougher.

There are a number of options to disincentive dumping: changing the trade deadline date to make it more difficult for owners to gauge if they have a chance at the playoffs, making minor league and keeper rules more restrictive, allowing for trade voting for vetoes —something I find unappealing — or having a “consolation tournament,” as described in a recent article on Hardball Times.

In the end, it’s all about making sure that incentives are properly aligned. We could simply ban trades like this from happening, but I’m more of a free-market thinker. I enjoy the idea of a keeper league that allows competitors to think about how best to balance short-term and long-term investments. Isn’t that what happens in the Major Leagues?

But we still haven’t addressed the issue of asymmetrical externalities like scheduling and in my next column, I’ll propose a possible solution by re-engineering the structure of a head-to-head league.