When is it worth it to own a high-risk player on your fantasy team?

Originally I was going to title this article “Blackhawk Down”. From that, you would have probably guessed that the topic was going to be Patrick Kane. You would have been correct.

There have been many things written about the current situation that he is facing. People comment on what he did, how he should not put himself in that situation. Others say the same thing about the alleged victim, what she did and how she should not have put herself in that situation. One article commented on what the Chicago Blackhawks did do or should have done differently to prevent this whole scenario from ever happening.

I am an outsider and I am not going to comment on his case. Primarily, because we do not know all the facts are in this case and because I am not here to render judgement. Wherever the legal and justice system takes the parties involved we will watch and follow.

This topic could have alternatively been titled “Oxy-Morons” (for Mike Richards), “Orange is the New Black” (for Slava Voynov), “Blow” (for Jarret Stoll), or any other suggestive TV, movie or book title about another player. You can read through this 2011 article by Shane Fraser of the Bleacher Report that gives you ten players that have been arrested. There are many players to choose from, but my topic is not about one single player. It is about this sub-group of all players, not just the ones that run into legal troubles, which have an unpredictability associated with them and how we as fantasy hockey pool owners deal with them.

Some categories where players can find themselves in include the following:

• Chronic injuries or health concerns
• Contract holdouts, trade demands, or jumping to other leagues
• Poor behavior, fame or stardom issues off the ice
• Unsportsmanlike conduct on the ice
• Substance abuse or addictions
• Criminal behavior

You can all recall on your own several players that can be slotted into these labels. If you owned them, they probably made you feel uncomfortable and possibly crazy at times. Certainly they gave their NHL owners and GMs the same feelings too.

As owners of a fantasy roster (this is not exclusive to hockey) we end up having to decide and determine how tolerant we will be with these players. Take away any moral or social judgement out of the equation. Plain and simple, how much are we willing to risk owning these players for a potential beneficial outcome down the road?

Unlike the real teams and leagues, we do not have any sway in getting these players to correct their fortunes. We do not have any direct influence. It is not like placing a player on our bench is going to motivate them. Nor will having 10,000 Yahoo! fantasy owners collectively drop a player from their teams is going to worry the athlete.

There are four main factors to consider in our own risk assessment of the player: 1) The severity of the problem, 2) The frequency of the issue(s), 3) If you own the player or not, and 4) The talent that the player has.

Severity

Comparing a legal issue to a contractual one or to a health concern is like comparing apples to oranges to bananas.

The legal issue may have nothing to do with what occurs on the ice, but it can have a big impact or it might be nothing. From this article posted on Reuters last September, Gary Bettman was quoted as saying, “Our code of conduct is we expect you to do the right things and if you don’t we hold you accountable. More important than that is I believe you need to be proactive.” In all likelihood, the NHL will not be sweeping anything under the carpet these days.

A player who decides to sit and wait until he gets a raise that he feels is justified or his trade demand is met could end up waiting a while. It probably won’t impact how the player performs in the future, but it can. Sometimes it ends in a good way, and other times badly.

Compare a player with a history of concussions to one that had not? I once traded away Patrice Bergeron for Jonathan Cheechoo, and I ended up losing out on that deal the minute that it was made.

What if the health concern is a one-time blood clot? How about if they have something that cannot be healed like Crohn’s disease? Where do injuries to the eye rank?

How would you rate it if a player fought with teammates or missed curfew?

Would you want someone who was an alcoholic? How about if they smoked dope, and before you answer, remember Ricky Williams?

A player gets suspended for attacking another player with his stick. Would your perception or expectations change if they were suspended for throwing a water bottle at an official instead?

Frequency

As with the examples and questions from the Severity section, the frequency of those problems is to be considered as well.

Does the player constantly get suspended every year?

They always seem to get injured. What if it’s the same area of the body? What if the area of the injury changes?

No matter which team they play for, they never seem to fit in or they butt heads with management.

When negotiating contracts they have always presented a hardline stance, or they’ve constantly been going to the highest bidder with no loyalty to the previous team. Does that make you want them more or less?

They have had other run-ins with the law before, but for lesser matters.

Ownership

Basically it comes down to what you are willing to tolerate when you own the player and when you don’t own the player. The scale looks like this:

Talent

This is where I feel that we, fantasy owners, focus most of our attention. It is the part where we debate how awesome a player is. “Did you see him deke that goalie out of his jockstrap?” or we say stuff that is very similar.

We get pumped and juiced because we want good things to happen, and we hopefully have that player accumulating points for us when it does.

A player’s talent often mutes our evaluations on severity and frequency. Let us call it hope or giving the player the benefit of the doubt whatever the circumstances are, but we especially do this when the problems are located away from the rink and off the ice.

Only when the combination of severity and frequency equal or overwhelm the player’s talent factor do we slide him down the ownership scale. It is usually too late to do anything meaningful when we figure this out.

Remember that this is all in the context of those players who display unpredictability in their year-to-year performances and behaviors.

Back to the article from Reuters and another quote from Bettman: “I’ve always believed that we need to be in front of these things and sometimes you need to punish but more importantly it’s better to educate and counsel.”

So let us be in front of this.  Search for the facts if you can, and like a financial planner, determine what your risk level is with these players. If you own them or want to own them, you will be invested in them so you better know what you are getting into.

If you do your homework and do it right, you’ll be the one who gains and not be the one in pain.