By J.P. of Japer's Rink It's that time of the year again – the race for your fantasy league's title is whittling itself down to a few contenders and, if you're in a one-year league, the pretenders are working on their fantasy baseball draft prep. If you're in a keeper league, though, the pretenders are looking to the future. Either way, there is a growing fear among the teams at the top that one (or more) of the teams at the bottom will make a trade that will fundamentally shift the balance of power at the top in a way that's not in the best interest of the league. You know the trade I'm talking about – the one that results in name-calling, threats to quit the league and crying like a girl watching Titanic. There are basically three reasons a bottom-feeder team will make such
a trade: they'll do it out of indifference – they don't care any more,
so sure, they'll make a trade; they'll do it out of malice or
collusion – why not help out my buddy at the top?; or they'll do it
out of a desire to make their team better for next year. This last
one only applies to keeper leagues, obviously, but is the most
difficult to deal with because the bottom-feeding (and if you're that
team and want to feel better about yourself, feel free to substitute
the term "future contending team") owner really is acting in his own
best interest.

Let me use an example. I'm in an ultra-competitive 12-team keeper
league – the Phantasy Hockey League (PHL) – where we have NHL-size
rosters and are allowed to keep up to five players each year. Right
now there are a few teams at the top with a chance to win the League
and a number at the bottom just hanging around to post links to barely
legal chicks on the League message board. Now, assume that one of
those teams, cognizant of its chances to win the League, wants a stud
keeper (say, Dany Heatley) from one of the top teams. This
bottom-feeder decides that he has five attractive players that are
good, but not "keeper quality" – Nick Lidstrom, Peter Forsberg, Keith
Tkachuk, Alex Tanguay and Martin Straka – so he offers these five for
Heatley. If the trade is accepted, he wins because he gets his stud
keeper for next year, this year be damned (but he'll stay active for
the Keeley Hazel links, of course). The Heatley owner also likely
wins because though he's lost a great keeper, he's added enough talent
in the short-term to win the League. Both owners win, the League
loses.

But there are still those non-playoff teams with no chance at the best
second-half who want to better themselves for the future, and these
mega-deals loom large. How does your League stop them from making a
trade that is so one-sided (in the short-term) that it dramatically
alters the race at the top?