RADIO
As I've mentioned before, when I'm not managing my own teams or doing my best to help yours, I also do private consultations, either for drafts or season-long personalized advice. With one client, this is our third year working together on his weekly points league roster. The team is two games up on its closest competitor, and whaling on that rival this week.
For most of the season, he has been vocal about wanting to trade a particular player. The idea behind the move is sensible. However, there were enough compelling reasons to stand pat that I have been firm in my assessment that he shoot for the moon, and even if he missed, he'd still have the star. I felt confident in the roster as it stood and therefore unmotivated by any offer that wasn't a slam dunk.
Until a few days ago, I thought I'd managed to bring my client around to my way of thinking. With hours to go until the trade deadline, though, he pulled the trigger on a deal. It isn't a bad one by any means; it merely doesn't satisfy me for a handful of reasons.
Featured Promo: For this week only, take 50% off any full-season or yearly Premium Pass on the site! Just enter discount code THANKS when checking out. Thanks for being a reader, and Happy Holidays! Sign Up Now!
Split Decisions
Ultimately, it was my client's call to make. He paid the league dues, he sets the lineups, invested the time in trade negotiations. I'm not involved in the day-to-day operations, just a sounding board. And it's entirely possible that the decision will pay off handsomely, or at least lead to a better outcome than what would have lain at the end of the road for which I advocated. I have no interest in litigating it, which along with my reverence for fake baseball consultant confidentiality is the reason I haven't gone into the details. And that wouldn't make for an interesting column, anyway. (Does this one? The good news is it'll only take you a few minutes to find out!)
What it ultimately got me thinking about is how to navigate a co-manager relationship. This isn't an apples-to-apples comparison for the reasons stated above - by design, I can be overruled, though this is the first time I can recall it happening. The more interesting scenario is one I've never personally experienced: Two people with equal votes on how to run their fantasy baseball team.
It's an uncommon setup, at least in redraft or keeper leagues. Dynasty formats lend themselves a bit more easily to it because they tend to require more attention, but sharing a team is definitely more the exception than the rule no matter what your league settings might be. That unfamiliarity, and the need to get someone else to buy into your idea before you can execute, presents its own unique challenges.
Division of responsibility seems a good place to start thinking about how to ensure that two heads are, in fact, better than one. Do you take the hitting and pitching coach tack, putting one person in charge of managing the lineup for each? Does one person handle the lineups each day while the other monitors the waiver wire? Who takes the lead on trade negotiations? Ideally, your strengths and weaknesses complement your partner's well, allowing you to put your best foot forward in all aspects of the game. This is where one of the cardinal rules of this column ("Know thyself") comes into play.
Perhaps most crucial to consider: How, and how often, should the two owners communicate? Obviously, no major decisions should be made unilaterally, but does cutting a guy at the back of the roster who just got demoted to the minors merit much discussion? You might want input on whoever the replacement is, or you might not really care dude I'm changing a damn diaper rn and the dog is eating a couch pillow and dinner's a disaster just pick up Thames if you like him ffs. That will obviously depend on your level of investment and the demands of your actual life.
Those are logistical issues, but what happens when you disagree on the best course of action? One of you wants to pluck a lotto ticket from the waiver wire, the other thinks he's a bum and has eyes for another dice roll. One person is content with the status quo, the other wants to shake things up. Player 1 is looking toward the future, while Player B wants to push all-in on the current run. What if one of you hates the trade the other has been painstakingly negotiating? I spent all day slaving over a hot smartphone, and this is the thanks I get?!
It's a fascinating problem, and one that has any number of potential solutions. What my mind continues to drift toward is some sort of trump card/veto system in the event of a pronounced difference of opinion. Each owner gets a certain number of times to put his foot down on a decision and overrule his counterpart. The idea is to encourage both of us to really think about what we're proposing, and decide if it's a hill upon which we're willing to die.
Disagreements are inevitable in any relationship. It's how you handle those moments that defines them. What you want, regardless of how you get there, is the same end result - to do better, more often.
The Friday Meta is Kyle Bishop's attempt to go beyond the fantasy box score or simple strategic pointers and get at the philosophical and/or behavioral side of the game. It is hopefully not as absurd, pretentious, or absurdly pretentious as that sounds.
