| 0 |
Subject: Yahoo ethics
Posted by: Reds88
- [125402410] Mon, Jul 28, 2003, 11:51
Is it wrong to trade a player to a team that is out of contention so that other team can't pick that player up? Example: I have Kendall and Piazza. Some of the other top teams are really hurting a catcher and Kendell would give them an upgrade. When Piazza comes back would it be wrong to trade Kendell to a non-contender or is this just good strategy? (I think there was a similiar situation when Deon talked about playing for the Raiders last year. Other teams claimed him off waviers so that the Raiders couldn't get him even though they knew he wouldn't play for they're team) |
| 1 | R9
ID: 54643273
Mon, Jul 28, 2003, 11:57
|
I'm not sure I understand the question. The players are both yours? Then you can trade them to whoever you wish. There's nothing unethical about moving one of YOUR players to any other team... Besides, after you move Kendall to a non-contender there's nothing stopping the other contenders from making an offer for Kendall to his new owner.
|
| 2 | bookie
ID: 364442220
Mon, Jul 28, 2003, 12:06
|
Reds, I'm assuming by your message that you are in contention (maybe even in first) in your division... If I were in your shoes, I'd just try to get the best possible player to improve your team.
The only thing, I'd try to make sure of is that you are not strengthening the other team more than you are strengthening your own. You likely can't get a real stud for Kendall, but you should be able to get a solid guy in a position where you are weak..
|
| 3 | Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 1629107
Mon, Jul 28, 2003, 12:06
|
I see no problem with that as long as you and the other (out of contention) manager are not conspiring for the purpose of keeping key players away from your competition.
|
| 4 | Reds88
ID: 125402410
Mon, Jul 28, 2003, 12:44
|
I would probally drop whoever I trade for. I'm not really trying to improve my team, just trying to prevent another team from getting better.
|
| 5 | Reds88
ID: 125402410
Mon, Jul 28, 2003, 13:12
|
After looking again dropping Kendall might not be that big of a deal the way the division goes. It was useful to see oponions on this matter in case a similiar situation arises in the future.
|
| 6 | KrazyKoalaBears
Donor
ID: 504322714
Mon, Jul 28, 2003, 13:53
|
If the other teams are that much in need of a C, you could probably get something in return to help yourself. Since Piazza is coming off of your DL, you could easily pull off a 2-for-1. I did something similar with a pitcher and position player and got a better pitcher in return. Sure, I helped out my competition, but they helped me as well. Unless you have 120 points (or whatever your league max is), there's always room for improvement. Personally, I think they original question smacks of conspiracy and that's just not ethical, IMHO. The out-of-contention team really has no business making any deals unless they're trying to make a legitimate run for some positions.
|
| 7 | Reds88
ID: 125402410
Mon, Jul 28, 2003, 14:08
|
That's also my thinking about making deals with a non-contender. Unless it's an improvment for both team it shouldn't be allowed. I have been analyzing some 2-1 deals. I was just trying to get a feel for the ethics in case I can't pull a trade off. If I can't find any takers for Kendell then I'll probally end up dropping him.
|
| 8 | bookie
ID: 364442220
Mon, Jul 28, 2003, 14:28
|
I know it's "fantasy" baseball, but I always try to view it in as real a term as possible. If my team were out of contention, I may not propose a trade, but if someone made an offer to me that I felt made my team better, I'd certainly have no reservations in making the trade. I always want to finish as high as possible in any league that I'm in... I guess I'm just ultra competitive, but I'd rather be 6th than 7th, even though it costs me draft position for the next year (this of course assumes a keeper league)....
|
| 9 | bookie
ID: 364442220
Mon, Jul 28, 2003, 14:32
|
Or even better yet, Last year in a league that I was in with fellow gurupies, an out of contention team traded Bonds for Schilling... The contending team had used all or most of his piching games and needed hitting. The team down in the standings accepted as would I have considering that it was to be a keeper league and at the time, I would have felt that Schilling has more good years left than Bonds... I see no reason to not trade quality players to any team as long as your intent is to improve your own team....
|
| 10 | Seattle Zen
Donor
ID: 55343019
Mon, Jul 28, 2003, 14:36
|
There is absolutely nothing unethical about trading Kendall to someone simply because you don't want to have to cut him. Trading Kendal for a scrub and cutting the bum is called "playing the game". You are under no obligation to help your competition.
|
| 11 | chode
ID: 156211514
Mon, Jul 28, 2003, 14:52
|
Agree with Seattle Zen in post #10. In my view 'hurting the competition' is just as valuable as 'helping your team.' As long as there's no collusion involved, this is a no-brainer legit move. And as R9 points out in post #1, Kendall's subsequent owner is free to later trade him away as well.
If you think another owner may be able to get Kendall cheap from the guy you're trading him to, you can test the market and see how you might improve your team in a 2-for-1. As for the 'ethics' question, there's nothing wrong with what you're trying to do.
|
| 12 | KrazyKoalaBears
Donor
ID: 504322714
Mon, Jul 28, 2003, 15:32
|
You're making a deal with the last place manager to make sure another team that's playing doesn't pick up a player you would normally have to drop. And if the last place team agrees with this reasoning, then they obviously aren't picking up the player to be competitive. They're just doing it to screw the other teams in front of them. How is that not collusion? And if this is not an example of collusion, what is? Just wondering.
|
| 13 | bookie
ID: 364442220
Mon, Jul 28, 2003, 15:40
|
KKB, take the example in #9. Anyone in the league could see that the team giving up Schilling had used up his pithcing games, including the guy who gave him Bonds.. But even though he was in the bottom of the division, he traded Bonds to the guy making a run at the division, with full knowledge of the situation.. So that's collusion??? I don't think so.. He made the trade more for this season than last season.. He felt having Schilling over Bonds this year would make him more competitive for this season.. Unfortunately the league folded, but I see nothing wrong with the trade, even though with me being the 3rd place manager, I knew after the trade that the best I could do was to maintain 3rd....
|
| 14 | KrazyKoalaBears
Donor
ID: 504322714
Mon, Jul 28, 2003, 15:46
|
bookie, IMO, your trade was legit, especially since there were future years in consideration. I'm just wondering why some felt the original trade was not collusion. Most Yahoo leagues are one year deals, so there's no trading for the future. And if the last place team really is out of it, I would question any trade they're making, especially if it's a.) lopsided and/or b.) the top team just dumps the player they get in return.
|
| 15 | chode
ID: 156211514
Mon, Jul 28, 2003, 15:48
|
The last place team is (apparently, according to the scenario posed) improving his team by trading a lesser player for a better one. Whether he agrees with the goals of Reds88's move is irrelevant - on his side of the deal, his team improves. To infer the last-place manager's "intent" in a trade like that is unnecessary.
Collusion involves conspiring to defraud another person of his rights, using a deceitful purpose. Reds88 helps his team by limiting the players his competition can use; his trading partner is by all accounts making his team inherently better. That a trade is mutually beneficial for differing reasons (and has the effect of damaging all other teams in the league) does not equate to manipulation or "screwing" the teams in front of them.
|
| 16 | Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 1629107
Mon, Jul 28, 2003, 15:53
|
KKB, it's not collusion until it is a deal between the two players. Agreed that such deals (conspiracies really) can be unsaid, but realize that in any decent league there is plenty more competition than the race for 1st place. In one non-keeper Yahoo league in which I find myself out of contention in 9th place (out of 12), I am still actively trying to improve my standing. There has been plenty of smack and my focus is to do anything I can to beat the current sixth place team. If one of the contenders offers me a player I can use I don't care what his reasoning behind the trade is.
|
| 17 | chizz1
Donor
ID: 59412811
Mon, Jul 28, 2003, 15:58
|
I am a firm believer than even managers who are out of contention should try to improve their team and finish as close to the top as possible. I even try to implement a system in my leagues where the bottom few finishers pay a graduated penalty to the winner because of their proximity to the bottom. A good league has active managers throughout the entire season, not just until they realize they can't win. What Reds88 describes is not collusion, but a good fantasy strategy taking place in a good fantasy league.
|
| 18 | KrazyKoalaBears
Donor
ID: 504322714
Mon, Jul 28, 2003, 16:48
|
Okay, so does anyone have an example of collusion? I keep hearing about it, but I've never actually heard anyone say, "That's collusion!" It's always, "I wouldn't veto it unless it's collusion." Okay, so what would be example of that? Anybody have a "for instance?"
|
| 19 | chizz1
Donor
ID: 59412811
Mon, Jul 28, 2003, 17:21
|
How about a team in contention says to one who is not in contention "I'll give you 10 bucks if you trade me Player X for Player Y?"
Or how about 2 friends decide at the beginning of a league that they'll draft 2 separate teams and then slowly trade all of the good players to one team and split the prize money if they win?
Those are a couple examples of collusion.
|
| 20 | KrazyKoalaBears
Donor
ID: 513102216
Mon, Jul 28, 2003, 17:31
|
So if Player A says, "I'm out of contention, but I'll stash away a player you would normally have to drop" to Player B, then that's not collusion? I see no difference between the examples. In each instance, the 2 players are going "under the table," if you will, in order to make one player better. Or is it only if money is involved?
|
| 21 | ChicagoTRS
Sustainer
ID: 566152116
Mon, Jul 28, 2003, 17:53
|
I have been in leagues where after a certain deadline teams can only trade with other teams that are within x teams in the standings. In the league I was a part of it was 2 teams up or down after July 31st. This prevents some of this dumping or the last place team helping out the 2nd place team etc...
|
| 22 | Seattle Zen
Donor
ID: 55343019
Mon, Jul 28, 2003, 18:51
|
KKB
If the 1st place team makes the Kendall deal and REQUIRES the last place team not to trade Kendall, that is collusion. However, Reds88 should not say why he is trading Kendall to the cellar dweller. Major league squads regularly trade players who are out of options, often for nothing more than a "player-to-be-named-later" that is the Yahoo equivilant of a player you end up cutting.
|
| 23 | KrazyKoalaBears
Donor
ID: 513102216
Mon, Jul 28, 2003, 19:04
|
However, Reds88 should not say why he is trading Kendall to the cellar dweller. So as long as he doesn't announce his intentions, it's okay? Just like chizz1's examples in #19, I wonder why anyone who was committing collusion would come out and say, "Hey, I'm being unethical here. I'm colluding with another team." So is it now only collusion when one of the teams admits to it? Is there never an instance where a league can look at a trade and say, "That trade makes no sense. It's obviously lopsided since the first place team is going to drop the guy he gets in return for Kendall and the first place team is just trying to stash Kendall away from his competition. That's collusion." You're right that in the Bigs, players without options are often times traded away for players to be named later. But, those teams usually end up making a fair trade on paper. Further, we're now comparing apples to oranges a bit because major league teams also have to worry about contracts, something Yahoo leagues don't. I apologize for all this typing, but I'm just trying to figure out what collusion is all about as I've read about it for years on these boards yet never really seen an example. It makes me start wondering if it's just a way for people to not actually say, "Yes, I'd veto that. It's obviously unfair to the league." So far, the only thing that's come up is clandestine money deals and the first place team requiring the last place team to not trade Kendall. Both of these situations are something the league will most likely never hear about and the trade will thus have no chance of being vetoed on those grounds. I'm just lost as to when someone should actually veto a trade.
|
| 24 | Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 312481619
Mon, Jul 28, 2003, 19:29
|
Collusion is a conspiracy. A deceitful agreement.
If the first place team and the last place team agree to the Kendall trade because it helps both their standings, then they are each serving their own interests. The last place team would be happy to take Kendal because it makes his team better. Even if it's not a keeper league, if he's trying to move from last place to second-to-last, that's a good enough reason for him to try to make his team better. You can't expect a motivated manager to stop playing competetivly just because he is out of contention. Now, if the last place team happens to have Javy Lopez but he accepts Kendal anyway as either a downgrade or dead weight on the bench, that's a sure sign of collusion.
|
| 25 | chode
ID: 156211514
Mon, Jul 28, 2003, 19:34
|
At the risk of dealing in generalities, a collusive trade would occur when two teams agree to make either a trade (1) that confers no benefit (in the context of the league) to one of the trading parties, or (2) which overwhelmingly has the purpose of cheating the other members of the league.
I won't formulate hypotheticals that would fall into either category for you, but as relates to the originally posted question, IMHO Reds88's trade fails both tests because (1) the cellar-dwelling team is receiving the better player in the trade, while Reds88 has his own league-based objectives in doing the deal, and (2) the managers, using different methods, are trying to improve their positions within the league, not overtly defraud anyone.
|
| 26 | Valkyrie
Leader
ID: 47042413
Mon, Jul 28, 2003, 19:42
|
In every "good" league I have ever been in a top team has to give up more than equal value to trade with a lower team or out of contention team. As a rule no one wants to help a top team and the rest of the leaguew wouldn't stand still for the top team getting more value. So in that regard I have never heard of or considered it collusion if a top team gives a lesser team more than fair value for whatever purpose. I don't even consider it wrong if the two managers stipulate that the lower team can't trade or waive the player. Going the other way is however an example of collusion.
|
| 27 | rockafellerskank
Leader
ID: 461124288
Mon, Jul 28, 2003, 21:46
|
I'd hold both catchers. Yahoo allows for line up changes up to 5 mins before gametime. No way you cod be nearing maxing your C games, right? Pits & NYY are both east coast teams, I'd watch gamechannel and see who is in te starting line up and play a dual cather system to get more games = more RBI, HR, runs, etc.. Neither will kill your BA.
|
| 28 | Tosh
Donor
ID: 23650284
Mon, Jul 28, 2003, 21:49
|
Here's a different example from a hoops roto league I'm in. It's an ultra-competitive 10-year 2-keeper league with most managers being around for 6+ years. Here's the situation ...
I'm in 1st with solid top-2 finishes in Blocks, Rebs and ORebs. I make a blatantly lopsided trade with a bottom-dweller, giving him 2 top PFs for pocket change. The only reason I make the trade is because the bottom-dweller was going to be able to pass the overall 2nd and 3rd teams in Blocks, Rebs, and ORebs. Essentially ... increasing my lead by making myself weaker.
Collusion or strategy?
|
| 29 | Tosh
Donor
ID: 23650284
Mon, Jul 28, 2003, 21:51
|
And yes ... the bottom dweller is a friend, and yes ... collusion was mentioned on the league message boards.
|
| 30 | Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 312481619
Mon, Jul 28, 2003, 21:54
|
RFS unless you are in a huge league (or a league with huge rosters) there will always be a better hitter to stick on your bench than Jason Kendal. But for the sake of argument make Kendal the bottom dweller's third catcher if you insist.
|
| 31 | rockafellerskank
Leader
ID: 461124288
Mon, Jul 28, 2003, 21:58
|
MITH, I'm saying put which everone is playing today at C. Not util or other. In a small league even isnt a Kendall game at C better than a Piazza DNP for a day of rest?
|
| 32 | bookie
ID: 364442220
Mon, Jul 28, 2003, 22:41
|
Collusion by definition requires both managers to actively discuss the nature of the trade. In Tosh's example, if he made the offer without discussing the trade with his friend (which I doubt) there would be no collusion.. If however they discussed the strategy behind the offer being made, than it is collusion. The two managers sat down, said here's a lopsided trade that will ensure that one manager wins the league... It's not the intent of the trade that is in question as every trade is made with the intent of improving your chances of winning or competing, it's when the managers actively discuss how it will be beneficial that it is considered collusion.
|
| 33 | Valkyrie
Leader
ID: 47042413
Mon, Jul 28, 2003, 22:48
|
Re Tosh's situation- I disagree- Tosh put himself in the position to help himself by giving away two top players and I think he should be able to do so. However if the bottom team gave two stars away to the top team I don't care how much it helped the bottom team - by insuring the number 1 draft next year (i.e. The Knicks ML Carr(esque ) acquisition of Keith Van Horn) or otherwise, its illegal collusion. I do have to admit its getting harder even for me to follow my own logic?
|
| 34 | Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 312481619
Mon, Jul 28, 2003, 22:51
|
Discussion is not necessary for collusion. You could never prove discussion anyhow, unless the conspirers were that stupid. There are unsaid agreements, and friends who understand what they are doing without having to say anything.
|
| 35 | R9
ID: 156282820
Mon, Jul 28, 2003, 23:14
|
I don't see Tosh's example as collusion. Both teams made a move to help their own positions. The bottom dweller is in a much better position for next year, and Tosh obviously is going for it this year. Win-win. How can that be bad?
|
| 36 | chode
ID: 156211514
Mon, Jul 28, 2003, 23:29
|
To me, Tosh's example in post 28 is clearly NOT collusion. Nothing but good strategy.
|
| 37 | Tosh
Donor
ID: 23650284
Mon, Jul 28, 2003, 23:49
|
Another aspect of this league is that we don't have a draft, but an auction. That means that
(1) there is no reason to play for last place because there is no #1 pick, and
(2) the bottom-dweller would not be keeping the 2 PFs next year anyways because strategy dictates keeping efficient $1 - $8 players and not the $35+ guys.
I didn't think this was collusion (and didn't tell him my plan until afterwards), but threw it out as a possibility for KKB.
|
| 38 | KrazyKoalaBears
Donor
ID: 513102216
Tue, Jul 29, 2003, 00:00
|
I guess what all this shows is that it just depends on your definition of collusion. Personally, I think if two people are working together for the benefit of only one person then that's collusion. In Reds88's example, there is only one team getting any benefit from the trade. The other team could likely care less who they're getting. Now, this would also have to take into account the manager of that last place team. If they've been making moves (FA additions, etc.) the entire time, then it's not so questionable. However, if he's got 3-4 DL guy's sitting in position slots and hasn't dropped guys that have fallen off the face of the planet for obvious pickups, then I think it's collusion because he's then just playing for the 1st place team and not himself. I think Tosh's example is also an instance of collusion based on my own definition. Others may see it differently, but again, it's two teams working for the benefit of one. Tosh is really the only team making out on the deal. Sure, you could claim that 7th place is better than 8th, but at the end of the season, does anyone really celebrate being 2nd to last? I don't think so. However, if that team is legitimately trying to make up ground (which it doesn't sound like when Tosh refers to them as a "bottom-dweller"), then I don't see it as collusion. Again, I think it depends on a lot of factors, but whenever there's a trade where 2 teams are blatantly working for the benefit of just one of the teams, I see that as collusion.
|
| 39 | chode
ID: 156211514
Tue, Jul 29, 2003, 00:12
|
The point is that in both Reds88's and Tosh's example, both teams are receiving benefit. That you (KKB) personally see no joy in finishing in 7th rather than 8th is inconsequential. I would argue that in any trade where a team (in our examples, the so-called bottom dwellers) is making itself patently better (which seems to be the case), you can't claim the trade is done "for the benefit of just one of the teams." That wrongly brings your personal judgment into play. To disrupt the free market you need much, much more proof of fraud.
If I'm in last place and decide I want to make a trade that clearly helps my team, no matter if I'm making moves daily or I haven't paid attention to the league in months, I should be allowed to do so.
|
| 40 | KrazyKoalaBears
Donor
ID: 504322714
Tue, Jul 29, 2003, 08:38
|
If that team does indeed decide to start playing again, it would likely be shown by activity such as picking up Free Agents, making other trade offers, etc. To just make a single move with another team, with no other moves/intentions of creating a better team, smells of fraud, IMO, and is clearly worthy of a veto. It's not disrupting a free market, it's making sure that a free and fair market exists for all players in the league. It's the same reason there are checks and balances in any "free" market that exists. Personally, I love to see every team in a league compete. I want to see the last place team making deals to have a better team. I want to see everybody in the league trying to make the best team possible. But in reality, we all know this rarely happens. So, in a theoretical world, what you suggest is grand. But in a real world, it's likely fraud/collusion as the last place team is more often than not just doing their part to help the first place team.
|
| 41 | Reds88
ID: 125402410
Tue, Jul 29, 2003, 09:18
|
The only teams I would deal with would be an active one. In our 14 team Yahoo division there are probally 3 at the bottom that haven't checked in over a month. Even if it was a fair trade for both sides, I would look at it as bad sportsmanship if a contender made a deal with an inactive team because everyone would know that the trade really only benfits one player in the final standings. Plus, if I won I wouldn't want my trade creditability to be gone for the next season. A big part of my strategy is to trade one of two month wonders for solid players currently in a slump.
|
| 42 | chode
ID: 156211514
Tue, Jul 29, 2003, 09:58
|
I'll stand by the notion that if I make a trade and receive in return players that clearly are better than the ones I traded away, no matter what the consequences in the league standings or the motives of the other manager making the deal, I shouldn't be accused of cheating. Your personal thoughts on why I made that trade, or if you think I've been "active" enough in the league to be allowed to make trades, are irrelevant.
Don't get me wrong, I'm very wary of lopsided trades and players trying to cheat. And I agree that a single move after a period of inactivity raises red flags. But in the examples we've discussed, you seem to ignore the fact that the low-ranked team (in a more typical collusion situation, the team that would be sending its best players to his co-conspirator) is the one actually receiving the better player, and both teams are receiving tangible benefits. That the bottom dwellers have no chance to win the league or haven't checked their teams in a while does not matter.
|
| 43 | KrazyKoalaBears
Donor
ID: 504322714
Tue, Jul 29, 2003, 10:41
|
chode, I'm not ignoring the fact that the lesser team is getting the better player. I'm simply questioning what they're going to do with that player. If they're going to use that player to compete (as would be shown by team activity, adds/drops, and DL movement as necessary) then that's great. But Reds88 has already said that's not the case. And if that's not the case, then the sole purpose of the trade is to stash a star player for the benefit of the first place team. That's 2 teams trading for the sole benefit of one team. That's collusion. You keep approaching this from the mindset of being a part of active teams. That's fine. I have no problem with this type of trade if both teams are active. However, I'm approaching it from the actual scenario Reds88 has given where the lesser team is completely inactive. He's essentially become a storage shed. How is that fair to the league as a whole?
|
| 44 | chode
ID: 156211514
Tue, Jul 29, 2003, 10:57
|
Wrong, KKB - in his original post Reds88 just said the team he was prospectively trading with is a "non-condender". In fact, Reds88 made it clear that he would only trade with active teams (post 41), so we might assume he'd likewise make this particluar deal only with an active team. Show me where Reds88 said his trading partner is inactive.
Going one step further than that, the only way you would know *how* a manager intends to use the player he trades for is to allow the trade to go through. If he stashes him on his bench, doesn't activate the player, etc., then that would raise the serious problem that you speak of. If on the other hand the player is inserted into the guy's lineup, by definition he'd already be benefitting that team. Until you allow the trade to happen, you won't know what the manager plans to do. If the team has a history of this kind of action or some other factors that suggest cheating, that's another story. But for you to say unequivocally that the team will act as a "storage shed" and take away his right to trade, without any of those other factors (which haven't been suggested by Reds88), is bogus.
|
| 45 | KrazyKoalaBears
Donor
ID: 504322714
Tue, Jul 29, 2003, 11:01
|
chode, "Your personal thoughts on why I made that trade, or if you think I've been "active" enough in the league to be allowed to make trades, are irrelevant." Then what is relevant? Forget hypotheticals, here's a real-life situation. I have a team in one of my standard 5 x 5 leagues that is in last place with a total of 16 points. He currently has: 1. Mike Piazza (DL) and Jermaine Dye (DL) in "active" roster spots with Alex Gonzalez and Frank Thomas on the bench. He could easily move Dye to the bench, plug in his Util player Jenkins and move Thomas to the Util spot. He hasn't. 2. Mark Prior (DL) sitting in a SP spot with Greg Maddux never having been moved off his bench since the start of the season. 3. Brandon Villafuerte (NA) and Matt Anderson (NA) in RP and P slots with Alfonseca and Koch also never having been moved off the bench. Granted, nothing might be better than something in this instance, but players like Mears, Speier, Lincoln, Donnelly, Cormier, and Hasegawa are all available on the FA list. Easy to drop Villafuerte and Anderson, both of whom aren't even in the bigs anymore, and pick up at least temporary replacements to help in ERA/WHIP with the occassional Save. 4. Paul Byrd (DL) on the DL. He's out for the season. No reason to have him on any team. This manager has made exactly 1 move on his entire team and it was a trade completed on March 20th (before the season even started). Since then, nothing. As a matter of fact, I can see that his last roster change of any kind was made on 04/14 when he swapped Jenkins and Thomas for the Util spot. Since then, his roster has not changed at all in any respect. So if I send him an email and say something to the effect of, "Hey, I know you're not playing our league anymore, but I'm only in first place by 5 points. I've got Nevin coming off the DL, but I already have Rolen and I don't want to drop any of my other players. What if I trade you Nevin for Byrd and you just hang on to Nevin so nobody close to me in the standings can have him" and then we complete the trade and I dump Byrd (for obvious reasons), then that's okay? There's nothing deceitful to the league about that? There's nothing that smacks of collusion in that whole process? IMHO, it's stuff like that is the entire reason for having a veto process in place. The last place team is doing nothing but playing their team to help the first place team. It's no different than the last place team dumping all their good players to the first place team only this method looks much nicer because what is the first place team gaining, right? They're gaining a storage shed, that's what.
|
| 46 | KrazyKoalaBears
Donor
ID: 504322714
Tue, Jul 29, 2003, 11:08
|
chode, check out #7. He obviously has issues with trading with a non-contender, which would lead one to believe that the team he was considering trading with is completely inactive. It doesn't always have to be spelled out in black and white. Just like it doesn't always have to have the managers involved saying, "we're colluding with one another," for it to be collusion. Again, you're looking at this from a perfect world scenario where all teams are active. I'm looking at this from a real world scenario where we all know that the bottom 5 of a typical public Yahoo league aren't even logging into their team after May. If this were a question raised by a RotoGuru Yahoo league, I would never question the deal. I know that all teams up and down the standings are fighting for every spot (like in the TagTeam league I'm in).
|
| 47 | chode
ID: 156211514
Tue, Jul 29, 2003, 11:43
|
KKB your "real world example" sets forth about 10 factors which, as you correctly point out, scream collusion. Unfortunately almost none of them apply to the situation in Reds88's case. DL spots going unused, active players sitting on the bench, 1 trade all year, last roster move was made in April ... well done, you've identified an inactive team. Add to that the conversation where you expressly state your understanding that the team is inactive, your intent to drop the player you're trading for, and plainly suggesting that the other owner can serve as your storage shed, and congratulations, you've identified a number of indices of collusion. Stick to the facts in Reds88's situation though, and I don't think we've reached that point.
My point all along has been to emphasize that two teams making a trade that benefits both of them, regardless of all the other factors that you would throw in the mix, generally should be allowed to do so. I acknowledge that a combination of other bits of information can help build a case for arguing collusion. But I am firmly against other managers imposing their views on the "intent" of trades, especially if there is no better proof of fraud than your inferences.
|
| 48 | KrazyKoalaBears
Donor
ID: 504322714
Tue, Jul 29, 2003, 12:15
|
chode, I was obviously extrapolating some details since we've never had them from the start. That's why I gave 2 sides to the case in the beginning. From there, I've just been trying to determine what is considered "collusion" since I see the word used a lot around here, but never thrown up as, "yeah, that's collusion. Veto it." It's always, "I wouldn't veto unless it's collusion." So I was just wondering what collusion was. Now that you've said I provided an example of collusion, I have a good idea of what people are talking about now and it makes sense.
|
| 49 | chode
ID: 156211514
Tue, Jul 29, 2003, 12:26
|
I think you've identified many factors that can add up to a collusive trade, and I'm sure we could think of more if we had to. As you can tell I'm generally a fan of allowing trades if you can provide some "rational basis" for it (this really belongs in the Politics Forum, doesn't it?), but am also not afraid to call someone out if they're clearly screwing the league. I think that threshold is a high one though.
|
| 50 | Reds88
ID: 125402410
Tue, Jul 29, 2003, 13:33
|
Let's see if this summary makes sense:
If trade Kendall, with the intent of dropping whoever I get in return, to team:
A.)who is still active, but out of contention
then it is not collusion.
B.)who is inactive and out of contention then it is collusion
B seems pretty clear cut, but I think A just boils down to a matter of opinion and the line between strategy and collusion.
|
| 51 | chode
ID: 156211514
Tue, Jul 29, 2003, 13:44
|
No, I'd say neither one was collusion. Why would you tell another manager what you plan to do with the player you trade for? If they ask why you're interested in trading Kendall for a lesser player, just say "It makes sense for my team." And don't forget, by trading Kendall you effectively put him in play, and there's nothing preventing the guy who gets him from turning around and making another deal. When you start working with preconceived agreements as to why you're doing what you're doing, or even suggesting to an inactive or non-competitive team what they should do with Kendall, then the line becomes blurred, since you're convincing them to do the deal by illustrating the end result *as it only pertains to you*. Keep the negotiations at "I'll trade you Kendall for Lesser Player X. Kendall improves your team, and I am satisfied with the benefits the trade will confer on my team." and I see nothing wrong with the trade, no matter who you're dealing with. It's just good strategy.
|
| Rate this thread: | If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time. If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating. If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here. |
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|