| 0 |
Subject: Collusion?
Posted by: Toral
- [575542418] Wed, Nov 21, 2007, 09:28
Hypothetical ethics question for anyone interested in such stuff. The trading deadline is over. Teams A and B have the top two waiver positions. Team A agrees to release player X so that team B can pick him up if team B agrees to release player Y so that A can pick him up.
I've never been in this situation but thought of it and my thought has been that this would be a perfectly legitimate way of exchanging players after the trade deadline. I was browsing a fantasy FF board the other day and saw this scenario discussed (2 teams actually did this) and some people were of the view that this was "collusion" and that the commissioner ought to undo the transaction and warn the offenders not to try it again and a person or two even suggested that teams A and B ought to be kicked out of the league.
Thoughts?
Toral |
| 1 | Iggles Fan
ID: 419502911
Wed, Nov 21, 2007, 09:48
|
wow...kicked out sounds a bit harsh.
In one sense it's not technically against the rules, but in another sense it is more or less a trade.
What guidelines create the waiver wire order in the league?
As a commish, if I could not arrive at a decision on my own, I'd put it to league vote.
Worse case scenario, I think, would be to simply undue the pick-ups, but then what? Put each player back on the team?
|
| 2 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Wed, Nov 21, 2007, 10:00
|
The kind of collusion usually referred to in fantasy sports is when one manager knowingly sacrifices more in order to help the other manager succeed. They work together for the benefit of one of them. So I'm not sure the transactions should be challenged over their being collusive. Is such an agreement really any more collusive than a typical trade?
|
| 3 | Perm Dude
ID: 301014219
Wed, Nov 21, 2007, 10:14
|
They colluded to go around the trade deadline.
I agree with Iggles that the penalty is a bit harsh!
|
| 4 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Wed, Nov 21, 2007, 10:15
|
No more collusive than any trade, but once the trade deadline has passed...trades are over.
If two managers converse and agree to a "woprk around" circumventing the leagues rules...then IMHO yes, its collusion.
|
| 5 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Wed, Nov 21, 2007, 10:37
|
It is collusion.
Some leagues kick players out for any collusion whatsoever. I think every league is different. It may not be as much of an issue to some leagues.
|
| 6 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Wed, Nov 21, 2007, 10:40
|
[4] Normal trades are legal. "Trades" made after the trade deadline are illegal making them collusive.
|
| 7 | Perm Dude
ID: 301014219
Wed, Nov 21, 2007, 10:42
|
I think that is what sarge is saying as well.
|
| 8 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Wed, Nov 21, 2007, 10:43
|
Right, just defining collusion as he said
No more collusive than any trade.
|
| 9 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Wed, Nov 21, 2007, 10:48
|
That was in response to MITHS question at the end of his post 2. In the sense that any trade involve some degree of "collusion" as in discussion and agreement, this is no more collusive than any other trade. The diffrence here, is that it represents a joint effort to circu,vent the leagues trade deadline. That circumvention IMHO, is what takes it out of "normal trade" type activity,and into the realm of collusion, which almost every league punishes in one way or another. (Though I agree, that booting them, is more than a bit harsh in this case.)
|
| 10 | Tree
ID: 3533298
Wed, Nov 21, 2007, 10:49
|
i've often thought about this - usually in regard to the baseball trading deadline.
as i understand it, once the deadline passes, you can still pull off a trade, but players have to go through waivers first, and if they clear waivers, MLB allows the trade.
i always felt that it would work the same in fantasy sports, only much more risky, because you can't pull a player back off waivers like you can in MLB.
i'd actually be inclined to allow the move, because both owners aren't just giving up players, they are sacrificing prime waiver slots.
|
| 11 | Toral
ID: 575542418
Wed, Nov 21, 2007, 10:55
|
BTW it was only a couple of people who suggested expulsion. The players, when asked, were perfectly open about what they had done and said that they thought there was nothing wrong with it.
The single most popular solution was that the commish ought to put both players on their original roster, with the "penalty" being that the two teams would lose their top waiver slots just as if the transfer had gone through.
|
| 12 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Wed, Nov 21, 2007, 11:02
|
Any fantasy trade, by nature, is "collusive" unless it is offered, negotiated and agreed to entirely in public view of the league as it happens.
The kind of collusion that fantasy leagues prohibit refers more specifically to two teams working together for the betterment of only or primarily one.
Clearly this is a gray area but since I've never heard of any universal or understood rule prohibiting collusive waiver drops and pickups I'd tend to prefer that it be allowed unless particular league rules already forbid it.
|
| 13 | biliruben
ID: 4911361723
Wed, Nov 21, 2007, 11:03
|
I did this with a friend in a local, keeper league.
We thought it simply clever, but it crashed the league.
It depends on how small minded the power elite in the league are.
|
| 14 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Nov 21, 2007, 11:09
|
The only problem with this is that the teams would not have dropped those players (to waivers) unless there was an agreement in advance that they would both make the moves. Clearly, that agreement was an end run around the league's trade deadline.
Admittedly, the transactions would have been OK if they were independently done without any strings attached. But in this case, it's clear that they were not independent.
In the absence of any specific rule on this, I'd probably just undo the transactions with no additional penalty. And then put a rule in place afterward that specifically outlawed any post-deadline agreement involving the exchange of players designed to circumvent the trading deadline.
|
| 15 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Wed, Nov 21, 2007, 11:14
|
This is funny as (I think it was) GO asked me about doing this in a league before and I told him we'd reverse the move precisely how Toral described in 11.
I think if the people are open about it and simply trying to be clever instead of knowingly "trying to pull a fast one" then it's a much different situation.
|
| 16 | Slizz
ID: 21733916
Wed, Nov 21, 2007, 14:17
|
Thats how baseball does a trade after the trading deadline expires. Like Tree, I have no problem with it.
However, Waiver priority should be based on record, like baseball, each week after the trading deadline.
Therefore, they most likely wont ever be able to pull such a "shrewd" move.
|
| 17 | holt
ID: 129202215
Wed, Nov 21, 2007, 18:36
|
to me, it's an intent to circumvent the intent of the trade deadline rule. commish exists to make sure rules are enforced, even when loopholes are found.
|
| 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?)
|