| 0 |
Subject: Ethical Trade Question
Posted by: Da Bomb
- Donor [487112814] Wed, Oct 10, 2012, 14:48
Due to bye week issues this week, 2 teams want to swap Mendenhall and Stevie Johnson and then trade them back to each other next week.
What are your thoughts - can this be allowed or not? |
| 1 | weykool
ID: 8657121
Wed, Oct 10, 2012, 14:56
|
I dont think it should be allowed.
The teams should have to pick up players from FA like all the other teams.
Typically this happens between friends/family.
I play in a couple leagues with my son and he would be the only one I would trust to get my player back.
But because it is an unfair/unsportsman like move we have never done it.
|
| 2 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Wed, Oct 10, 2012, 15:05
|
agreed
|
| 3 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Wed, Oct 10, 2012, 15:12
|
ditto.
|
| 4 | Kyle
Sustainer
ID: 052753312
Wed, Oct 10, 2012, 15:18
|
That's a negative ghost rider. Don't allow it.
|
| 5 | Tree
ID: 509471012
Wed, Oct 10, 2012, 15:27
|
this is one of the textbook definitions of collusion. you can't allow this deal.
|
| 6 | Building 7
ID: 87592712
Wed, Oct 10, 2012, 15:36
|
Sounds OK to me.
|
| 7 | Tree
ID: 349301015
Wed, Oct 10, 2012, 16:36
|
here's a further discussion on this issue. most people seem to view this sort of trade as collusion.
personally, i like the league commish who allows the first trade, but then vetoes the second.
|
| 8 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Wed, Oct 10, 2012, 16:49
|
lol Tree
|
| 9 | Frick
ID: 2193319
Wed, Oct 10, 2012, 16:58
|
Unless there is some other compensation on the 2nd trade, it is collusion.
|
| 10 | judy
Dude
ID: 7771722
Wed, Oct 10, 2012, 18:49
|
bad move -- disallow...
|
| 11 | wiggs
ID: 1768158
Wed, Oct 10, 2012, 20:36
|
I don't see why the one manager would want to do this anyways it does nothing for them
|
| 12 | weykool
ID: 8657121
Wed, Oct 10, 2012, 21:13
|
Example:
You have an extra RB not on a bye, and have WR slot open due to bye.
I have an extra WR not on a bye, and have RB slot open due to bye.
You need WR, I need RB.
The problem is both managers are colluding to gain advantage over the other teams, by treating both their teams as one super team.
|
| 13 | wiggs
Leader
ID: 04991311
Wed, Oct 10, 2012, 21:38
|
i gotcha wey- thanks
|
| 14 | DWetzel
ID: 25740420
Wed, Oct 10, 2012, 21:40
|
Minority view incoming: I'd probably allow it. Both teams are acting in their individual best interests here, assuming that the second trade is one that makes sense given the situation. It's "collusion" in the same sense that any trade is collusion between two teams trying to improve themselves at the expense of the rest of the league. It's not "collusion" in the sense that you have one team dumping to make another team better.
Now, either of them could back out of that second trade and nothing could be done about it, of course.
I'd basically ask "does Trade 1 make sense in a vacuum for these two teams to make" and then "assuming they traded, does Trade 2 make sense in a vacuum for two new managers that arrived to replace the other two that had heart attacks and died". If both of them fall in the "yeah, I can see why that trade might make sense" category, let 'em go IMO.
|
| 15 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Wed, Oct 10, 2012, 21:48
|
I think you can allow the first trade, but veto the second.
|
| 16 | weykool
ID: 8657121
Wed, Oct 10, 2012, 21:51
|
Another example:
My son needs a RB because his is on a bye and the ones in FA suk.
I give him my extra RB as a "loaner".
If any of the other managers made the same request I would decline.
|
| 17 | Bh
ID: 426111516
Wed, Oct 10, 2012, 22:00
|
But that's not really colluding. Colluding is two team's conspiring to help one team. If I have an extra WR and you have an extra RB, and we trade them, we both end up better, and no one complains. How is this different? If both teams are trying to help themselves, it's definitely not collusion, and might actually be legal.
|
| 18 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Wed, Oct 10, 2012, 22:02
|
to trade between 2 teams, with the understanding of trading back...is collusion. It is in fact, combining the 2 rosters to field the two teams.
disallow
|
| 19 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Wed, Oct 10, 2012, 22:30
|
Collusion is an effort to limit competition to gain an unfair advantage.
I still say that the first trade isn't collusion. The second one is. Let them make the trade but forbid the second.
|
| 20 | weykool
ID: 8657121
Thu, Oct 11, 2012, 00:28
|
I would be fine disallowing the second trade but as one poster says in the link in post #7 this is something that should be clarified in the league rules.
A rule suggested was be a player could only be traded back after 4 weeks have passed.
This is something unique to football with the bye weeks where 1 game is 1/16 of the season.
That would be the equivalent to 10 baseball games or 5 basketball games.
I have a hard time imagining trading a PG for a center for 5 games or can I borrowing Verlander for a couple of starts in exchange for Cabrerra's bat.
|
| 21 | Khahan
ID: 39432178
Thu, Oct 11, 2012, 10:07
|
To me its collusion. Maybe not an 'intent to harm' collusion where you are really trying to screw over everybody else. But its still collusion and I wouldn't allow either trade.
If its collusion (and it is) then both trades together constitute the deal. If its collusion (which it is) then the deal should be vetoed. Stop it at the root. Also, both teams are obviously talking about it and asking about to see if its ok. So its not like they are trying to pull one over. No need to allow the first trade and stop the second to screw them over right back.
Just tell them what sarge said, "You can't treat your 2 rosters like 1 super team. Neither trade can be acceptable."
I would also advise against more rules to prevent this. You already have a rule dealing with this. There is no clarification needed. The rule is simply, "no collusion allowed." Adding a rule will only muddy the waters and make trading more difficult. I've seen it many times in football (even baseball) where 2 teams will trade. A week or two later they'll make a second trade with one of the same players.
If there is no feeling that the player swap back and forth was done to circumvent normal gameplay (like a bye week) there is no harm. Why put in a rule that can have unintended consequences when there is already a rule in place?
|
| 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: Ethical Trade Question
|