Does collusion have to be "willing"? - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2015 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Does collusion have to be "willing"?

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Postby Pochucker » Mon May 09, 2005 12:58 pm

For those of you who said I should have tried to trade with him , he only trades with one guy! No matter what the offer from others. Other guy says his is best offer.
So again , my question is "if player in your league announced in your league at start of year that he was only trading with one player-- wouldnt you consider that blatant collusion?"
Sorry my writing style offends you Conner, but last time I checked abbreviations and brevity were the norm on web forums.
Pochucker
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor


Posts: 679
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 4 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby great gretzky » Mon May 09, 2005 1:18 pm

announcing that only one person is going to be your trade partner is collusive.

It actively prevents anyone else from making deals with you, and thus has the effect of overvaluing the assets of the one team that is trading with him. Also, since no two rosters perfectly mesh, that kind of talk almost by definition means that most of the trades will be lopsided, as it is much harder to square up the values.
great gretzky
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafeholic
Posts: 3769
Joined: 3 Jun 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Washington, DC

Postby Mookie4ever » Mon May 09, 2005 1:22 pm

Pochucker wrote:For those of you who said I should have tried to trade with him , he only trades with one guy! No matter what the offer from others. Other guy says his is best offer.
So again , my question is "if player in your league announced in your league at start of year that he was only trading with one player-- wouldnt you consider that blatant collusion?"
Sorry my writing style offends you Conner, but last time I checked abbreviations and brevity were the norm on web forums.


Pochucker - you never said before that this guy announced that he was only going to trade with one guy. If he announces this and closes his mind to trading with others no matter what you offer him, then this is not collusion (unless the other guy is in on it as well), it is prefering one owner over another and this is grounds for kicking him out of the league.

Even so, I somehow doubt that he made this announcement. I think that it just turns out this way. I'm sure that if you offered him Sanatan for Ensberg that he would take it.
Image
Mookie4ever
Head Moderator
Head Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterHockey ModBasketball ModFootball ModMatchup Meltdown ChampionPick 3 Weekly WinnerSweet 16 SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 19545
(Past Year: 261)
Joined: 17 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Hakuna, Montana

Postby bselig » Mon May 09, 2005 1:24 pm

No, it's not collusion, like others have said, but there's no reason should be the only reason to veto trades (unless for some reason your rules specifically stipulate that?). Personally I don't think I'd veto that deal, Vazquez might be an ace.
Image
[b][size=35]25[/size][/b]
bselig Beginner
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 948
Joined: 3 Feb 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Pochucker » Mon May 09, 2005 1:44 pm

Sorry dont mean to mislead you . He didnt announce it , but 2+ yrs has only traded with same guy no matter what other offers- he might as well announce it. If it looks like a duck ,sounds like a duck then its a duck! He even says other guy badgers him endlessly till he trades with him.
Pochucker
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor


Posts: 679
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 4 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Dawgpound 1613 » Mon May 09, 2005 1:48 pm

If he only trades with one team - or substantial majority of trades are with one team, he could be argued to be collusive. Doesn't help if trade looks one-sided. However, unless you can prove collusion, not vetoable. That said, I'd find a new owner regardless as it doesn't help any league to have one player who is an absentee owner.

As to whether trades are unfair, I agree that you can't predict whether a player will get injured, but injury risk is something that can be taken into consideration.

However, my biggest thing is people only looking to the past as to valuing a player. Simply because a guy did something last year does not guarantee that he'll do it again this year. Conversely, if you have a feeling that a player will break out, but others don't, then there may be people who will object if you pay what you consider to be a fair price even though many others who would claim that something is "unfair" and should be vetoed. If (hindsight being 20/20 and acknowledging that these players are examples only) I offered Beltre for Brian Roberts in early April, people would have been screaming "veto", "collusion", etc. Today, that trade would look a lot less one-sided. Next month, who knows.

Other examples exist. E.g. most people think Beltran will still steal 30-40 bases. But, what if Randolph doesn't give the green light this year and he ends up with 15? If a guy believes this and dumps Beltran for less than "perceived" market price, isn't that his perogative? Who is anyone to tell him that you know for a fact that he will be wrong.

That's my point - just because you think a trade is one-sided doesn't mean the other owner thinks that it is. If he has a reason for making a trade (other than collusion), then let him make the trade. If it truly ends up being stupid, yes it helps the other team. But most people don't trade with the intent to make their team worse. If they don't know better, just remember that you also have the chance with trading with the stupid team (albeit, I admit that for this league, maybe not - still not a reason to veto - just get rid of the guy).
Dawgpound 1613
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar
Sweet 16 SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 2095
Joined: 7 Oct 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: \Lo*ca"tion\, n. 1. The act or process of locating. 2. Situation; place; locality.

Postby Dawgpound 1613 » Mon May 09, 2005 1:52 pm

Pochucker wrote:Sorry dont mean to mislead you . He didnt announce it , but 2+ yrs has only traded with same guy no matter what other offers- he might as well announce it. If it looks like a duck ,sounds like a duck then its a duck! He even says other guy badgers him endlessly till he trades with him.


Maybe you need to badger him as well. It sounds like it can work, but only with badgering. If the other guy is willing to badger, and you're not, then that's your problem, not his.

Some of the owners in my long-running league have quirks. I know what they are. I may not like them, but if I want to trade with them, I know the price. Sounds like this is the price for dealing with this team.
Dawgpound 1613
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar
Sweet 16 SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 2095
Joined: 7 Oct 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: \Lo*ca"tion\, n. 1. The act or process of locating. 2. Situation; place; locality.

Postby great gretzky » Mon May 09, 2005 2:02 pm

if he explicitly stated to people that he only trades with one person, I'd say that is "proof"
great gretzky
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafeholic
Posts: 3769
Joined: 3 Jun 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Washington, DC

Postby Fpower » Mon May 09, 2005 4:06 pm

If trades are badly lopsided they deserve to be vetoed regardless of collusion IMO. To use somebody else's example, allowing Steve Finley for Pujols to go through takes the fun out of the league.
Fpower
College Coach
College Coach

User avatar

Posts: 235
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby 9er Fan » Mon May 09, 2005 4:14 pm

thomasps3 wrote:Here's a funny thing....

Last year, I was in an AL-only league that has no veto or anything. Well, I traded Magglio Ordonez(remember him?) and Pudge Rodriguez for Carl Crawford and Joe Nathan. Everybody in the league said that was the stupidest trade they had ever seen, and that I didn't get enough back. However, here is where this story becomes pertinent to your league. As you know, Maggs went on to miss a substantial amount of time, and although Pudge had an excellent year, I ended up gaining an elite closer in Nathan, and a guy who stole 55 bases and hit .300

So the question you have to ask yourself is....does your league overvalue players based on reputation? I realize this trade looks ridiculous, but in baseball, the value of a trade cannot be fully determined until the games are played. What if Milton goes and blows up and gets suspended for 10-20 games? What if Blaylock gets injured? These ???s are realities that exist in the game, and should be accounted for as well as the players "perceived" value....


I totally agree with this post. That is why I would never veto a trade unless collusion is involved/suspected. If you are continually confronted by 'stupid' trades, find a new league/leaguemates as someone else suggested.
9er Fan
College Coach
College Coach

User avatar

Posts: 261
Joined: 27 Mar 2003
Home Cafe: Football

PreviousNext

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2015 MLB season starts in 6:49 hours
(and 100 days)

  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact