Collusion? - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Collusion?

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Postby Dawgpound 1613 » Thu May 26, 2005 5:39 pm

SouthBronxBombers wrote:It's not collusion, no, but for me it does not have to be to object to a trade. Trades aren't made in vacumns, they affect the entire league. You play these games for fun with the expectation that you have a chance to win. When you have an owner, through collusion, stupidity, whatever, that through trades affects the competitive balance of the league, it eliminates any reason to play. The notion that only collusion should be the cause of objecting to a trade is nonsense.


Every trade affects the competitive balance of the league. If done correctly, a "good" trade helps both teams - this adversely affects the competitive balance of the league as two teams are better and the rest stay the same. A "bad" trade only helps one team - but still adversely affects the competitive balance of the league. By your logic, all trades should be vetoed.

If an owner is stupid, every one I know tries to take advantage of that and make a deal that helps his team. Being upset because you weren't the one to take advantage of a stupid owner isn't a reason to veto a trade. If you honestly believe this, then I guess you're one of the few who does not trade unless you know both teams are likely to be helped. Me personally, I am trying to help my team only when I make a trade - as I presume the other guy is also trying to do the same and unless we both feel our teams will be helped, no trade will occur.

Collusion, on the other hand, to me means that an owner will only trade with one owner and only to help that owner, even by intentionally damaging his own team. As no one else has the chance to make this trade, then this is unfair and should be stopped.

What was described here does not seem to be collusion - simply one owner taking advantage of a stupid owner who was fretting over losing his starting C. I've made many a trade wherein the basis for me starting discussions was an injury to another guy's key player. That's what I think happened here.
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 jellyroll » Thu May 26, 2005 5:51 pm

Webhamster...??? I assume this should go under trades etc.
jellyroll
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 527
Joined: 6 Jun 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: West Indies

Postby great gretzky » Thu May 26, 2005 8:12 pm

yea the rest of the league doesn't really matter in a non collusive trade. sorry -- IMO other teams can butt the hell out and let me and my trading partner run the teams.

Yes, you can be adversely effected, but isn't that part of the point? Especially in roto, there are only so many points to go around -- so your gain is by definition someone's loss.

If you could veto trades that were collusive -- or stupefyingly bad (of which this is not) that is one thing. If you can reasonably debate the merits, or someone could draw the conlcusion that a given trade has a reasonable chance of helping the aggregate roto totals -- then the rest of the league has zero say in it. Otherwise, vetos become a tool used to preserve a place in the standings.
great gretzky
General Manager
General Manager

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

Postby davus » Tue May 31, 2005 1:56 pm

SouthBronxBombers wrote:It's not collusion, no, but for me it does not have to be to object to a trade. Trades aren't made in vacumns, they affect the entire league. You play these games for fun with the expectation that you have a chance to win. When you have an owner, through collusion, stupidity, whatever, that through trades affects the competitive balance of the league, it eliminates any reason to play. The notion that only collusion should be the cause of objecting to a trade is nonsense.


Spoken like a poor sport. You probably are very happy in Yahoo free leagues. ;-D
davus
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 768
Joined: 21 Feb 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Fpower » Tue May 31, 2005 4:17 pm

I veto trades if I feel they're bad enough as well, regardless of collusion. It doesn't seem like a big deal to me because I don't try to steal players from other owners.
Fpower
College Coach
College Coach

User avatar

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

Postby Rance Mulliniks » Tue May 31, 2005 5:00 pm

SouthBronxBombers wrote:It's not collusion, no, but for me it does not have to be to object to a trade. Trades aren't made in vacumns, they affect the entire league. You play these games for fun with the expectation that you have a chance to win. When you have an owner, through collusion, stupidity, whatever, that through trades affects the competitive balance of the league, it eliminates any reason to play. The notion that only collusion should be the cause of objecting to a trade is nonsense.


I couldn't disagree more. I find nothing worse in a league than managers vetoing trades made fairly between 2 managers. No one can guess what each other manager was thinking at the time, how they were trying to improve their teams, what their expectations of the players involved were. I also refuse to punish other owners for making good deals (even if they will better their teams and be more competitive against me). Unless a team is clearly dumping players or there is clear collusion I see no reason for a veto. This is one of the biggest problems with public leagues - it makes much more sense for a commissioner to have the veto power and for owners who oppose a trade to make their case to him or her.
Image
Mulliniks Watch: Still stuck on 1325 games 3569 AB 445 R 972 H 73 HR 435 RBI 0.272 AVG 15 SB
Rance Mulliniks
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicPick 3 Weekly WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly WinnerTrivia Time Trial Monthly Winner
Posts: 2207
(Past Year: 27)
Joined: 22 Mar 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Up in the Rockies, hoping for powder

Postby davus » Tue May 31, 2005 5:03 pm

Fpower wrote:I veto trades if I feel they're bad enough as well, regardless of collusion. It doesn't seem like a big deal to me because I don't try to steal players from other owners.


The problem with your theory is that you are only managing your own team with YOUR best interests at heart. To veto a trade because you don't like how it looks on paper is pretty selfish, in reality. Trades are made by two managers agreeing to a deal that generally will fill holes in the teams of both of them. Most trades end up not being exactly balanced, it's really hard to achieve that.

You call it stealing, when the manager that you believe is being robbed probably realizes that he can afford to give up a little more from one area to gain something in another.

Let people manage their own teams and worry more about the moves you should be making then moves other people are making.
davus
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 768
Joined: 21 Feb 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby davus » Tue May 31, 2005 5:07 pm

Rance Mulliniks wrote:
SouthBronxBombers wrote:It's not collusion, no, but for me it does not have to be to object to a trade. Trades aren't made in vacumns, they affect the entire league. You play these games for fun with the expectation that you have a chance to win. When you have an owner, through collusion, stupidity, whatever, that through trades affects the competitive balance of the league, it eliminates any reason to play. The notion that only collusion should be the cause of objecting to a trade is nonsense.


I couldn't disagree more. I find nothing worse in a league than managers vetoing trades made fairly between 2 managers. No one can guess what each other manager was thinking at the time, how they were trying to improve their teams, what their expectations of the players involved were. I also refuse to punish other owners for making good deals (even if they will better their teams and be more competitive against me). Unless a team is clearly dumping players or there is clear collusion I see no reason for a veto. This is one of the biggest problems with public leagues - it makes much more sense for a commissioner to have the veto power and for owners who oppose a trade to make their case to him or her.


Precisely. ;-D

I will have an opening in my keeper league next season, you interested? :-B
davus
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 768
Joined: 21 Feb 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby SouthBronxBombers » Tue May 31, 2005 5:11 pm

You know davus, if you are going to follow me around, and resurrect a week old thread just to be a jackass, you can go sit on a spike and rotate. What are you, three years old?
SouthBronxBombers
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor


Posts: 892
Joined: 8 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby davus » Tue May 31, 2005 5:21 pm

SouthBronxBombers wrote:You know davus, if you are going to follow me around, and resurrect a week old thread just to be a jackass, you can go sit on a spike and rotate. What are you, three years old?


You're a tender little guy aren't you? Paranoid as well. :-D
davus
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 768
Joined: 21 Feb 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

PreviousNext

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ensanimal and 8 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Saturday, Sep. 20
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

LA Dodgers at Chi Cubs
(1:05 pm)
Detroit at Kansas City
(1:05 pm)
Toronto at NY Yankees
(4:05 pm)
Philadelphia at Oakland
(4:05 pm)
Arizona at Colorado
(4:10 pm)
Boston at Baltimore
(7:05 pm)
Milwaukee at Pittsburgh
(7:05 pm)
Chi White Sox at Tampa Bay
(7:10 pm)
indoors
Cleveland at Minnesota
(7:10 pm)
Washington at Miami
(7:10 pm)
indoors
Seattle at Houston
(7:10 pm)
NY Mets at Atlanta
(7:10 pm)
Cincinnati at St. Louis
(7:15 pm)
San Francisco at San Diego
(8:40 pm)
Texas at LA Angels
(9:05 pm)

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