josebach wrote:I really don't think these moves are going to win anybody their league. Whether he played the players or not is besides the point. Could this one trade involve collusion? Sure, maybe. But if I was Yahoo, I wouldn't overturn a league champion because of it either.
Do you feel that collusion should not automatically result in disqualification? I think it should, its breaking the rules, regardless of whether he won the league or not.
Absolutely it could, but it's a very hard thing to prove.
josebach wrote:I really don't think these moves are going to win anybody their league. Whether he played the players or not is besides the point. Could this one trade involve collusion? Sure, maybe. But if I was Yahoo, I wouldn't overturn a league champion because of it either.
Do you feel that collusion should not automatically result in disqualification? I think it should, its breaking the rules, regardless of whether he won the league or not.
Absolutely it could, but it's a very hard thing to prove.
If there is no money, tgrophy, or is a public league does it really matter?
josebach wrote:March 10 "Corys acquires Bonderman and Garciaparra from Smoke for Renteria and Wickman" Garciaparra for Renteria - Not a bad trade considering Garciaparra's injury history. The way this season turned out it was a smart trade.
Bonderman for Wickman - Uh... who cares? Not a bad trade.
May 28 "Corys acquires Abreu and Kent from Smoke for Beltran and Vidro." There was PLENTY of people that still thought Beltran was better than Abreu at this point. Vidro's numbers a few years ago must have been taken into consideration. Plus, Kent was REAAAALLLYY slumping at the time... I had him.
The only trade in my mind that was really unfair AT THE TIME IT WAS MADE was the June 13th one. "Corys acquires Posada, V.Wells and regains Renteria for Lopez, Mench and Neifi Perez."
Posada for Lopez - acceptable
Wells for Mench - this is kind of one sided, but it's not that much of a stetch. Currently, Wells is ranked 125 overall and Mench is ranked 160. In 2004, Wells was ranked 177 and Mench was ranked 209. There were times during the year where even I though Mench might be better... especially at home games.
Renteria for Perez - definitely not a good trade, but Perez offers second base eligibility as well and Renteria isn't exactly putting up career numbers.
Thanks for your well reasoned feedback. I am guessing Yahoo will agree with you.
Im not sure I agree with some of your points though:
Vidro was injured. At 2B getting Kent for him is like winning the lottery.
Wickman was a huge injury risk wasnt he? He's turned out well but I remember him as someone I was staying far away from at the start. He also went on to post a 7+ ERA for the first month. Bonderman was pretty much the hottest dark horse SP at that time.
I dont think Posada for Lopez is acceptable when Lopez has just gotten injured and was hitting .220 to Posada's .325. I dont think anyone here would do that trade. Similarly Renteria was hitting over 100 points higher than Perez AT the time. Sure does look suspicious when the good team is getting all the hot players and the bottom team all the cold ones.
Lopez was back less than a month after the trade, and who would you rather have for the last two months of the season, Lopez or Posada?
I definitely understand where you're coming from. Why would Smoke bother making trades if he wasn't going to set his roster? The problem is that he didn't set his roster against anybody... not just the Corys. I agree, that it does look suspicious, but it's nowhere near a "slam dunk case of clear collusion"... at least from an outsider's perspective.
Just forget about public leagues. Come to the cafe next year during spring training and I'm sure you can get in a good league. I'd do that myself if I wasn't already in a money league with friends and co-workers. One league is definitely enough for me.
josebach wrote:I really don't think these moves are going to win anybody their league. Whether he played the players or not is besides the point. Could this one trade involve collusion? Sure, maybe. But if I was Yahoo, I wouldn't overturn a league champion because of it either.
Do you feel that collusion should not automatically result in disqualification? I think it should, its breaking the rules, regardless of whether he won the league or not.
Absolutely it could, but it's a very hard thing to prove.
If there is no money, tgrophy, or is a public league does it really matter?
I personally wouldn't play in a public league. If I did play and won, it wouldn't mean anything because I could be playing against a bunch of 7 year olds for all I know. (Not that there's anything wrong with being 7. )
You just have to look at it from Yahoo's perspective. I'm sure they receive thousands and thousands of e-mails claiming collusion. I'm also sure that a lot of them are clear cut cases. Considering the severity of collusion that Yahoo is sure to come accross, I don't believe the trades mentioned in this post would raise any flags. I'm not saying there wasn't collusion going on, I'm just saying I understand and agree with Yahoo's position.
Well I think Yahoo runs a Winners League for those who have won a Public league?
I'm already in 3 other private leagues which are pretty competitive. I figured I might as well join a 4th in a public one and see if I could make the Winners league next year.
PS - I'd take Posada. But that's probably because I havent forgiven Lopez for 2002
However it's too little too late, isn't it? The cheater is going to win and that's a travesty.
People say only veto when it's clear cut collusion as in Neifi Perez for A-Rod but the truly sneaky cheaters know that you can collude over the course of several trades as in this case. I've played in leagues like yours. I feel your pain.
Nowadays, I'm a lot more liberal with vetoes.
"And so he spoke, and so he spoke, that lord of Castamere. But now the rains weep o'er his hall, with no one there to hear." - The Rains of Castamere
josebach wrote:I could be playing against a bunch of 7 year olds for all I know. (Not that there's anything wrong with being 7. )
Haha!
Don't worry about upsetting any 7 year olds. You have to be 13 years old to be a member here, so if we end up with any upset 7 year olds due to your post, we'll just ban them.
Hehehe .
Yes doctor, I am sick. Sick of those who are spineless. Sick of those who feel self-entitled. Sick of those who are hypocrites. Yes doctor, an army is forming. Yes doctor, there will be a war. Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by josebach » Sat Sep 17, 2005 10:52 am 
Not a bad trade.
.
