This trade was just accepted in our 8-team roto league:
Team A (in 1st place) gives: Jeremy Bonderman
Team B (in 6th place) gives: Chone Figgins
Team B has just 2 starting pitchers (four on the roster, but Randy Johnson and Jason Schmidt are onthe DL), so the move doesn't seem like collusion on paper. The only thing is, Team B hasn't managed his team in over a month and then just out of the blue accepts this trade. That leaves him with only 2 OF (Vlad and Vernon Wells). He has 5 hitters on the bench, but they are all infielders.
Also, Team A has Chase Utley, who was just injured and will be out 4-6 weeks. Team A has loads of pitching too, so losing Bonderman isn't that big of a deal to him.
On paper, this looks pretty fair. But seeing as how Team B hasn't been a very active manager, it looks sort of fishy to me. Should this be vetoed?
It is acceptable at face value, but the peripheral concerns are somewhat alarming. I'll tell you one thing. If the trade processes and Team B fails to acquire an OF for his active roster, then a veto probably would have been the correct decision in hindsight.
Just because the deal is fair doesn't mean it isn't collusion.
Wouldn't it be convenient to have a buddy who doesn't care about his team help you fill holes in your team with no regard for his own? I agree that Bonderman and Figgy are about equal in value, but this one still raises red flags. I'd ask the rest of the league what they think about it, but I can certainly see how a veto would be appropriate.
I talked to the owner of Team A (the one in first place) and he showed me the AIM conversation that initiated the trade. I will paste it below, though screen names have been replaced for privacy.
TEAM A (10:17:50 AM): dude, trade me chone figgins Team b (10:18:00 AM): ok TEAM A (10:18:07 AM): haha TEAM A (10:18:08 AM): its that easy? Team b (10:18:23 AM): yes TEAM A (10:18:31 AM): ok who do you want? Team b (10:18:33 AM): depending on who you offer TEAM A (10:19:25 AM): alright, hold up Team b (10:21:04 AM): your outfield kind of sucks TEAM A (10:21:20 AM): agreed TEAM A (10:21:50 AM): ive got some pitching to spare TEAM A (10:21:56 AM): and since you only have like 4 starters, that might work Team b (10:22:08 AM): haha TEAM A (10:22:23 AM): correction, TWO starters since two are hurt Team b (10:22:29 AM): i know Team b (10:22:46 AM): i sucks at fantasy baseball TEAM A (10:22:55 AM): yeah it is a lot of maintenance TEAM A (10:22:59 AM): i am getting tired of it Team b (10:23:58 AM): its such a long season TEAM A (10:24:07 AM): yeah for real TEAM A (10:30:24 AM): how about Bonderman? Team B (10:30:31 AM): ok TEAM A (10:31:28 AM): alright, its sent Team B (10:32:13 AM): accepted TEAM A (10:32:30 AM): excellent TEAM A (10:32:40 AM): i had 6 players get injured in the last 2 weeks Team B (10:32:48 AM): crazy TEAM A (10:32:59 AM): hunter pence, sheets, crawford, hanley ramirez, saito and now utley Team B (10:33:13 AM): good lord TEAM A (10:34:47 AM): so does this mean youre actually going to start paying attention to your team now? Team B (10:35:14 AM): probably not TEAM A (10:38:07 AM): haha TEAM A (10:38:09 AM): youve got a good team TEAM A (10:38:13 AM): you just need some pitching Team B (10:42:37 AM): yeah
And that is how it went. It doesn't seem like direct collusion. Sorry its so long, but what does everyone else think about this? Oh, and just FYI, this guy wouldn't be the type to doctor an AIM log so i don't think that is a question.
Another reason I wouldn't veto it: It appears that Team B would have traded almost anyone for Figgins, he's simply tired of playing and didn't gave a flip. So, I'm assuming he would have made the trade with any other team, Team A just happened to be the first to ask. Nothing wrong with that.
In light of that AIM conversation, I'd say it's a certain veto. How do you define collusion if that's not it? That's pretty much as collusive as it gets. Not lopsided, but collusive, veto.
Bwanna wrote:Another reason I wouldn't veto it: It appears that Team B would have traded almost anyone for Figgins, he's simply tired of playing and didn't gave a flip. So, I'm assuming he would have made the trade with any other team, Team A just happened to be the first to ask. Nothing wrong with that.
That's exactly why you do veto. People with that kind of attitude's teams should be treated as "dead teams." Their rosters might as well be locked. Forget about any of their players. They shouldn't be touched.
Bwanna wrote:Another reason I wouldn't veto it: It appears that Team B would have traded almost anyone for Figgins, he's simply tired of playing and didn't gave a flip. So, I'm assuming he would have made the trade with any other team, Team A just happened to be the first to ask. Nothing wrong with that.
That's exactly why you do veto. People with that kind of attitude's teams should be treated as "dead teams." Their rosters might as well be locked. Forget about any of their players. They shouldn't be touched.
I disagree. If...
the trade is equitable at face value, which this one is
Owner A didn't have an unfair advantage over any of the other owners that could have made a similar deal with Owner B
both owners are active enough to communicate, offer, and accept the trade
...then you can't justifiably veto the deal. I also don't believe you can justifiably lock the team of an owner that is willing to communicate and deal.
Reading between the lines it appears that there may be some bias vs the first place owner.
Bwanna wrote:Another reason I wouldn't veto it: It appears that Team B would have traded almost anyone for Figgins, he's simply tired of playing and didn't gave a flip. So, I'm assuming he would have made the trade with any other team, Team A just happened to be the first to ask. Nothing wrong with that.
That's exactly why you do veto. People with that kind of attitude's teams should be treated as "dead teams." Their rosters might as well be locked. Forget about any of their players. They shouldn't be touched.
I disagree. If...
the trade is equitable at face value, which this one is
Owner A didn't have an unfair advantage over any of the other owners that could have made a similar deal with Owner B
both owners are active enough to communicate, offer, and accept the trade
...then you can't justifiably veto the deal. I also don't believe you can justifiably lock the team of an owner that is willing to communicate and deal.
Reading between the lines it appears that there may be some bias vs the first place owner.
Totally disagree, though I respect where you're coming from.
The guy trading away Chone Figgins agreed to the trade before owner A even mentioned who he would be trading, before he even mentioned what position he would be trading, and before they even discussed anything about team needs.
The guy trading away Figgins expressed total apathy towards the league. He is not making the trade to improve his own standing. If I had to guess I would say he probably won't even add another OF to complete his roster.
It is a fair deal, but this is the dictionary definition of collusion. The fact that the guy was willing to part with Chone for whomever does nothing to increase the trade's validity. In fact it certainly decreases it. It would not be frivolous in the least to veto this deal.
I certainly don't see any evidence of bias against the first place owner.
Team A was classy enough to make the trade "fair," but it is still collusive. I'd open it to a vote, and if the league decides it is ok, then so be it, but if the vote is in favor of a veto, it certainly needs to be shot down.
CBMGreatOne wrote:Totally disagree, though I respect where you're coming from.
Same here. Enjoying the discussion.
CBMGreatOne wrote:The guy trading away Chone Figgins agreed to the trade before owner A even mentioned who he would be trading, before he even mentioned what position he would be trading, and before they even discussed anything about team needs.
He agreed _to_ trade, but he didn't agree on _the_ trade. This dialog indicates that he at least was thinking about it, and it depended on whom he received in return:
Team b (10:18:33 AM): depending on who you offer Team b (10:21:04 AM): your outfield kind of sucks
CBMGreatOne wrote:The guy trading away Figgins expressed total apathy towards the league. He is not making the trade to improve his own standing. If I had to guess I would say he probably won't even add another OF to complete his roster.
His previous league activity indicates that, but nothing in the conversation above indicates either of those things as far as I can see. But the point is he DID need a starter, which he was receiving in the deal.
CBMGreatOne wrote:It is a fair deal, but this is the dictionary definition of collusion. The fact that the guy was willing to part with Chone for whomever does nothing to increase the trade's validity. In fact it certainly decreases it. It would not be frivolous in the least to veto this deal.
He *wasn't* willing to part with Chone for whomever ("Team b (10:18:33 AM): depending on who you offer").
CBMGreatOne wrote:I certainly don't see any evidence of bias against the first place owner.
Just speculation on my part, but I'm guessing this might not have even been questioned if the same deal were made between the last place team and Team B. Again, speculation on my part based on my experience in similar past situations.
CBMGreatOne wrote:Team A was classy enough to make the trade "fair," but it is still collusive. I'd open it to a vote, and if the league decides it is ok, then so be it, but if the vote is in favor of a veto, it certainly needs to be shot down.
I still don't see _any_ collusion*. I'm assuming Team B wasn't secretly making a deal with just Team A, Team A was probably just the first team to make a proposition. I see a pro-active owner capitalizing on opportunity, assuming Owner B was as likely to deal with any other owners. If the trade is vetoed, the 1st place owner is being punished for his competitiveness and aggressiveness, not collusion.
Wrt to a vote, depending on the maturity and integrity of each of the other owners, I've seen too many first place owners have deals voted down when the trade was fair, but was voted against because of place in the standings (that is in fact, much closer to collusion, and should not be allowed). If all trades were approved by vote, then it makes sense. It doesn't make sense when it hasn't been done consistently all season.
*col·lu·sion: a secret agreement, esp. for fraudulent or treacherous purposes; conspiracy
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by Triplec223 » Fri Jul 27, 2007 10:53 am 
