suspicious trade: Bonderman for Figgins? - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to Commissioner's Corner

suspicious trade: Bonderman for Figgins?

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Re: suspicious trade: Bonderman for Figgins?

Postby Lofunzo » Fri Aug 03, 2007 2:11 am

I really don't understand for one second why you guys are so willing to COMPLETELY IGNORE the fact that this guy wasn't trying before he made the trade, and isn't trying after he made the trade. (You see how this probably means that he wasn't trying while making the trade?)


I didn't ignore it at all. Read my posts again. What I said was that, if he was so inactive, a commish on the ball would have addressed that issue earlier. Dump him, warn him, sent out the feds, whatever. Retroactively punishing him for doing something "active" isn't the way to go about it, IMHO. Especially when the trade itself is fair.

Obviously your minds are cemented in place. Fine by me.


Can't the same be said about you?? I haven't seen your opinion change 1 bit, either. :-?
Image
Lofunzo
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerEagle EyeHockey ModPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 23698
(Past Year: 18)
Joined: 9 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Central Jersey

Re: suspicious trade: Bonderman for Figgins?

Postby Triplec223 » Fri Aug 03, 2007 10:27 am

well thanks for the opinions guys. the bottom line is that this trade went through and only one owner expressed disapproval. His argument (or well, his rant) is that everyone in the league must "love the first place team" because he is "running away with the league" and then someone goes and trades him one of the hottest players in baseball, while he gives up a pitcher that barely affects him. I think he was just a little miffed b/c he is currently in 2nd and had a substantial lead to open the season before Team A passed him. Nobody else said the trade was unfair.

As for the second trade, however, (Reyes/Putz for Mig. Tejada/el Duque), that was vetoed by the league within 24 hours of its acceptance. As the commissioner, I'm ok with letting the Figgins/bonderman deal go through b/c it was not vetoed by the league, and only one person protested it. While it is borderline collusion (intentionally or not), I am not going to reverse a deal like this that most of the league is not against. I'm trying to be democratic here and go with what the majority of the teams have expressed.

It just makes me feel a bit better that the 2nd trade got vetoed b/c at least I know that people are still being competitive despite the fact that Team A has a 20+ point lead and is not slowing down.

Thanks for the help guys. This is my first time as a fantasy baseball commish and thus, the first time that I've run across this situation. I'm sorry this topic got a bit out of hand, but i found it VERY helpful in evaluating the case. Thanks again.
Triplec223
College Coach
College Coach


Posts: 300
Joined: 19 Sep 2006
Home Cafe: Football

Re: suspicious trade: Bonderman for Figgins?

Postby CBMGreatOne » Fri Aug 03, 2007 10:42 am

While it is borderline collusion (intentionally or not), I am not going to reverse a deal like this that most of the league is not against.


Thank you! Finally someone acknowledges that this trade is borderline collusive. That's really all I wanted to hear. Whether allowed by the democratic process or not, this trade could be easily interpreted as collusion. Lofunzo, I think our argument was becoming semantical at the end there. You don't think this deal is collusive at all and I do. It isn't necessarily going to destroy the league because the value is close, but it still may be wrong in principle. If the league is basically ok with it, then fine, I guess let it go through and be done with it.

As for my mind being cemented in place, I have never failed to acknowledge why you think the deal is ok, but you have yet to acknowledge that my concerns why it might not be ok are valid. I think I have a perfectly open mind about this thing.

The more recent trade is indicative of player dumping. You might even be able to say the same about the first in an 8 team league. Bondo for Figgins looks different when there are only 8 teams as opposed to 12. I think this issue might be being glossed over as well.

In any case, I can understand why the commissioner made the decision he did, but if I were in the league, I would have taken the side of the second place manager because collusion shouldn't be allowed in fantasy baseball, even if the resultant trades are fair-ish.
CBMGreatOne
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 3128
(Past Year: 227)
Joined: 30 May 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: suspicious trade: Bonderman for Figgins?

Postby Bwanna » Fri Aug 03, 2007 11:48 am

Triplec223 wrote:well thanks for the opinions guys. the bottom line is that this trade went through and only one owner expressed disapproval. His argument (or well, his rant) is that everyone in the league must "love the first place team" because he is "running away with the league" and then someone goes and trades him one of the hottest players in baseball, while he gives up a pitcher that barely affects him. I think he was just a little miffed b/c he is currently in 2nd and had a substantial lead to open the season before Team A passed him. Nobody else said the trade was unfair.

As for the second trade, however, (Reyes/Putz for Mig. Tejada/el Duque), that was vetoed by the league within 24 hours of its acceptance. As the commissioner, I'm ok with letting the Figgins/bonderman deal go through b/c it was not vetoed by the league, and only one person protested it. While it is borderline collusion (intentionally or not), I am not going to reverse a deal like this that most of the league is not against. I'm trying to be democratic here and go with what the majority of the teams have expressed.

It just makes me feel a bit better that the 2nd trade got vetoed b/c at least I know that people are still being competitive despite the fact that Team A has a 20+ point lead and is not slowing down.

Thanks for the help guys. This is my first time as a fantasy baseball commish and thus, the first time that I've run across this situation. I'm sorry this topic got a bit out of hand, but i found it VERY helpful in evaluating the case. Thanks again.

Sounded like you did exactly the right thing. The 2nd place owner was miffed for the reasons I guessed, and I'd put a healthy wager on the fact that he wouldn't have objected much (if at all) if a 2nd division (yet active) owner had received Chone.

I'm glad the rest of the league had some common sense in this trade and the second vetoed trade.

As a reminder: collusion

This wasn't collusion. There was no 'secret agreement'. You can call it improper, not in the spirit of competition, etc, but it ain't collusion.
[reg season/playoffs]
LFoD '08 [1st/3rd], '10 [1st/3rd], '11 [1st/2nd], '12 [1st/1st]
123Innings '08 [1st/1st], '09 [1st/3rd], '10 [1st/4th], '12 [4th/2nd]
BRAL '09 2nd, '10 1st
Cool 3.0 '08 1st
Bwanna
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicEagle EyeInnovative MemberWeb Supporter
Posts: 5644
(Past Year: 323)
Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: suspicious trade: Bonderman for Figgins?

Postby CBMGreatOne » Fri Aug 03, 2007 12:36 pm

Bwanna wrote:
Triplec223 wrote:well thanks for the opinions guys. the bottom line is that this trade went through and only one owner expressed disapproval. His argument (or well, his rant) is that everyone in the league must "love the first place team" because he is "running away with the league" and then someone goes and trades him one of the hottest players in baseball, while he gives up a pitcher that barely affects him. I think he was just a little miffed b/c he is currently in 2nd and had a substantial lead to open the season before Team A passed him. Nobody else said the trade was unfair.

As for the second trade, however, (Reyes/Putz for Mig. Tejada/el Duque), that was vetoed by the league within 24 hours of its acceptance. As the commissioner, I'm ok with letting the Figgins/bonderman deal go through b/c it was not vetoed by the league, and only one person protested it. While it is borderline collusion (intentionally or not), I am not going to reverse a deal like this that most of the league is not against. I'm trying to be democratic here and go with what the majority of the teams have expressed.

It just makes me feel a bit better that the 2nd trade got vetoed b/c at least I know that people are still being competitive despite the fact that Team A has a 20+ point lead and is not slowing down.

Thanks for the help guys. This is my first time as a fantasy baseball commish and thus, the first time that I've run across this situation. I'm sorry this topic got a bit out of hand, but i found it VERY helpful in evaluating the case. Thanks again.

Sounded like you did exactly the right thing. The 2nd place owner was miffed for the reasons I guessed, and I'd put a healthy wager on the fact that he wouldn't have objected much (if at all) if a 2nd division (yet active) owner had received Chone.

I'm glad the rest of the league had some common sense in this trade and the second vetoed trade.

As a reminder: collusion

This wasn't collusion. There was no 'secret agreement'. You can call it improper, not in the spirit of competition, etc, but it ain't collusion.


It is you who is under false impressions of the definition of collusion. Collusion is merely a cooperation between two parties to benefit one in a unique way. That is what is going on here. Don't point to the "esp." contingent of the definition. Collusion is still collusion in this case. I think you are confused about the definition of the word. The second place team was miffed for a multitude of reasons I'm sure.

An example of collusion would be a city council member getting a cheaper price on a lot of real estate than would a layperson through his connections with a governing entity.

This is most certainly within the realm of the definition of the word collusion regardless of how utterly convinced you are that it absolutely isn't.

You need to brush up on your acquaintance with the term collusion, and then we can agree to disagree.

The most significant thing to remember about collusion is that it is a "cooperation." I have looked at about 10 different definitions online and only about half of them even use the word "secret." If the traders involved knew the subtleties of the situation they were involving themselves in, perhaps they would have kept the circumstances that led to the trade secret.
CBMGreatOne
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 3128
(Past Year: 227)
Joined: 30 May 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: suspicious trade: Bonderman for Figgins?

Postby CBMGreatOne » Fri Aug 03, 2007 12:59 pm

Yahoo's fair play and sportsmanship policies:

1. All league-related transactions will be executed with the intent of improving the owner's team and/or its standing within the league. (Doesn't seem to be Owner B's intention)
2. No owner may drop or "dump" players from their team for any reason other than improving their own team and/or its standing within the league. (Owner B is certainly doing that in trade 2, debatably in trade 1)
3. No owner will engage in any action that may be deemed to be collusive (two or more owners agreeing to make moves that benefit one team, but not the other). (Yahoo's definition of collusion does not include the word "secret")
4. No owner will make any roster moves (including waiver claims, trade proposals, etc.) whose sole purpose is to hamper the play of other owners. (irrelevant here)
5. No owner will take any action whose purpose is to, in any way, interfere with fair play in a league. (Could be interpreted as fitting manager B's actions, albeit debatably)
CBMGreatOne
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 3128
(Past Year: 227)
Joined: 30 May 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: suspicious trade: Bonderman for Figgins?

Postby Bwanna » Fri Aug 03, 2007 1:11 pm

CBMGreatOne wrote:It is you who is under false impressions of the definition of collusion. ... I think you are confused about the definition of the word. ... I have looked at about 10 different definitions online and only about half of them even use the word "secret". ... You need to brush up on your acquaintance with the term collusion.
Uh... I just looked in the dictionary. Forgive my simplistic, Neanderthal methods.

All of the sources listed here have as their primary definition "a secret agreement".


Again, glad this worked out, Triplec223.
Bwanna
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicEagle EyeInnovative MemberWeb Supporter
Posts: 5644
(Past Year: 323)
Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: suspicious trade: Bonderman for Figgins?

Postby CBMGreatOne » Fri Aug 03, 2007 1:28 pm

Bwanna wrote:
CBMGreatOne wrote:It is you who is under false impressions of the definition of collusion. ... I think you are confused about the definition of the word. ... I have looked at about 10 different definitions online and only about half of them even use the word "secret". ... You need to brush up on your acquaintance with the term collusion.
Uh... I just looked in the dictionary. Forgive my simplistic, Neanderthal methods.

All of the sources listed here have as their primary definition "a secret agreement".


Again, glad this worked out, Triplec223.


Look I'm not trying to make this personal. Both of our tones have been less than exemplary during the course of this thread. I know you're a good guy, so I'm sorry for my part in it, ok?

As for the word secret being included in the definition, the reason why I'm finding it in some of the citations I'm looking at and not others is, I would conjecture, that in business terms, collusion is illegal. Being illegal, a collusive deal would never be struck in anything but "secret."

Therefore, an implicit element to the terms definition is included in certain citations and not others.

In this case, I don't think the managers involved knew that they were doing anything wrong... well... questionable at any rate.

Therefore, the circumstances have not been kept secret, but I agree with yahoo's definition of the word collusion. The element of cooperation is what's important here, not the element of secrecy. We know it's not secret. Lots of deals that I've seen that I would consider collusive are not necessarily struck secretively.

Even in the source you cite, the root words are explained:
"from com- "together" + ludere "to play," from ludus "game""

Pretty clear to me that the absolute denotation of the word has to do with the cooperative element, not the secretive element of it.

I think at this point we are splitting hairs.

If you really want me to cut and paste those definitions of collusion that I have found that do not include the word secret, here you go:

COLLUSION - An agreement between two or more persons, to defraud a person of his rights by the forms of law, or to obtain an object forbidden by law; as, for example, where the husband and wife collude to obtain a divorce for a cause not authorized by law. It is nearly synonymous with covin.http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c251.htm

Collusion- (n.) A secret agreement and cooperation for a fraudulent or deceitful purpose; a playing into each other's hands; deceit; fraud; cunning.
(n.) An agreement between two or more persons to defraud a person of his rights, by the forms of law, or to obtain an object forbidden by law. (two listings, one says nothing of "secrecy")
http://websters.wunderdictionary.com/dictionary/def/.../collusion.html

COLLUSION

, fraud. An agreement between two or more persons, to defraud a person of his rights by the forms of law, or to obtain an object forbidden by law; as, for example, where the husband and wife collude to obtain a divorce for a cause not authorized by law. It is nearly synonymous with covin. (q. v.) 2. Collusion and fraud of every kind vitiate all acts which are infected with them, and render them void. Vide Shelf. on Mar. .& Div. 416, 450; 3 Hagg. Eccl. R. 130, 133; 2 Greenl. Ev. 51; Bousq. Dict. de Dr. mot Abordage.

Source: Bouviers Law Dictionary 1856 Edition http://www.legallawterms.com/legal-definition-COLLUSION.html
CBMGreatOne
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 3128
(Past Year: 227)
Joined: 30 May 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: suspicious trade: Bonderman for Figgins?

Postby Bwanna » Fri Aug 03, 2007 1:36 pm

CBMGreatOne wrote:Look I'm not trying to make this personal. Both of our tones have been less than exemplary during the course of this thread. I know you're a good guy, so I'm sorry for my part in it, ok?

Same here. ;-D
[reg season/playoffs]
LFoD '08 [1st/3rd], '10 [1st/3rd], '11 [1st/2nd], '12 [1st/1st]
123Innings '08 [1st/1st], '09 [1st/3rd], '10 [1st/4th], '12 [4th/2nd]
BRAL '09 2nd, '10 1st
Cool 3.0 '08 1st
Bwanna
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicEagle EyeInnovative MemberWeb Supporter
Posts: 5644
(Past Year: 323)
Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Previous

Return to Commissioner's Corner

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Thursday, Apr. 17
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

Atlanta at Philadelphia
(1:05 pm)
Cleveland at Detroit
(1:08 pm)
Toronto at Minnesota
(1:10 pm)
Seattle at Texas
(2:05 pm)
LA Dodgers at San Francisco
(3:45 pm)
Colorado at San Diego
(6:40 pm)
Milwaukee at Pittsburgh
(7:05 pm)
St. Louis at Washington
(7:05 pm)
NY Yankees at Tampa Bay
(7:10 pm)
indoors
Boston at Chi White Sox
(8:10 pm)
Kansas City at Houston
(8:10 pm)

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