OK, here's the deal... Its a bit long winded but hopefully i can get some input.
Im in a 12 team league where we keep 8. The last place team in my league's team is pretty bad. His 3 best keepers are Putz, Thome and Cuddyer.
Me on the other hand, im in first place, I have Reyes, CLee, Sheff, Konerko, Phillips, Victorino, Webb, Haren, Bedard, Lincecum, Nathan as keepers. Other possibles include Zimmerman, Butler and Dye depending on how they finish. I can only keep 8 of these players, the rest i have to trade for draft picks or to move up in the draft when the season ends.
I sent out a trade offer to the last place mgr for Putz as I would like to improve my closer situation going into the stretch run. He replied saying that he likes and really wants to keep Putz but he would take Jamie Shields and a 3rd round pick for him. ALSO......at the end of the season he wants to trade me my pick back for Putz along with one of my excess keepers.
SO....to summarize....I get to rent Putz for the remainder of the season for Shields and one of my excess keepers at year end. I get my pick back. He helps out his keeper situation.
You're definitely toeing the line on this one. It seems like it's probably okay (it's a grey area), but my recommendation would be to open up a discussion with the rest of the league. This is certainly a situation where someone might scream collusion, so the best thing to do is get the league to talk about it; do your best to convince them that it's kosher; and once you get a majority vote, you can bully the commish into letting it happen and no one can complain about it later.
But, I've never had a deal like that happen in a league I'm in, so I'm not sure what later consequences it might have on future league rules/deals.
Hmm, I don't think this is "cheating" perse, but I don't like the idea of a player rental. I think the trade should be what it is when it is. If something about the players involved changes over the course of the rest of the season, he should reserve the right to chicken out of Part 2 of the trade. (He shouldn't be forced to trade back.)
If it happens to work out that trading the players back at the end of the season works for him, then I'd say that's great, and it'll end up working out for the both of you just as you describe, but I don't think he should make a trade that entails a binding agreement to trade back at the end of the year.
To me that is really questionable, very close to collusion. I don't like the fact that it's predetermined that this player is a rental. You're in a tough spot on this one. Also, what happens if the trade back of Putz at the end of the season is vetoed by the league or something like that?
Way too much grey area in this issue means, to me, that this plan is a tad too messy.
I think this is the dictionary definition of collusion, and should not be allowed. If the guy was in reasonable contention would he make this trade, of course not. Honestly, if this isn't collusion I am not really sure what is.
I mean, imagine a situation in a h2h matchup where it was really close but the guy had a few saves on you, and you needed to get that back. So you agree with your buddy who is in a different matchup and doesn't need the saves to trade erik bedard for putz, and roy halladay for krod for the week, and then to trade them back afterwords. How can this _not_ be collusion?!?
There was an article on espn's "commish's court" about this type of player rental thing, and i agree with it being bogus. If your allowed to rent players back and forth two rosters essentially become one. Here it is
J/K. I'm just having my own problems with the definition of collusion in the Bonderman for Figgins thread, but it would probably take an hour to fully digest all the information contained therein. Check it out if you have time though. It's not as bad as this deal, but I think it falls into the category of collusion via apathy, even though I acknowledge that the player value is close enough that, collusion or not, some would say it shouldn't be vetoed.
Yeah, this is collusion. Make 1 trade, if there happens to be a trade back later, that's ok, but it shouldn't be part of a plan.
Yeah i read through it, and do agree with you. But there is some reading between the lines from the original IM conversation that needs to be done to get there, it just seemed like a very casual tone that said "yeah whatever, just offer me someone reasonable" ie. collusion via apathy. I also agree about inactive guys trading, most people probably don't, but its tough to decide if its a trade to get back to activity, or if its an apathy trade, until atleast some time after.
talan37 wrote:Yeah i read through it, and do agree with you. But there is some reading between the lines from the original IM conversation that needs to be done to get there, it just seemed like a very casual tone that said "yeah whatever, just offer me someone reasonable" ie. collusion via apathy. I also agree about inactive guys trading, most people probably don't, but its tough to decide if its a trade to get back to activity, or if its an apathy trade, until atleast some time after.
Yeah, I was definitely emboldened after the second trade on that trade, which made me speak pretty harshly against the original. I may have overstated the case to an extent, but I still think it's collusion, as this one is.