Trading for Waiver Priority = Collusion? - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2015 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Trading for Waiver Priority = Collusion?

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Re: Trading for Waiver Priority = Collusion?

Postby Matthias » Thu May 01, 2008 6:54 am

Mayor Daley wrote:What's the big deal? He get a guy from the waiver wire and then trades him to you.
There's no collusion. It's a basic trade.
If it's a fair trade and the league agrees... it's done.
End of story.

I think the ones who are complaining the most (in your league) are the ones who are pissed that they didn't think of it first.

I came across a Bertrand Russell quote the other day: "A stupid man's report of what a smart man says is never accurate because he unconsciously translates it into something he can understand."

There are minor grounds for concern here or at least for things in this spirit; but on the whole, what the traded did was fine. Also, read the thread... there's nobody complaining the most in the league that they're in... apparently there was a 2-minute conversation about it 1 month ago. But now the guy wants to do the same thing again and so re-raised the issue himself.
0-3 to 4-3. Worst choke in the history of baseball. Enough said.
Matthias
General Manager
General Manager


Posts: 4860
Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Trading for Waiver Priority = Collusion?

Postby bigh0rt » Thu May 01, 2008 7:19 am

Snakes Gould wrote:
noseeum wrote:
Snakes Gould wrote:again, it wasnt just about trading waivers. i definitely encourage that.


Did I miss something? What was it? Don't mean to rehash.


there are 5 pages of discussion...i dont really feel like explaining again...

I'm still not sure, myself. Here's what I've gathered...

trading waiver positions in general is definitely allowed, but to influence an owner that other-wise would not have made any action, seemed fishy to me.

again, i have (had) no problem with people trading their waiver priorities, but the way this situation came about was fishy to me. i said the veto comment half jokingly anyhow .

for what its worth, i dont think anyone would question my "fairness" to the league.

we had maybe a 2 minute discussion about it, and i didnt even take it serious. this was about a month ago, so im not even really sure why it was brought up now. if he had wanted me to bring it up for debate/discussion in our league, i would have obliged.

Not really much explained.

In fact, to an outsider, the only fishy thing that I see is that the guy who had an issue with this trade, who is also the Commissioner of the league, wound up with Cueto.

Now, I personally feel you're above that, because I've seen you around here long enough and am confident enough to make that presumption, but that is where the fishiness lies, from a third party perspective.

Waiver priority is a tradable entity, just like picks and players are. Even if smoove didn't have any intentions of trading for Cueto, discussing him with the guy who has #1 priority is fine. There's nothing wrong with "influencing" the league-mate to add Cueto, even if its just to trade him. Both teams are operating under pretenses that after the trade is said and done, both of their teams will be better off, in their own minds. There's nothing collusive about it. To those who either a) didn't get Cueto who may have if #1 had passed, or b) weren't able to pull off a trade in a similar fashion, there may be sour grapes, but to say its anything short of a reasonable, intelligent, fair team improvement strategy, in my opinion, is wrong.

Hell, during the off-season of a contract near-dynasty league I'm in, I made a trade with Rynman that included 3 of his FA Draft Picks that he hadn't even made yet. I knew there were 3 players who would be available at those picks who I wanted, and I had players on my roster already that I wanted. We agreed on a trade, and he selected the three players I wanted and immediately traded them to me. There was no collusion involved. I wanted my team to get better, and he wanted his to as well, and as it turned out, he got the better end of that deal; the bum. But, moral of the story is, there was nothing collusive about it. There was no undermining, just as there was none in the example smoove provided. Did I influence Ryn on who to take with his 3 Picks? Sure. We could've just as easily swapped players for picks, or in smoove's case, Priority #1 for player, and done it in a roundabout way, but the end result is the same, as is the owner to owner negotiation, so I fail to see how this even raises a red flag.

Oh well, there's my opinion.
Image
bigh0rt
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterGraphics ExpertMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerWeb SupporterPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 24818
(Past Year: 301)
Joined: 3 Jun 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Crowding The Plate

Re: Trading for Waiver Priority = Collusion?

Postby noseeum » Thu May 01, 2008 10:54 am

bigh0rt wrote:Not really much explained.

In fact, to an outsider, the only fishy thing that I see is that the guy who had an issue with this trade, who is also the Commissioner of the league, wound up with Cueto.

Now, I personally feel you're above that, because I've seen you around here long enough and am confident enough to make that presumption, but that is where the fishiness lies, from a third party perspective.

Waiver priority is a tradable entity, just like picks and players are. Even if smoove didn't have any intentions of trading for Cueto, discussing him with the guy who has #1 priority is fine. There's nothing wrong with "influencing" the league-mate to add Cueto, even if its just to trade him. Both teams are operating under pretenses that after the trade is said and done, both of their teams will be better off, in their own minds. There's nothing collusive about it. To those who either a) didn't get Cueto who may have if #1 had passed, or b) weren't able to pull off a trade in a similar fashion, there may be sour grapes, but to say its anything short of a reasonable, intelligent, fair team improvement strategy, in my opinion, is wrong.

Hell, during the off-season of a contract near-dynasty league I'm in, I made a trade with Rynman that included 3 of his FA Draft Picks that he hadn't even made yet. I knew there were 3 players who would be available at those picks who I wanted, and I had players on my roster already that I wanted. We agreed on a trade, and he selected the three players I wanted and immediately traded them to me. There was no collusion involved. I wanted my team to get better, and he wanted his to as well, and as it turned out, he got the better end of that deal; the bum. But, moral of the story is, there was nothing collusive about it. There was no undermining, just as there was none in the example smoove provided. Did I influence Ryn on who to take with his 3 Picks? Sure. We could've just as easily swapped players for picks, or in smoove's case, Priority #1 for player, and done it in a roundabout way, but the end result is the same, as is the owner to owner negotiation, so I fail to see how this even raises a red flag.

Oh well, there's my opinion.


Agree with it all. This just doesn't really make much sense:
trading waiver positions in general is definitely allowed, but to influence an owner that other-wise would not have made any action, seemed fishy to me.trading waiver positions in general is definitely allowed, but to influence an owner that other-wise would not have made any action, seemed fishy to me."
How else are you going to trade waiver positions? Otherwise you're just trading players.

"Hey, are you going to pick up Cueto?" "No." "Oh, OK. I guess I can't trade you for your waiver pick then. Let me know if you decide you want him because I'd love to have your #1 pick, which I would use to get Cueto, but I can only do that if you want Cueto, so just let me know."

The whole point of trading a waiver pick is to use it to get a guy. He actually puts himself in a weaker position by naming the player he wants. Most leagues don't have a mechanism for actually transferring the pick, so the only way to trade the pick is to ask the guy to pick the guy you want and trade him to you.

So as bigh0rt said, the only thing that looks fishy is you grabbing Cueto. I'm not saying it IS fishy, but it's the only thing that looks fishy.
noseeum
Major League Manager
Major League Manager


Posts: 1697
Joined: 1 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Trading for Waiver Priority = Collusion?

Postby converge241 » Thu May 01, 2008 12:10 pm

I always allow these as commish or have no issue when not

its a classic fantasy sign and trade

real life example:


the Reds didnt take Hamilton from the Rays in the Rule 5 draft last year, they worked out a trade with the Cubs to select him and obtain his rights. MLB didnt have to "veto" that

MLB teams cant trade regular draft picks so this was best example I could think of
"I'm the man with the ball. I'm the man who can throw it faster than F***. So that's why I'm better than anyone in the world." - Kenny Powers
converge241
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 3192
(Past Year: 100)
Joined: 19 Mar 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Massachusetts

Re: Trading for Waiver Priority = Collusion?

Postby great gretzky » Thu May 01, 2008 12:35 pm

teams talk all the time. Honestly, I don't even see what is so wrong with pointing out. It's different if its a "ghost ship" or something, and all of a sudden said team does something when they haven't been active. Influence isn't a command. You can suggest all you want. "Hey, I think Howard's having a rough spell, maybe you should sit him for jacobs, or better yet, pick up Jacobs and send him to me." I don't see what is collusive about it to be honest.
great gretzky
General Manager
General Manager

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

Re: Trading for Waiver Priority = Collusion?

Postby Rounders » Thu May 01, 2008 1:10 pm

Snakes Gould wrote:
bigh0rt wrote:There's nothing wrong with "influencing" the league-mate to add Cueto


thats the only problem i had it with. everything else you said is right, and in hindsight i guess it did look bad of me.

now i raise a question...if smoove had no intention of trading for cueto, and was just influencing a team to pick him up, would that be an issue? (this is merely a hypothetical and separate issue/question).


I think it depends on whether or not they commit to a trade. If he tells the other guy definitively that he will trade for "player x" for Cueto, just to back out of it, then I have a problem with that. But if they're just talking and he mentions that he'd be interested in Cueto, and the guy picks him up and they can't work out a deal, then that's the other guy's fault if he really didn't want Cueto.
I think something should be in your rules about having to submit a trade to the commish before the waiver is processed. That way, if either of them back out of it, the commish has the power to push it through (and if you don't have that power as commish, you at least have the power to lock the team from doing anything else).
Rounders
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 898
Joined: 18 Apr 2007
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Trading for Waiver Priority = Collusion?

Postby Matthias » Thu May 01, 2008 1:19 pm

Snakes Gould wrote:
bigh0rt wrote:There's nothing wrong with "influencing" the league-mate to add Cueto

thats the only problem i had it with. everything else you said is right, and in hindsight i guess it did look bad of me.

now i raise a question...if smoove had no intention of trading for cueto, and was just influencing a team to pick him up, would that be an issue? (this is merely a hypothetical and separate issue/question).

Right. This is where this issue starts moving away from a player trade and starts moving towards collusive behavior.

Say one guy (Person A) is in a tight race in September for first and he and his closest competition (Person B) are neck and neck in HR/Runs/RBIs and some big slugger is getting his first call-up. Person A is low on the priority chain; Person B has #2; and Person C has #1. So Person C, who is out of it, puts in a claim for the slugger to keep him away from Person B (at Person A's suggestion) because he and Person A are pals.

I think this is the type of situation that you have in mind? If so, I would frown upon it.
0-3 to 4-3. Worst choke in the history of baseball. Enough said.
Matthias
General Manager
General Manager


Posts: 4860
Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Trading for Waiver Priority = Collusion?

Postby bigh0rt » Thu May 01, 2008 3:42 pm

Snakes Gould wrote:
bigh0rt wrote:There's nothing wrong with "influencing" the league-mate to add Cueto


thats the only problem i had it with. everything else you said is right, and in hindsight i guess it did look bad of me.

now i raise a question...if smoove had no intention of trading for cueto, and was just influencing a team to pick him up, would that be an issue? (this is merely a hypothetical and separate issue/question).

In my opinion, no. If I had priority #1 and someone started asking me if I was going to pick up so and so, let's say for example, Scherzer. I had never heard of him. So he starts telling me what a stud he is, why he loves him, this that, and the other thing. Maybe he's trying to get me to use the #1 because he has #2 and wants the clear shot to Kershaw (who I am unaware of) later in the season. In the end, its still on me to make the decision based on what I think and what I know. He may have sold me on using my pick, maybe not, but all he's done is provided me with information, provided he hasn't lied to me (i.e. said Player X is injured when he really isn't). I don't think there's anything wrong with discussing players between teams -- during the draft I think its a no no but once all the cards are on the table, have at it. My entire league knows what I think of certain players; but they also know that I'm wrong about as often as I'm right, and I know that about them, too.

Example: I think Nate McLouth is riding on a hot April, and will fall of dramatically on May 10th, let's say. His owner thinks he's going to be worth 4th/5th Round value come August, and wouldn't trade him for Corey Hart, if I offered. Now, regardless of what he and I think, Nate's gonna do what Nate's gonna do. Yet, we both now know what each other think of the player, and where we stand. Maybe we discussed his end of last season, his percentages, his minor league numbers, but in the end, we each have our opinion of what we're projecting, and thus, we each value him differently. When I'm trying for a buy low, which by now all of my league-mates in every league are privy of being a regular strategy, I'll alert them of the risk of it being more than a slump, and offer to take on the risk, offering up more of a 'sure thing', in my opinion. Again, its all about my perception of Players X and Y from today forward vs his/hers. So, I guess my point is, I don't see any problem with league-mates discussing players that are on either or neither of their teams, whether they're in trade talks or not, or what have you. Because in the end, its up to each owner to make their own educated decisions, ultimately.
Image
bigh0rt
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterGraphics ExpertMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerWeb SupporterPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 24818
(Past Year: 301)
Joined: 3 Jun 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Crowding The Plate

Re: Trading for Waiver Priority = Collusion?

Postby xeifrank » Thu May 01, 2008 7:14 pm

I don't think this is collusion. The guy picks Cueto and then trades him. What's the big deal? Of course, he should get someone of high value as he is not only losing Cueto, but also the #1 waiver priority which could be used on someone like Kershaw later in the season. He should also shop around and look for other offers. He should announce to the league, that he is willing to pick up and trade Cueto to the highest bidder. If you are the highest bidder then so be it.
vr, Xeifrank
Author of: 2013 Mock Draft Software
Author of: Dodger Sims
Author of: The Sober Angels
Author of: Xei On Sports
xeifrank
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 959
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 24 Jan 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: SoCal

Previous

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2015 MLB season starts in 3:49 hours
(and 92 days)

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