Unethical? Owner revealing other owner's trade offer...

[B-Chad]

I do this as a matter of general practice. I'm not usually so blunt about it, but I think it's a requirement that you shop deals like this. If you don't, you're doing yourself - and the entire league - a disservice by potentially entering into a deal where you aren't getting maximum value for both parties.

Along these same lines, I once posted a suggestion in a collusion thread recommending that leagues with a collusive/ignorance problem should allow a 24-48 hour, counteroffer window. The general idea works like this: Two teams would post their deal, and the rest of the league has 1-2 days to publicly post a counteroffer. This method would make collusion blatantly obvious, while also helping to protect naive owners from their own ignorance.

I've often thought that the "perfect world" scenario would have all trade negotiations happening in public. Of course, that's not possible. There will always be side conversations, and you can't prevent that. But pertinent to the OP's question, I believe any action that brings negotiations into a quasi-public state will only help and will never hurt.

I actually wonder how a league would work if every trade offer you make goes to every league member in your league. It would be interesting to see how the league would unfold, knowing that every offer you make is public, I guess the idea of buying low would pretty much disappear .

One of my co-workers when interning used, and swore by the suggested method in his keeper league. I was intrigued by the thought, but feared that a fair deal could turn into a monster firesale if, for instance, the basement team realizes a player is on the market they didn't suspect. Then it would be like your work of going through finding out what it would take to acquire a player goes out the window, to a team simply selling off all their useful non-keeper assets. In a re-draft league I'd be more inclined to accept this method since there wouldn't be firesales.

[vykeengfan]

I do this as a matter of general practice. I'm not usually so blunt about it, but I think it's a requirement that you shop deals like this. If you don't, you're doing yourself - and the entire league - a disservice by potentially entering into a deal where you aren't getting maximum value for both parties.

Along these same lines, I once posted a suggestion in a collusion thread recommending that leagues with a collusive/ignorance problem should allow a 24-48 hour, counteroffer window. The general idea works like this: Two teams would post their deal, and the rest of the league has 1-2 days to publicly post a counteroffer. This method would make collusion blatantly obvious, while also helping to protect naive owners from their own ignorance.

I've often thought that the "perfect world" scenario would have all trade negotiations happening in public. Of course, that's not possible. There will always be side conversations, and you can't prevent that. But pertinent to the OP's question, I believe any action that brings negotiations into a quasi-public state will only help and will never hurt.

I actually wonder how a league would work if every trade offer you make goes to every league member in your league. It would be interesting to see how the league would unfold, knowing that every offer you make is public, I guess the idea of buying low would pretty much disappear .

One of my co-workers when interning used, and swore by the suggested method in his keeper league. I was intrigued by the thought, but feared that a fair deal could turn into a monster firesale if, for instance, the basement team realizes a player is on the market they didn't suspect. Then it would be like your work of going through finding out what it would take to acquire a player goes out the window, to a team simply selling off all their useful non-keeper assets. In a re-draft league I'd be more inclined to accept this method since there wouldn't be firesales.

Great discussion so far, guys. Here's another question - Isn't this what the trade veto period is all about? I guess this would be good for leagues that have instant trades, but for those that are allowed league vetoes, I think that should suffice.

[cs3]

before i read your post i just assumed you meant that the commish told you about another owners trade offer that neither of you were involved in - which would be highly unethical.

but what actually happened is perfectly fine, and should be expected.
if i get offers from multiple owners for one of my players, im sure as hell going to try to get them into a bidding war

[SecretAgentMan]

Earlier an owner in my league who I've been having informal trade discussions with told me an offer that another owner(our commish) offered him for the same player I was targeting. He then asked if I could top the offer. Would you guys consider this unethical? It sucks cuz we're all friends in this league, too. I was hanging w/ our commish and he even told me he was in discussions for a big trade. Should I tell the commish? I told the other guy to just look at my roster and make me a deal.
What do you guys think?

I have no problem with in general. There are some conditions though:
1. If an owner says he has offer X from team Y\mentions specific players, then bluffing or lieing on that is not acceptable. It is OK to say I have a better offer when you may not (that is part of the game). It is wrong to say owner X has offered you a package that includes such and such players when he has not. The minute you bring the name\reputation of another owner into the mix you cross the line over to having to tell the complete truth. If you have an offer though, shopping around for a better one is perfectly acceptable.
2. If you agree to a deal, then that is it. You should not agree and continue to shop around. If you want to shop around, then have the courtesy to tell the other owner you will think about it\will get back to them later.