Ethics Question?!? Experts needed.

[great gretzky]

I didn't read as carefully as i should have.

That said, I think ti is a bit different with closers than SP's. it is always a race to get them.

I didn;t say this was wise, in fact, in a perverse way it makes it more fair with closers, as the highest priority will get him.

I know what everyone is saying though -- I think he should pick him up then trade two closers for one better one. But it ain't my team.

I will add that all is fair in love and war, and anyone remember the waiver debacle with canseco and the yankees? don't think it doesn't ahppen in real life either. moves to blcok opponents happen all the time.

I would refrain from doing this as you stated. jsut pick him up and trade him. nothing wrong with that.

[waffle_prince]

If you're playing in a public league, doing any of the things above that have been defined as churning are unethical, if you ask me. I play in a league with friends that has a roster move limit, which prevents excessive transactions. If somebody in my league wanted to churn, they could go right ahead, but it would probably hurt them in the long run if they did it frequently.

[matmat]

well... isn't this roughly what the yanks did with jose conseco a few years back? I guess they kept him on the roster though, so that is different.

If your only purpose is to hinder your opponent from picking up the player in time to use him for next week then what you are doing is unethical and you probably should not do it.

If you pick up the guy and stash him on your team and not play him, but keep him on the roster (without starting him) for a few weeks while actively looking for trades then that's fine. You're essentially trying to corner the market on closers and trade from a position of power. Of course others might notice that you have more relievers than you need and try not to give you full value.

[Chopper]

Since its almost impossible for a commish to rule on 'intent', I think that this is a little more complex than some of the above 'higher ground' opinions. Don't get me wrong, I always try to err on the side of unquestionable ethics.
However, if he comes to the same roster moves saying:
"I've got a bench guy or two who is expendable and won't play unless I have injuries. Valverde is available and insurance for my closers is more important than for my 5th starter. I will pick up Valverde and if someone more valuable to my roster is available later, I'll change him out."
The moves would be identical and I don't think that anyone could question the transactions.
I don't necessarily think its right to pick up players that you don't intend to use. However, without roster limits, the team is better off with Valverde right now. I say make the move. Who knows... Izzy could pull up lame after his next pitch.

[crapshooter]

Just quit playing in those sissy mixed leagues and you won't have to worry about having four or five closers