Page 3 of 6

Re: Trading for Waiver Priority = Collusion?

PostPosted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 10:14 am
by Matthias
Tavish wrote:
Snakes Gould wrote:a definition of collusion:

collusion takes place within an industry when rival companies cooperate for their mutual benefit.

So you consider every single trade to be collusion because that defines a trade perfectly?

Trade does fall under the broad definition of collusion. After the Sherman Antitrust Act had been passed, the Supreme Court had to figure out how to deal with businesses doing things, since even a buy contract is technically the, "restraint of trade" that the Sherman Act outlawed. They decided in the Standard Oil case to thread the needle by inserting into the statute the word, "unreasonable" in front of, "restraint of trade": http://encarta.msn.com/sidebar_76159404 ... trust.html
[/end lecture]

So Snakes definition is technically correct for the broad version of collusion. It's just not one that anyone goes after.

Re: Trading for Waiver Priority = Collusion?

PostPosted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 10:14 am
by 5
Yet another reason why waivers are lame. Free yourselves and get rid of the waivers setup.

Re: Trading for Waiver Priority = Collusion?

PostPosted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 10:31 am
by Matthias
5 wrote:Yet another reason why waivers are lame. Free yourselves and get rid of the waivers setup.

I disagree. In our league, every transaction goes through waivers. It doesn't matter if they were just dropped, just brought up, or have been sitting there available for 2 years. The logic is that it rewards players who keep on top of things (they run daily) but it isn't a mad dash to free agents if someone like sharazad is promoted. And if a guy is in a meeting or at lunch or just has sports websites blocked, he still has as a good a chance as anyone else at picking someone up.

Re: Trading for Waiver Priority = Collusion?

PostPosted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 10:33 am
by The Cow
There is nothing wrong with trading for waiver priority. However in this case the "x" should have been defined. All you really need to do is say you claim Cueto and I deal you Burrell. For example. Not "x". The deal has to be worked out in advance especially if you involve the commish.

The Cow

Re: Trading for Waiver Priority = Collusion?

PostPosted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 10:47 am
by JakeTrain72
Waiver Wire Priority has value and you should be able to use that value to improve your team. Thus, I feel trades involving waiver wire priority are not collusion and should be allowed. However, you do need to look at what you are trading more closely.

In the scenario outlined in orignal post, isn't trading his priority. He is using his priority and then trading the guy he obtained. In doing this, you get Cueto AND move up in priority while he loses his priority and gets "x." Not saying it is a bad deal, but when figuring out the true value of the trade you cannot overlook the fact you gain more by making him pick up the player first.

I think it is much more fair to swap prioities. you give him "x" and #9 priority for his #1 priority. Then you can put the claim in yourself.

Re: Trading for Waiver Priority = Collusion?

PostPosted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 10:52 am
by noseeum
JakeTrain72 wrote:Waiver Wire Priority has value and you should be able to use that value to improve your team. Thus, I feel trades involving waiver wire priority are not collusion and should be allowed. However, you do need to look at what you are trading more closely.

In the scenario outlined in orignal post, isn't trading his priority. He is using his priority and then trading the guy he obtained. In doing this, you get Cueto AND move up in priority while he loses his priority and gets "x." Not saying it is a bad deal, but when figuring out the true value of the trade you cannot overlook the fact you gain more by making him pick up the player first.

I think it is much more fair to swap prioities. you give him "x" and #9 priority for his #1 priority. Then you can put the claim in yourself.


Good idea, but I'm not sure that's possible in every league.

Re: Trading for Waiver Priority = Collusion?

PostPosted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 11:07 am
by great gretzky
noseeum wrote:
JakeTrain72 wrote:Waiver Wire Priority has value and you should be able to use that value to improve your team. Thus, I feel trades involving waiver wire priority are not collusion and should be allowed. However, you do need to look at what you are trading more closely.

In the scenario outlined in orignal post, isn't trading his priority. He is using his priority and then trading the guy he obtained. In doing this, you get Cueto AND move up in priority while he loses his priority and gets "x." Not saying it is a bad deal, but when figuring out the true value of the trade you cannot overlook the fact you gain more by making him pick up the player first.

I think it is much more fair to swap prioities. you give him "x" and #9 priority for his #1 priority. Then you can put the claim in yourself.


Good idea, but I'm not sure that's possible in every league.


commish can redo the prioty in private Yahoo leagues. I think that is the fairest thing.

Re: Trading for Waiver Priority = Collusion?

PostPosted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:10 pm
by flloyd
Matthias wrote:
5 wrote:Yet another reason why waivers are lame. Free yourselves and get rid of the waivers setup.

I disagree. In our league, every transaction goes through waivers. It doesn't matter if they were just dropped, just brought up, or have been sitting there available for 2 years. The logic is that it rewards players who keep on top of things (they run daily) but it isn't a mad dash to free agents if someone like sharazad is promoted. And if a guy is in a meeting or at lunch or just has sports websites blocked, he still has as a good a chance as anyone else at picking someone up.


I agree, not having waivers is really lame. It rewards people who simply happen to be at the computer when big news breaks (prospect called up, player being injured, pitcher getting the closer's job, etc) rather then rewarding those who make the most intelligent/savvy decisions. Most people have jobs, real lives, families, hobbies and aren't 100% dedicated to FBB 24/7.

BTW Matthias - what site or settings are you using to require waivers for all transactions? I was thinking of proposing this to my league since most of us are really busy and i think most would appreciate this. How exactly does it work? If I want to pick up a free agent does that silently start some 48 hour waiver timer or something? Thanks.

Re: Trading for Waiver Priority = Collusion?

PostPosted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 1:05 pm
by 5
Matthias wrote:
5 wrote:Yet another reason why waivers are lame. Free yourselves and get rid of the waivers setup.

I disagree. In our league, every transaction goes through waivers. It doesn't matter if they were just dropped, just brought up, or have been sitting there available for 2 years. The logic is that it rewards players who keep on top of things (they run daily) but it isn't a mad dash to free agents if someone like sharazad is promoted. And if a guy is in a meeting or at lunch or just has sports websites blocked, he still has as a good a chance as anyone else at picking someone up.


Considering how many leagues use waivers, I suspect most people agree with you. I would just rather have the freedom to pick up a player whenever without having to wait around. Sportsline, no waivers ;-D

Re: Trading for Waiver Priority = Collusion?

PostPosted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 1:17 pm
by Fpower
This is absolutely not collusion...but the person you're trying to arrange this with should feel no obligation to trade with you just because he picks up Cueto. As someone said, you alerted him to the fact that Cueto has value. You did this in the hopes of getting Cueto on your team. That's perfectly fine, but you hold no leverage in this arrangement. If the owner is smart, he should pick up Cueto and then shop him around (if he decides not to keep him outright).

Of course, if he's not smart, and agrees to a trade before he tests the market, you shouldn't be held accountable. The other managers should get mad at him for being stupid, not at you for trying to win.