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.