An Iconic Fantasy Baseball Community
Moderator: Baseball Moderators
JMB05 wrote:What part is unethical?
Maximizing the trade value of a player?
He sounds like a smart manager.
vykeengfan wrote:Thanks for the feedback, all.
I was just thinking about the other owner, and I wasn't sure how I would feel if my trade offer was revealed to others. I also didn't want to do anything that might be construed as collusion.
BitterDodgerFan wrote:that's true... how do you know that you're not being lied to?
vykeengfan wrote:I was just thinking about the other owner, and I wasn't sure how I would feel if my trade offer was revealed to others.
thedude wrote:vykeengfan wrote:I was just thinking about the other owner, and I wasn't sure how I would feel if my trade offer was revealed to others.
It probably was revealed to the other guy...
StlSluggers wrote: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.
Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 1 guest