FF ethics question (1 Viewer)

[Wrigley]

Nowhere was I insulting. The 2 teams are ganging up on the opponent of the one keeping Julio the extra week by drawing 1 team from 2 rosters. It's been stated several different ways.

Well, you are beginning to sound like "you can't get this because you are too stupid":

The reason has already been explained, you just continue to ignore it....End of story.

oh god

 

[loompa17]

Just because you keep repeating that does not make it true.

I keep repeating because others are repeating the same arguments to me.

The big difference is that in one istance a team has decided to punt on the sesaon (presumedly because it's alreay bad and has already at a competitive disadvantage anyway) and is looking to help his team in subsequent years - there isn't any future deal (the torrow commodity is an issue of semantics), the assets change hands immediately.Here an opponent unfairly must play a team getting a player for free this week. It also opens the can of worms I've re-posted above.

I suppose I see where you are coming from. Maybe. What if every team had a card that says "Beanie Wells week 5", "Julio Jones week 5", "Julio Jones week 6", etc(I'm using that as a stand-in for the asset). You could trade those cards away at will. You could your Julio Jones week 5 card to one team, who could trade it to another team, and so on.

 

[two_dollars]

Forget it, I tried, I'm out..

 

[Wrigley]

Forget it, I tried, I'm out..

:swimsaway:

 

[loompa17]

it's a single arrangement, but two trades. and given that the second trade happens later than the first, the arrangement is indeed 'prior' at that point.and it's not at all like trading for draft picks, nor is it like trading for currently injured players. the collusive element isn't when the players arrive, but when the trades happen. here we have what could be a single reciprocal trade being split into two non-reciprocal trades. if those trades are separate, then either party could back out of the second trade. if those trades are bound together, then the agreement to do so is collusive -- even if a commish joins the collusion by enforcing it.it's glorified player rental and just as collusive.

I buy that. But... I said earlier, what if the league software were to allow it to be possible to have a time-capsulated trade. The trade occurs next week automatically. Would you be okay with it then?

you would still have two non-reciprocal trades bound by a collusive agreement -- just with the software jumping in instead of a commish.and the time between the trades doesn't encapsulate them, it divides them. it's the primary reason why this is a single arrangement of two trades, not a single 'time-capsulated' trade. one arrangement, two trades.

Okay. I'm not sure why there is something wrong with it though. I suppose it centers around the adjective 'collusive' that you state. I'm not sure I see it as collusive. Collusion to me when one side is giving away their assets to another side for nothing. That's not the case here. I know you were involved in a discussion about the term collusion earlier on this thread, so I'll go back and read what you stated then.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Just because you keep repeating that does not make it true.

I keep repeating because others are repeating the same arguments to me.

The big difference is that in one istance a team has decided to punt on the sesaon (presumedly because it's alreay bad and has already at a competitive disadvantage anyway) and is looking to help his team in subsequent years - there isn't any future deal (the torrow commodity is an issue of semantics), the assets change hands immediately.Here an opponent unfairly must play a team getting a player for free this week. It also opens the can of worms I've re-posted above.

I suppose I see where you are coming from. Maybe. What if every team had a card that says "Beanie Wells week 5", "Julio Jones week 5", "Julio Jones week 6", etc(I'm using that as a stand-in for the asset). You could trade those cards away at will. You could your Julio Jones week 5 card to one team, who could trade it to another team, and so on.

But you are the one making the statement that this scenario is the same thing as some one that trades a player for a pick in a dynasty league without exactly explaining how it's the same thing. Others have pointed out how it's not the same thing a number of times. The extent you have to go to create such an outlandish scenario ("Julio Jones Week 6 Card") should tell you that you're arguing just for the sake of argument. You also fail to address what happens in the future when some one does a similiar type of trade in order to hurt his trading partner's opponent who he needs to lose - which is the real issue why these type of trades should not be allowed.

 

[Saint]

Forget it, I tried, I'm out..

:swimsaway:

Wrigley... man you had me cracking up. What this thread really needs is a :IBTL:

 

[The_Wolfman]

Sharing players is collusion, period

/thread

 

[Amused to Death]

Forget it, I tried, I'm out..

:swimsaway:

Wrigley... man you had me cracking up. What this thread really needs is a :IBTL:

This thread was useful to me so I can make sure all of my leagues going forward have rules that explicitly disallows player sharing - as well as collusion. And something to the effect that "all transactions must stand on their own merit without future considerations"

 

[loompa17]

But you are the one making the statement that this scenario is the same thing as some one that trades a player for a pick in a dynasty league without exactly explaining how it's the same thing. Others have pointed out how it's not the same thing a number of times.

Sorry, I thought I had. In fact as I explain it I know I'm repeating myself again...I see it as the same thing because one team is giving up their current assets for future considerations. They weaken their current team in order to strengthen their future team. In the Julio/Beanie trade, it is the same sort of thing. One team gives up Beanie NOW for the future consideration of holding Beanie. What others have pointed out to me is that it isn't right in the Julio/Beanie trade because it is only one week apart. I don't see that as a convincing argument. Unless the one week is a malicious attack towards that week 5 opponent. As I've stated, if I would have knowledge that that is the case, I wouldn't be behind the trade.

The extent you have to go to create such an outlandish scenario ("Julio Jones Week 6 Card") should tell you that you're arguing just for the sake of argument. You also fail to address what happens in the future when some one does a similiar type of trade in order to hurt his trading partner's opponent who he needs to lose - which is the real issue why these type of trades should not be allowed.

I'm not trying to go to an outlandish scenario, I'm just trying to restate the way it fits together in my head for others to understand.In the case you describe here, it really begins to look like this malicious attack I described above. I don't like the idea of making this type of trade with any part of the reasoning behind it having to do with who the week 5 opponent is.Now (I can hear you saying): how would a commish ever be able to separate the intentions behind these types of trades? And that is a good argument. Somebody said 'slippery slope' before and I do see that. Hmm.

 

[loompa17]

Sharing players is collusion, period

/thread

See now these are the intelligent postings that make the Shark Pool what it is.Seriously though, I do appreciate the intelligent discussion from people like ready5 and Dr. Octopus.

 

[loompa17]

the common sense of collusion is that it involves acts when parties are 'playing with' instead of 'playing against'. if two teams are engaging in non-reciprocal exchanges for their mutual benefit, then they're cooperating instead of competing. that's collusion.

I'm going back to your comments here about the definition of collusion. If you are saying there are "two non-reciprocal trades bound by a {collusive} agreement". I really question your use of the word collusive in that statement. Each of the two non-reciprocal trades, taken separately, do look collusive. But the agreement, the overall agreement, is not. It is 'playing against', not 'playing with'.

 

[kutta]

I really can't tell if loompa is or not.

Loompa, just answer this: Is it fair to the Julio/Beanie opponent for week 5 that he has to face the team that traded Beanie for a scrub. We all know that in "real life," things like future considerations etc. come into play. But we are talking about FF, and someone has to face a team that basically received a player for free for one week.

This is not a dynasty league, so trading players for future draft picks does not apply. Please don't bring that up. It also is not the same thing as going against a superior player (Aaron Rogers). That is just the nature of FF and drafting. So please don't bring that up.

Just answer the question. Is it fair to the Beanie/Julio opponent that he as to face a team that traded Beanie for a scrub for that week.

 

[loompa17]

I really can't tell if loompa is or not.Loompa, just answer this: Is it fair to the Julio/Beanie opponent for week 5 that he has to face the team that traded Beanie for a scrub. We all know that in "real life," things like future considerations etc. come into play. But we are talking about FF, and someone has to face a team that basically received a player for free for one week. This is not a dynasty league, so trading players for future draft picks does not apply. Please don't bring that up. It also is not the same thing as going against a superior player (Aaron Rogers). That is just the nature of FF and drafting. So please don't bring that up.Just answer the question. Is it fair to the Beanie/Julio opponent that he as to face a team that traded Beanie for a scrub for that week.

I think I've answered that already. If the trade was made with the intention to be malicious towards that week 5 opponent, then it is not fair. If the trade was made just because that the teams were trying to make their teams better (no consideration towards "screwing over his opponent"), then the trade is fair. The conclusion that I've reached (as I alluded to in a reply to Dr Octopus) is that it is going to be very difficult to discern the intention of the trading partners in this type of trade. Therefore the precedent that would be set is probably a path that should not be gone down.

 

[kutta]

I really can't tell if loompa is or not.Loompa, just answer this: Is it fair to the Julio/Beanie opponent for week 5 that he has to face the team that traded Beanie for a scrub. We all know that in "real life," things like future considerations etc. come into play. But we are talking about FF, and someone has to face a team that basically received a player for free for one week. This is not a dynasty league, so trading players for future draft picks does not apply. Please don't bring that up. It also is not the same thing as going against a superior player (Aaron Rogers). That is just the nature of FF and drafting. So please don't bring that up.Just answer the question. Is it fair to the Beanie/Julio opponent that he as to face a team that traded Beanie for a scrub for that week.

I think I've answered that already. If the trade was made with the intention to be malicious towards that week 5 opponent, then it is not fair. If the trade was made just because that the teams were trying to make their teams better (no consideration towards "screwing over his opponent"), then the trade is fair. The conclusion that I've reached (as I alluded to in a reply to Dr Octopus) is that it is going to be very difficult to discern the intention of the trading partners in this type of trade. Therefore the precedent that would be set is probably a path that should not be gone down.

Gotcha. OK. So we can put a bow on this thing and move on.

 

[Short Corner]

I'm strictly playing devil's advocate here but I'm not convinced this isn't anything more than people's reluctance to attach value to time in a fantasy football context. It's not unlike trading derivatives - the right to buy or sell something at a specific price within a specific period of time. The concept here is that the period of time the one owner has Jones and Wells is perceived to be part of the value exchanged.If you don't want "complex" transactions like this in your league, fine (for the record I wouldn't either) but I'm just not feeling the moral indignation on this...

It would probably help if you knew how derivatives work.

 

[Short Corner]

this is textbook collusion.

especially if the textbook is a dictionary.

fixed your post.i'm getting the impression that some people in this thread just don't have a handle on what collusion actually is. and my earlier point about this actually being two trades is that the first trade isn't collusive, but the second trade certainly is if either party views it as binding.making trades contingent on future trades is glorified player rental. not sure why this isn't obvious to everyone. it's textbook collusion, period.

You're the one that doesn't have a handle on what collusion actually is. You might try looking it up before you proceed any further in this discussion.This trade is crap and should be disallowed, but not on the grounds that it is collusive. It's not.

Collusion, for all intents and purposes as it pertains to FF is two or more owners working in cooperation to gain an unfair competitive advantage. Whether it is secretive or not is beside the point. Blatant player dumping is not collusion by definition, but would be overturned in leagues that allow vetoes for collusion only. Let's keep the semantic arguments to the Dungeon and Dragons thread over in the FFA.

 

[Short Corner]

The one being colluded against is the one playing Wells and Julio. It is roster sharing to create an unfair advantage against them.Would this kind of trade go through in the NFL? Would it be fair to Tue team having to play against both "traded" parties at the same time?No commish worth his salt would allow this to happen. I guarantee Goodell wouldn't allow it.

I don't know... NFL teams have made trades that include "a player to be named later". Using that I could see how NFL teams could swing a trade similar to the Beanie/Julio deal being described.

 

[bryhamm]

well, that was a good way to close out a friday afternoon.

 

[B Maverick]

I am really surprised this is still going. And it seems to be since Loompa wants to attached a designation of "today assets" and "tomorrow assest" based on a typical dynasty draft pick trade. I think it was pointed out that the belief that the pick is a tomorrow asset is the issue. The PICK is the asset and can be used as such. Not the player you would draft. All teams have a set roster limit and the same draft picks to use in trades, lineups, etc. So trading them, even a player for a pick does not upset the balance. Every team has the same assets.

What this trade does is allows a team to loan a player to another for a week. Team A gets Julio Jones on loan AND gets to start Wells. Then the next week the loan is over and Jones moves to another team.

I am not sure there is ANY league that would allow you to loan a player. And I really dont see it any differently then if I traded my backup QB (Say Fitzpatrick) to you to cover a bye week and then the following week we swapped back.

 

[B Maverick]

I am really surprised this is still going. And it seems to be since Loompa wants to attached a designation of "today assets" and "tomorrow assest" based on a typical dynasty draft pick trade. I think it was pointed out that the belief that the pick is a tomorrow asset is the issue. The PICK is the asset and can be used as such. Not the player you would draft. All teams have a set roster limit and the same draft picks to use in trades, lineups, etc. So trading them, even a player for a pick does not upset the balance. Every team has the same assets.

What this trade does is allows a team to loan a player to another for a week. Team A gets Julio Jones on loan AND gets to start Wells. Then the next week the loan is over and Jones moves to another team.

I am not sure there is ANY league that would allow you to loan a player. And I really dont see it any differently then if I traded my backup QB (Say Fitzpatrick) to you to cover a bye week and then the following week we swapped back.

 

[habsfan]

I'm strictly playing devil's advocate here but I'm not convinced this isn't anything more than people's reluctance to attach value to time in a fantasy football context. It's not unlike trading derivatives - the right to buy or sell something at a specific price within a specific period of time. The concept here is that the period of time the one owner has Jones and Wells is perceived to be part of the value exchanged.If you don't want "complex" transactions like this in your league, fine (for the record I wouldn't either) but I'm just not feeling the moral indignation on this...

It would probably help if you knew how derivatives work.

I have my securities licence but please feel free to point out where I'm off track.

 

[ookook]

Definately not allowed in any league that I am commissioner.

Every trade has to stand on its own. I would veto each on its own.

If not, 3 teams could rotate around to avoid bye weeks against the other 9. Nope.

 

[loompa17]

The one being colluded against is the one playing Wells and Julio. It is roster sharing to create an unfair advantage against them.

Would this kind of trade go through in the NFL? Would it be fair to Tue team having to play against both "traded" parties at the same time?

No commish worth his salt would allow this to happen. I guarantee Goodell wouldn't allow it.

I don't know... NFL teams have made trades that include "a player to be named later". Using that I could see how NFL teams could swing a trade similar to the Beanie/Julio deal being described.

I don't know if I should keep replying in this thread. I've been converted. I don't have near as much of a problem with it as most, but I now see how allowing it might cause for a "ganging up" kind of abuse.I have replied because I wonder kind of link you are asking for. Here is an old link that shows NFL teams have used "a player to be named later": LINK. As someone else already stated, this is NOT a trade where a primary player was the player to be named later.

 

[loompa17]

I am really surprised this is still going. And it seems to be since Loompa wants to attached a designation of "today assets" and "tomorrow assest" based on a typical dynasty draft pick trade. I think it was pointed out that the belief that the pick is a tomorrow asset is the issue. The PICK is the asset and can be used as such. Not the player you would draft. All teams have a set roster limit and the same draft picks to use in trades, lineups, etc. So trading them, even a player for a pick does not upset the balance. Every team has the same assets. What this trade does is allows a team to loan a player to another for a week. Team A gets Julio Jones on loan AND gets to start Wells. Then the next week the loan is over and Jones moves to another team.I am not sure there is ANY league that would allow you to loan a player. And I really dont see it any differently then if I traded my backup QB (Say Fitzpatrick) to you to cover a bye week and then the following week we swapped back.

I won't respond to the first two paragraphs. I think I've pretty well said everything I could on that point. As for the third paragraph, I totally see it as different. What purpose would you get out of trading Fitzpatrick (even knowing you are going to get him back)? What do you get out of the deal? You get to help out a buddy? There is no argument from me that is collusion.The proposed Julio/Beanie deal is different. One team is trading 10 weeks of Julio in exchange for 9 weeks of Beanie (or however many number of weeks). Both teams gain something there. That is why it isn't the same.

 

[Short Corner]

I'm strictly playing devil's advocate here but I'm not convinced this isn't anything more than people's reluctance to attach value to time in a fantasy football context. It's not unlike trading derivatives - the right to buy or sell something at a specific price within a specific period of time. The concept here is that the period of time the one owner has Jones and Wells is perceived to be part of the value exchanged.If you don't want "complex" transactions like this in your league, fine (for the record I wouldn't either) but I'm just not feeling the moral indignation on this...

It would probably help if you knew how derivatives work.

I have my securities licence but please feel free to point out where I'm off track.

Go ahead and point out the premiums, option to exercise, target and strike assets as they pertain to your crappy analogy.If you want I can wait until Monday so you can ask someone while you are on your mail run.

 

[Short Corner]

The one being colluded against is the one playing Wells and Julio. It is roster sharing to create an unfair advantage against them.

Would this kind of trade go through in the NFL? Would it be fair to Tue team having to play against both "traded" parties at the same time?

No commish worth his salt would allow this to happen. I guarantee Goodell wouldn't allow it.

I don't know... NFL teams have made trades that include "a player to be named later". Using that I could see how NFL teams could swing a trade similar to the Beanie/Julio deal being described.

I don't know if I should keep replying in this thread. I've been converted. I don't have near as much of a problem with it as most, but I now see how allowing it might cause for a "ganging up" kind of abuse.I have replied because I wonder kind of link you are asking for. Here is an old link that shows NFL teams have used "a player to be named later": LINK. As someone else already stated, this is NOT a trade where a primary player was the player to be named later.

Do you have a link to a trade that was made during the actual season? A trade in March doesn't really qualify for our purposes.

 

[Jersey35]

I'm strictly playing devil's advocate here but I'm not convinced this isn't anything more than people's reluctance to attach value to time in a fantasy football context. It's not unlike trading derivatives - the right to buy or sell something at a specific price within a specific period of time. The concept here is that the period of time the one owner has Jones and Wells is perceived to be part of the value exchanged.If you don't want "complex" transactions like this in your league, fine (for the record I wouldn't either) but I'm just not feeling the moral indignation on this...

It would probably help if you knew how derivatives work.

I have my securities licence but please feel free to point out where I'm off track.

Go ahead and point out the premiums, option to exercise, target and strike assets as they pertain to your crappy analogy.If you want I can wait until Monday so you can ask someone while you are on your mail run.

Wow, you're a piece of work. Maybe you could pick up a dictionary after your route and learn a bit about analogies.

 

[Topes]

Roster pooling is collusion.

 

[Lash]

if you allow this one, go ahead and get ready for ALL KINDS of interesting "future considerations" deals