Good strategy or poor sportsmanship? (1 Viewer)

[footballfreek]

In one of my dynasty league I hold several 1st round rookie picks for the 07-rookie draft.

The 4 worst records will get the top 4 picks. The other 6 make the playoffs.

Would it be good strategy or poor sportsmanship to trade to a team during the season to help push that team into the playoffs to keep them from getting one of those picks if I don’t own that pick?

 

[Man of Constant Sorrow]

As a commish, I would view that as collusion, unless there is something written in the rules to allow such a "2 team effort"

 

[AnonymousBob]

As long as it's not collusion and it helps both teams, do whatever trades you feel will best improve your team. I need more info but it doesn't sound like poor sportsmanship. Poor strategy, yes. But not poor sportsmanship.

 

[GregR_2]

In one of my dynasty league I hold several 1st round rookie picks for the 07-rookie draft. The 4 worst records will get the top 4 picks. The other 6 make the playoffs.Would it be good strategy or poor sportsmanship to trade to a team during the season to help push that team into the playoffs to keep them from getting one of those picks if I don’t own that pick?

It would be collusion.

 

[doughboydeluxe]

As long as it's not collusion and it helps both teams, do whatever trades you feel will best improve your team. I need more info but it doesn't sound like poor sportsmanship. Poor strategy, yes. But not poor sportsmanship.

If you want to disable your team to try and improve your draft order by a place or two, be my guest.

 

[Joseph]

In one of my dynasty league I hold several 1st round rookie picks for the 07-rookie draft. The 4 worst records will get the top 4 picks. The other 6 make the playoffs.Would it be good strategy or poor sportsmanship to trade to a team during the season to help push that team into the playoffs to keep them from getting one of those picks if I don’t own that pick?

It would be collusion.

I don't know if its collusion, but it doesn't make sense either.You're looking to gain draft spot or 2 out of it... I don't know if you'll be able to make a trade that will push someone into the playoffs by giving up less than that in the process.

 

[TommyGilmore]

As a commish, I would view that as collusion, unless there is something written in the rules to allow such a "2 team effort"

It's not collusion if the other team doesn't know your motives.

 

[BoulderBob]

Sure it's called tanking, and it happens in every professional sport. Just don't make it obvious. If you feel it will help your team in the long-run, I don't have a problem with it. Only a commish who rules with an iron fist would shoot this down using "collusion" as his reason. David Stern doesn't do it, and neither should you.

 

[elpasotexan]

Pronunciation: k&-'lü-zh&n

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin collusion-, collusio, from colludere

: secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose

Webster-Merriman

An agreement is necessary. An agreement involves two people intentionally and knowingly engaging in a secret agreement. I agree, it is not collusion if the other party does not have the mens rea - the criminal mind or intent.

Strategy.

Edited for spelling

 

[bostonfred]

It's not collusion, but it's against the spirit of the game. You're trying to manipulate the situation so that the winner is not the person with the most skill, but the person you want to win. It's probably not illegal, but it's questionable ethically, and it may make it hard to trade with you in the future. If I were one of the guys you'd traded with to get a #1 pick, and I found out that once you had my #1, you'd make trades with all of my opponents to sink me for the rest of the year, I'd never, ever trade you a #1 pick again, and I doubt anyone in the league ever will again, either.

 

[jaemcy3]

As a commish, I would view that as collusion, unless there is something written in the rules to allow such a "2 team effort"

It's not collusion if the other team doesn't know your motives.

False.It's collusion when two teams work together to give one team an advantage over the other teams in the league. It doesn't matter who knows about it.If you want to tank your team all year to get the first pick that's a differrent story. If you are doing what you suggest you are helping one team over the others and someone will get cheated out of a playoff spot that they deserve. If someone is in that shouldn't be then someone is out that should be in.

 

[bostonfred]

Sure it's called tanking, and it happens in every professional sport. Just don't make it obvious. If you feel it will help your team in the long-run, I don't have a problem with it. Only a commish who rules with an iron fist would shoot this down using "collusion" as his reason. David Stern doesn't do it, and neither should you.

It's one thing to tank his own team. He's trying to tank other people's teams so their picks will be more valuable. There's a huge difference.

 

[redman]

As a commish, I would view that as collusion, unless there is something written in the rules to allow such a "2 team effort"

It's not collusion if the other team doesn't know your motives.

Exactly. Collusion requires coordination between two or more owners. One acting alone doesn't count, and would be called "motive", not collusion.

 

[DoubleG]

As a commish, I would view that as collusion, unless there is something written in the rules to allow such a "2 team effort"

It's not collusion if the other team doesn't know your motives.

...and wouldn't it be funny if they figured them out afterwards and therefore sat the stud you traded them, tanked the game and got an early pick anyway?Then turned to you at the draft (while they're drafting Laurence Maroney and your stuck with Jay Cutler) and say "Would you like a cigarette...cause I just ###### the #### outta you"

 

[redman]

It's not collusion, but it's against the spirit of the game. You're trying to manipulate the situation so that the winner is not the person with the most skill, but the person you want to win. It's probably not illegal, but it's questionable ethically, and it may make it hard to trade with you in the future. If I were one of the guys you'd traded with to get a #1 pick, and I found out that once you had my #1, you'd make trades with all of my opponents to sink me for the rest of the year, I'd never, ever trade you a #1 pick again, and I doubt anyone in the league ever will again, either.

It's not any more unethical than refusing to trade with a guy in your own division despite him making the best offer you've received to date for the player you're dangling out there as trade bait. Where it would get unethical is if there was collusion.

 

[redman]

As a commish, I would view that as collusion, unless there is something written in the rules to allow such a "2 team effort"

It's not collusion if the other team doesn't know your motives.

...and wouldn't it be funny if they figured them out afterwards and therefore sat the stud you traded them, tanked the game and got an early pick anyway?Then turned to you at the draft (while they're drafting Laurence Maroney and your stuck with Jay Cutler) and say "Would you like a cigarette...cause I just ###### the #### outta you"

It would be hilarious, but it would not be collusion.

 

[-OZ-]

As a commish, I would view that as collusion, unless there is something written in the rules to allow such a "2 team effort"

It's not collusion if the other team doesn't know your motives.

False.It's collusion when two teams work together to give one team an advantage over the other teams in the league. It doesn't matter who knows about it.

If you want to tank your team all year to get the first pick that's a differrent story. If you are doing what you suggest you are helping one team over the others and someone will get cheated out of a playoff spot that they deserve. If someone is in that shouldn't be then someone is out that should be in.

Seems to me that this helps both teams that are trading.As long as the deal is fair, and is one you'd be inclined to make without the ulterior motives, there shouldn't be a problem.

Giving up a top player for a lesser player, JUST to get that team into the playoffs and ahead of the other guy, if not collusion, is still questionable ethically and shouldn't be done.

 

[redman]

As a commish, I would view that as collusion, unless there is something written in the rules to allow such a "2 team effort"

It's not collusion if the other team doesn't know your motives.

False.It's collusion when two teams work together to give one team an advantage over the other teams in the league. It doesn't matter who knows about it.

If you want to tank your team all year to get the first pick that's a differrent story. If you are doing what you suggest you are helping one team over the others and someone will get cheated out of a playoff spot that they deserve. If someone is in that shouldn't be then someone is out that should be in.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) - Cite This Source new!

col‧lu‧sion  /kəˈluʒən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuh-loo-zhuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. a secret agreement, esp. for fraudulent or treacherous purposes; conspiracy: Some of his employees were acting in collusion to rob him.

2. Law. a secret understanding between two or more persons to gain something illegally, to defraud another of his or her rights, or to appear as adversaries though in agreement: collusion of husband and wife to obtain a divorce.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1350–1400; ME (< MF) < L collūsiōn- (s. of collūsiō), equiv. to collūs(us) (ptp. of collūdere to collude) + -iōn- -ion]

—Synonyms 1. intrigue, connivance, complicity.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1)

Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

You can't have an "agreement" or "understanding" without knowledge.

 

[bostonfred]

It's not collusion, but it's against the spirit of the game. You're trying to manipulate the situation so that the winner is not the person with the most skill, but the person you want to win. It's probably not illegal, but it's questionable ethically, and it may make it hard to trade with you in the future. If I were one of the guys you'd traded with to get a #1 pick, and I found out that once you had my #1, you'd make trades with all of my opponents to sink me for the rest of the year, I'd never, ever trade you a #1 pick again, and I doubt anyone in the league ever will again, either.

It's not any more unethical than refusing to trade with a guy in your own division despite him making the best offer you've received to date for the player you're dangling out there as trade bait. Where it would get unethical is if there was collusion.

That's not exactly true. Refusing to trade with someone in your division is an attempt to gain a competitive advantage against them. It is in your best interests to improve yourself in comparison with the teams in your division. Deliberately trading to improve the opponents of someone whose #1 pick you own is not attempting to gain an advantage against the team you're trying to hurt, and is deliberately attempting to give another team an advantage. You are not trying to improve your own team. And while it may be in your best interests to see their team get worse (improving your draft pick), it is not in your best interests to improve other teams. There is a significant difference.

 

[PatsWillWin]

I don't think this is collusion at all. You trade with a team to get value, and if part of the value is a chance that a trade with a given team might increase the value of draft picks are already holding, then so be it.

As long as you are not DUMPING players to a team to make them better, if the trades themselves are fair and beneficial unto themselves, then there is no problem here, IMO.

 

[redman]

It's not collusion, but it's against the spirit of the game. You're trying to manipulate the situation so that the winner is not the person with the most skill, but the person you want to win. It's probably not illegal, but it's questionable ethically, and it may make it hard to trade with you in the future. If I were one of the guys you'd traded with to get a #1 pick, and I found out that once you had my #1, you'd make trades with all of my opponents to sink me for the rest of the year, I'd never, ever trade you a #1 pick again, and I doubt anyone in the league ever will again, either.

It's not any more unethical than refusing to trade with a guy in your own division despite him making the best offer you've received to date for the player you're dangling out there as trade bait. Where it would get unethical is if there was collusion.

That's not exactly true. Refusing to trade with someone in your division is an attempt to gain a competitive advantage against them. It is in your best interests to improve yourself in comparison with the teams in your division. Deliberately trading to improve the opponents of someone whose #1 pick you own is not attempting to gain an advantage against the team you're trying to hurt, and is deliberately attempting to give another team an advantage. You are not trying to improve your own team. And while it may be in your best interests to see their team get worse (improving your draft pick), it is not in your best interests to improve other teams. There is a significant difference.

What if you get reasonable value in return?

 

[footballfreek]

Thanks for the replies.

I would never make a trade unless I felt fair value was coming back to me. But fair value could be in the form of 07 1st draft picks/fake dollars to spend on RFAs/FA.

I would never put the integrity of the league in jeopardy for my own benefit which is why I asked the sharks here.

 

[bostonfred]

It's not collusion, but it's against the spirit of the game. You're trying to manipulate the situation so that the winner is not the person with the most skill, but the person you want to win. It's probably not illegal, but it's questionable ethically, and it may make it hard to trade with you in the future. If I were one of the guys you'd traded with to get a #1 pick, and I found out that once you had my #1, you'd make trades with all of my opponents to sink me for the rest of the year, I'd never, ever trade you a #1 pick again, and I doubt anyone in the league ever will again, either.

It's not any more unethical than refusing to trade with a guy in your own division despite him making the best offer you've received to date for the player you're dangling out there as trade bait. Where it would get unethical is if there was collusion.

That's not exactly true. Refusing to trade with someone in your division is an attempt to gain a competitive advantage against them. It is in your best interests to improve yourself in comparison with the teams in your division. Deliberately trading to improve the opponents of someone whose #1 pick you own is not attempting to gain an advantage against the team you're trying to hurt, and is deliberately attempting to give another team an advantage. You are not trying to improve your own team. And while it may be in your best interests to see their team get worse (improving your draft pick), it is not in your best interests to improve other teams. There is a significant difference.

What if you get reasonable value in return?

No problem at all. I would imagine the next logical question is, who determines reasonable. And that's why I said that it's not illegal, but would be unethical the way he described it, and could cause hard feelings about trading picks with the guy.

 

[redman]

It's not collusion, but it's against the spirit of the game. You're trying to manipulate the situation so that the winner is not the person with the most skill, but the person you want to win. It's probably not illegal, but it's questionable ethically, and it may make it hard to trade with you in the future. If I were one of the guys you'd traded with to get a #1 pick, and I found out that once you had my #1, you'd make trades with all of my opponents to sink me for the rest of the year, I'd never, ever trade you a #1 pick again, and I doubt anyone in the league ever will again, either.

It's not any more unethical than refusing to trade with a guy in your own division despite him making the best offer you've received to date for the player you're dangling out there as trade bait. Where it would get unethical is if there was collusion.

That's not exactly true. Refusing to trade with someone in your division is an attempt to gain a competitive advantage against them. It is in your best interests to improve yourself in comparison with the teams in your division. Deliberately trading to improve the opponents of someone whose #1 pick you own is not attempting to gain an advantage against the team you're trying to hurt, and is deliberately attempting to give another team an advantage. You are not trying to improve your own team. And while it may be in your best interests to see their team get worse (improving your draft pick), it is not in your best interests to improve other teams. There is a significant difference.

What if you get reasonable value in return?

No problem at all. I would imagine the next logical question is, who determines reasonable. And that's why I said that it's not illegal, but would be unethical the way he described it, and could cause hard feelings about trading picks with the guy.

No, let me be more specific. What if he got reasonable value in return (given all of the other things he mentioned)? As for who determines "reasonable", that's always debateable of course and as a commish you have to look for signs of collusion and distinguish them from simply "bad trades" which are otherwise kosher.

 

[bostonfred]

It's not collusion, but it's against the spirit of the game. You're trying to manipulate the situation so that the winner is not the person with the most skill, but the person you want to win. It's probably not illegal, but it's questionable ethically, and it may make it hard to trade with you in the future. If I were one of the guys you'd traded with to get a #1 pick, and I found out that once you had my #1, you'd make trades with all of my opponents to sink me for the rest of the year, I'd never, ever trade you a #1 pick again, and I doubt anyone in the league ever will again, either.

It's not any more unethical than refusing to trade with a guy in your own division despite him making the best offer you've received to date for the player you're dangling out there as trade bait. Where it would get unethical is if there was collusion.

That's not exactly true. Refusing to trade with someone in your division is an attempt to gain a competitive advantage against them. It is in your best interests to improve yourself in comparison with the teams in your division. Deliberately trading to improve the opponents of someone whose #1 pick you own is not attempting to gain an advantage against the team you're trying to hurt, and is deliberately attempting to give another team an advantage. You are not trying to improve your own team. And while it may be in your best interests to see their team get worse (improving your draft pick), it is not in your best interests to improve other teams. There is a significant difference.

What if you get reasonable value in return?

No problem at all. I would imagine the next logical question is, who determines reasonable. And that's why I said that it's not illegal, but would be unethical the way he described it, and could cause hard feelings about trading picks with the guy.

No, let me be more specific. What if he got reasonable value in return (given all of the other things he mentioned)? As for who determines "reasonable", that's always debateable of course and as a commish you have to look for signs of collusion and distinguish them from simply "bad trades" which are otherwise kosher.

Right. There is no problem with making trades with people, getting good value on your trades for next year, but also knowing that in doing so, you make them stronger and will hurt the standings of the teams whose #1 pick you own. There is an ethical problem with making trades with people where the principle value you get is hurting other teams.