Is This Collusion? (Biological Brothers Scenario) (1 Viewer)

[the lone star]

You think its fair and/or collusion if there are 2+ blood-brothers in a fantasy league and they don't bid against each other if one of them is in trade talks with a third owner? Like such a practice takes a potential trade partner away from basically any other team in the league.

Personally, I think that's unfair. I can see how its collusion too. Like there are MLB court cases about how that is collusion. See Below.

" Baseball collusion refers to owners working together to avoid competitive bidding for player services or players jointly negotiating with team owners.

Collusion in baseball is formally defined in the Major League Baseball Collective Bargaining Agreement, which states "Players shall not act in concert with other Players and Clubs shall not act in concert with other Clubs." [1] Major League Baseball went through a period of owner collusion during the off-seasons of 1985, 1986, and 1987.

Historically, owner collusion was often referred to as a "gentleman's agreement".[2] After the 1918 season, owners released all their players – terminating the non-guaranteed contracts, with a "gentleman's agreement" not to sign each other's players, as a means of forcing down player salaries.[3]"

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_Baseball_collusion

 

[the lone star]

@Rove!, so why do you say yes?

 

[beerbuff]

You are a nutcase

 

[the lone star]

You are a nutcase

I'm just curious tbh.

 

[beerbuff]

I'm just curious tbh.

Go away you collusion troll

 

[Gally]

Stop making it so difficult.  It is not collusion. There are many times trade negotiations take place without anybody else in the league even knowing it is going on. 

 

[the lone star]

Stop making it so difficult.  It is not collusion. There are many times trade negotiations take place without anybody else in the league even knowing it is going on. 

Sure, but what if it is known?

Was it collusion when the MLB owners decided not to bid against each other to keep players' salaries low?

Is it collusion if competitors agree to fix prices in the market to ensure a good return/margin?

 

[the lone star]

@Frostillicus & @yellowdog, why no?

 

[Gally]

Sure, but what if it is known?

Was it collusion when the MLB owners decided not to bid against each other to keep players' salaries low?

Is it collusion if competitors agree to fix prices in the market to ensure a good return/margin?

You are comparing apples to oranges here.  I don't know why you keep pressing this.  I'm not even sure why I keep responding. 

In your league that selling owner doesn't have to trade the player if he doesn't think the offer is good enough.  Any other team can also put in offers if they were interested in the player up for trade.  Two teams not wanting to keep being played against each other is far from collusion.  I personally don't like owners that keep going back and forth between two potential trade partners to drive up the price.  I usually stay out of those bidding wars.  I think it is a bad way to do business.  Either take the offer you like best or don't but don't play guys against each other.  I can understand going back once saying that he got a better offer but I know owners that go back and forth multiple times. I tend to stay away from negotiating with those guys.  I give my best offer...take it or leave it and then move on. 

In your examples that is keeping salaries down across the board to free agents that are not under contract.  Not even close to the same situation.