Is this collusion or even unfair? not talking trades (1 Viewer)

[atcdav]

Team A advises Team B to pick up a certain player off WW. Team A would pick the player up but has no one they want to drop. The motive is Team A does not want Team C to get the WW player as Team C is a divisional opponent. Team A is helping is own team as well as Team B (or so he thinks)

Sound strategy? sketchy? no big deal?

 

[MDSkinner]

Team A advises Team B to pick up a certain player off WW. Team A would pick the player up but has no one they want to drop. The motive is Team A does not want Team C to get the WW player as Team C is a divisional opponent. Team A is helping is own team as well as Team B (or so he thinks)

Sound strategy? sketchy? no big deal?

Does not seem any more unfair to me than a person coming on to a message board to read up on advice. Team A is just another resource to Team B from my perspective. Team B would still be silly to pick up the player if the player does not help their team.

 

[atcdav]

I agree. Some is my league feel Team A is going to far giving Team B tips with obvious ulterior motives. I felt Team A is looking out for his best interested but it may kinda approach 2 teams conspiring even though no money is involved

 

[Ignoramus]

What happens when Team A's advice turns out to be wrong?

 

[bonesman]

I agree. Some is my league feel Team A is going to far giving Team B tips with obvious ulterior motives. I felt Team A is looking out for his best interested but it may kinda approach 2 teams conspiring even though no money is involved

Then whoTF cares?!?!

:IBTL:

 

[atcdav]

What happens when Team A's advice turns out to be wrong?

LOL IDK ask Dodds and Bloom whar happens when their advice is wrong....You hear about it

 

[TheStig]

Team A advises Team B to pick up a certain player off WW. Team A would pick the player up but has no one they want to drop. The motive is Team A does not want Team C to get the WW player as Team C is a divisional opponent. Team A is helping is own team as well as Team B (or so he thinks)

Sound strategy? sketchy? no big deal?

It isn't a big deal.

 

[DropKick]

Team A advises Team B to pick up a certain player off WW. Team A would pick the player up but has no one they want to drop. The motive is Team A does not want Team C to get the WW player as Team C is a divisional opponent. Team A is helping is own team as well as Team B (or so he thinks)

Sound strategy? sketchy? no big deal?

To quote someone from a another thread, I can't believe how low the collective IQ has become.

It isn't collusion, as team B seems unaware of the real motive.

However, Team A is a complete scumbag. This isn't obvious to you?

 

[atcdav]

Team A advises Team B to pick up a certain player off WW. Team A would pick the player up but has no one they want to drop. The motive is Team A does not want Team C to get the WW player as Team C is a divisional opponent. Team A is helping is own team as well as Team B (or so he thinks)

Sound strategy? sketchy? no big deal?

To quote someone from a another thread, I can't believe how low the collective IQ has become.

It isn't collusion, as team B seems unaware of the real motive.

However, Team A is a complete scumbag. This isn't obvious to you?

your are obviously very intelligent. Why would you conclude Team B is unaware of motive? That would be collusion by 1 team....or no collusion. To collude you need 2 or more, correct?

 

[DropKick]

Team A advises Team B to pick up a certain player off WW. Team A would pick the player up but has no one they want to drop. The motive is Team A does not want Team C to get the WW player as Team C is a divisional opponent. Team A is helping is own team as well as Team B (or so he thinks)

Sound strategy? sketchy? no big deal?

To quote someone from a another thread, I can't believe how low the collective IQ has become.

It isn't collusion, as team B seems unaware of the real motive.

However, Team A is a complete scumbag. This isn't obvious to you?

your are obviously very intelligent. Why would you conclude Team B is unaware of motive? That would be collusion by 1 team....or no collusion. To collude you need 2 or more, correct?

Because you said nothing to the contrary. If he was aware, then it is collusion. There is no such thing as collusion by one party.

The action by team A is unethical to some, poor sportsmanship to most.

 

[Amused to Death]

The action by team A is unethical to some, poor sportsmanship to most.

This. If I was Team C, I'd have some words for Team A. B needs to run his own team.

 

[Johnny Blood]

Legal.

 

[DropKick]

Legal.

People who cheat seldom recognize it.

 

[Tool]

Team A advises Team B to pick up a certain player off WW. Team A would pick the player up but has no one they want to drop. The motive is Team A does not want Team C to get the WW player as Team C is a divisional opponent. Team A is helping is own team as well as Team B (or so he thinks)

Sound strategy? sketchy? no big deal?

To quote someone from a another thread, I can't believe how low the collective IQ has become.

It isn't collusion, as team B seems unaware of the real motive.

However, Team A is a complete scumbag. This isn't obvious to you?

your are obviously very intelligent. Why would you conclude Team B is unaware of motive? That would be collusion by 1 team....or no collusion. To collude you need 2 or more, correct?

Because you said nothing to the contrary. If he was aware, then it is collusion. There is no such thing as collusion by one party.

The action by team A is unethical to some, poor sportsmanship to most.

+1

 

[Rove!]

kinda sketchy

 

[Craig_MiamiFL]

Get a refund.

 

[Rove!]

Team A advises Team B to pick up a certain player off WW. Team A would pick the player up but has no one they want to drop. The motive is Team A does not want Team C to get the WW player as Team C is a divisional opponent. Team A is helping is own team as well as Team B (or so he thinks)

Sound strategy? sketchy? no big deal?

Does not seem any more unfair to me than a person coming on to a message board to read up on advice. Team A is just another resource to Team B from my perspective. Team B would still be silly to pick up the player if the player does not help their team.

big difference whether the advice is solicited or unsolicited.

 

[Amused to Death]

Is Team B acting in his own interest, or Team A's? If B has no need or interest in the waiver player, it sounds a lot like 2 teams acting against 1.

 

[Johnny Blood]

Legal.

People who cheat seldom recognize it.

Tone it back about ten notches. I don't cheat and I've never done this.

What's legal can be wrong. I don't think everything that is sketchy should be legislated against. People in active leagues talk fantasy all the time. Some of the times these people give each other advice. Sometimes that advice is selfish. It is manipulative, maybe sketchy, but not something the rules should prohibit IMO.

I've read on these forums literally dozens of times about people who give advice to new league members. Is that illegal if it is unsolicited? If the advice giver's motivations aren't completely pure? If he regularly gives advice, except in weeks where a win by the newbie would harm his own standing? I think worrying about this is microlegislating.

 

[spodog]

More importantly than the instant flaming hat starts in threads like this . . . . What is it you expect to do about this from a league management standpoint?

You can't legislate converstations or email conversation between owners. Whether you like the motives of any of the teams in the story you relayed or not, there isn't a rule you can set up to detect why a team makes a particular waiver move or doesn't make one, so what's the point of even posting this? (other than working the name callers into a lather)

 

[Chaka]

Meh

 

[glock]

Doesn't Team B have to DROP a player in order to pick up a player? If he doesn't want to do that to pick up a player, what are we talking about again?

 

[Wilfredo Ledezma]

Perfectly legal. Team A is very Machiavellian. Nothing wrong with it, save pissing off team C.