Would you consider this collusion or fair strategy (1 Viewer)

[parasaurolophus]

If you can see that there was another bid for 29 dollars and you picked 30, then yes absolutely collusion. If you picked 30 and it was just a number because you figured 1-3 wouldnt cut it, but didnt know for sure then not collusion.

In a league I was in years ago there was one owner that had tons of money left and I told him if he picked up sammy morris I would trade for him. I suggested he throw some money at him though since he was the big pick up that week. I dont think that was collusion at all.

 

[nastynate]

Collusion is one team knowingly giving another team a handout.

Not sure why this is all of a sudden a bad trade, or anything more complicated than a X for X deal is being considered collusions on unsporting.

Owners get taken advantage of, people use waiver positioning as bargaining chips in trades -- it's all fair game unless otherwise stated.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Its not collusion.

Why? Because you have not guaranteed anything.

Seriously? So this isn't collusion either?:

"I'll trade you Peyton Manning for a 50/50 chance (coin flip) of giving you $50 in real money"

Paying real money is cheating. Discussing (even if in a joking manner) is not.

 

[Pura Vida]

COLLUSIOn!!!!!!!

 

[TakiToki]

Thanks guys. Looks like most of you say it isnt collusion, but should have left the dollar amount out of it

2 things to note

1. we had a vote in 2008 to see if teams wanted to trade blind bid dollars. It got voted down 7-5

2. I only suggested a dollar amount because as proven, my father doesnt bid. He would have put in a bid for $1-3 and would not have won

But I see the point in not suggesting a dollar amount and will not do that again. Maybe it is time to bring up the blind bid money trade vote again.

Not including this info in the OP is horrible.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Anybody who thinks that this is collusion should be permanently barred from ever serving as a commish for any league. This isn't even remotely collusive.

 

[JD8p]

Where is the ethics issue? No problem at all.

It's no different then when someone came to me looking to make a package deal for Gonzalez....I told them if they were able to cut Gresham and use their waiver pick on Fleener, I would move forward with the 3 for 3. If not, no can do.

They did and we struck a deal.

No ethics issue.

 

[habsfan]

Thanks guys. Looks like most of you say it isnt collusion, but should have left the dollar amount out of it

2 things to note

1. we had a vote in 2008 to see if teams wanted to trade blind bid dollars. It got voted down 7-5

2. I only suggested a dollar amount because as proven, my father doesnt bid. He would have put in a bid for $1-3 and would not have won

But I see the point in not suggesting a dollar amount and will not do that again. Maybe it is time to bring up the blind bid money trade vote again.

Not including this info in the OP is horrible.

It changes nothing. It's a red herring. The trade here is McGahee for KC. It's conditional on one party going out and obtaining KC through whatever means are at their disposal. That's a separate transaction and the owner offering McGahee has no real control or influence over it.

Some are hung up on him quoting an actual number but that too is irrelevant. That suggestion has no real bearing on the outcome of the auction either.

If he had said, "I'll trade you McGahee for KC DEF. If you get KC DEF, give me a call" and left it at that, few would be contesting this.

 

[pollardsvision]

To me, it comes down to "do you think advising is cheating or collusion?"

Because that's the only questionable behavior (advising how high a bid it would take to land the defense).

I think it's fine for owner's to advise each other as long as both are acting in their own best interest.