some would surely have a cow over it

Probably. RL players are less of a "sure thing" than HBD players. Not to mention that there are no budget constraints, other than self-imposed, in MLB.

Speaking of Rule 5 - apparently the Yankees and the Nationals worked out before-hand that Washington would draft a player of the Yankees choosing with the first pick and trade him to NY as the PTBNL in the Brian Bruney deal.

In HBD, that would be a clear case of collusion under the "Fair Play" guidelines.

Well, of course, you can't entirely replicate MLB. The Yanks and the Nationals will be around for awhile. hineii and kjmulli might pay their $24.95 and disappear in February leaving the mess, should one happen, for the next guy.

Quote: Originally posted by tecwrg on 12/14/2009Speaking of Rule 5 - apparently the Yankees and the Nationals worked out before-hand that Washington would draft a player of the Yankees choosing with the first pick and trade him to NY as the PTBNL in the Brian Bruney deal.In HBD, that would be a clear case of collusion under the "Fair Play" guidelines.

how would that be prohibited under fair play?

Because it's collusion. Surely you see why.

Even if you're OK with the concept, there's a reason one man(or group) can't own two MLB teams. But it's quite possible in HBD.

Once upon a time, or about 3 years ago, the Reds gave the Cubs 50,000k to trade them an unidentified (to the cubs) player to the Reds from the Rule 5 draft. The Cubs agreed to the deal, then opened up the envelop with the player the Reds wanted them to select and deal to the Reds to complete the agreement, and discovered the unidentified player was Josh Hamilton. Solid piece of GMing by Wayne Krivsky on that one, but a move that would have been vetoed in HBD. Of course in HBD Josh Hamilton's skill level would be unquestioned (even his **** poor health rating) and we wouldn't have to worry about drug relapses.

The Rangers and Orioles had a similar deal on the 3rd pick in this year's Rule-5 as the PTBNL in the Millwood deal (ended up being some LOOGY arm from the Giants system). In both the Yankees/Nats and Rangers/O's deals, it was fairly well know beforehand that the Rule-5 pick was the PTBNL.

it's trading a player for another player and cash. that does not indicate collusion.

And, again, despite all these wonderful real world examples, it's collusion in HBD.

Simply because an owner can't own two teams in MLB. I defy you to say it doesn't happen in HBD.

That said, I probably wouldn't catch it if it's done in HBD. Throw 50k in to cover the R5 cost and go for it.

Of course it's collusion. The Nats were drafting 1st. The Yankees were drafting 30th. By working in concert with each other, the Yankees and Nats deprived the 28 teams in between of the opportunity to select the player in question.

In HBD terms, that would clearly be collusion.

Do some of you believe that working out a trade with the team with the top pick in the Rule 5, in order to have him draft the player of your choosing in exchange for a player from your own franchise, would be "collusion"?

that's what this is, essentially. it's not collusion unless 1) the person owns both teams, in which case EVERYTHING is collusion, or 2) there's some other thing that makes it collusion, such as selecting a player based on another owners projected stats.