Is this Collusion? Topic

MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By antonsirius on 12/30/2009Candy and nuts are all it takes to make you happy at Christmas? What are you, Buddhist?

The owner with the second pick will have their own draft board. Either the player they had at #1 actually goes #1 -- which is what they think 'should' have happened -- or he doesn't, in which case they get the player they expected to get or a better one.

Ditto for every other team below them. Either they get the player they 'expected' to get based on their draft board, or they get a slightly better one because the team picking first went off the board.

No, we don't know exactly how the draft will be affected if the team picking first takes a player to be traded instead of developed. But I have a hard time seeing how that would "screw" other owners.

At worst, in your 'low HS scouting' scenario, the team picking first suckers some other owner into doing their scouting for them with offers of a trade they won't go through with. But that's not exactly collusion... and it doesn't force any other owner to draft a player worse than the one they expected to get anyway


I'm a minimalist. But that's beside the point.

Doesn't really matter what "should" have happened because we'll never know what "should" have happened. What actually happens is what matters. If Owner 2 had Player A as his number 1 and Owner 1 had Player A at #2, Owner 2 would have gotten his number 1. But, when Owner 20 interferes, Owner 2 gets his #2. That's not exactly how the draft is designed to work.
12/30/2009 10:34 AM
sculley
Posts: 38 (0)
Veteran
2 2 21
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 12/30/2009



If Owner 2 had Player A as his number 1 and Owner 1 had Player A at #2, Owner 2 would have gotten his number 1. But, when Owner 20 interferes, Owner 2 gets his #2. That's not exactly how the draft is designed to work.


Sucks for owner 2 then huh? This situation you just described is not collusion. You clearly don't know what collusion is and are under the belief that anytime someone gets screwed, the teams they got screwed by are colluding. You're wrong, and with this I'm done here because I've now proven that you're not qualified to determine what is or isn't collusion.

Not that it matters however because there's not a damn thing YOU or your 100,000 posts can do to prevent this deal from getting done. Little Mikey, completely powerless as always.
12/30/2009 11:06 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
3 lines.

"Sucks for owner 2 then huh? This situation you just described is not collusion. You clearly don't know what collusion is and are under the belief that anytime someone gets screwed, the teams they got screwed by are colluding. You're wrong, and with this I'm done here"

Cheating is cheating. Call it what you will. Good luck getting into any world that frowns on cheating.
12/30/2009 11:10 AM
wihargo
Posts: 2 (0)
Hall of Famer
41 59 1 15 113
Prospect
This thread is really interesting. I thought I knew what collusion meant, and that the proposed deal could not possibly be collusive. Whenever I've read about collusion, its always been stories about major manufacturers making secret deals to keep prices high, etc. But both sides of the debate seemed fairly convincing.

  • According to the dictionary, collusion is an agreement to defraud another or obtain something forbidden by law.
I don't recall there being a rule on the publication of projected ratings or about making agreements to trade players in the future, so this arrangment to trade future considerations has to be fraud if it is going to be collusion.

  • Going back to the dictionary, fraud is either a misrepresentation (knowing or reckless) made to induce someone to act ORunconscionable dealing
Well, there is certainly a deal going on. Unconscionable just means having no conscience / affronting the sense of justice, decency or reasonableness. Fwiw, conscience means the moral sense of right or wrong.

So basically, if the transaction is unfair/unjust to the rest of the league, it's collusion. There doesn't even have to be any special gains for the parties involved.



...and the world just got a little more grey.

1/1/2010 9:31 AM
tropicana
Posts: 980 (0)
Hall of Famer
184 13 588 202 293
Prospect
Tec, why the hell did you redline me?? I think the question I posed is perfectly fair given the thread you started. Obviously he had a trade in mind with SOMEONE, because I stepped up and I never heard word one back from him.
1/1/2010 5:50 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Trop, your post had no relevance to the thread. It was a off-topic 1:1 between you and sculley.
1/1/2010 6:02 PM
tropicana
Posts: 980 (0)
Hall of Famer
184 13 588 202 293
Prospect
Point being tec, if it's collusion, it has to involve another person. I think that if that's what we're going to call it we have a right to know who his prospective trade partner is, don't we?
1/2/2010 4:18 PM
metsmaniac2
Posts: 557 (0)
Hall of Famer
43 1 4 113 49 21
Prospect
I don't see the problem with it as long as both owners have next season paid for and will be there...it would be a problem if they didn't, planned on making the deal, and then the deal fell through when one of the two owners the league.

Ethically speaking alone, I don't see how it is collusion either...teams trade draft picks all the time, I don't see how this is any different.
1/2/2010 8:54 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By metsmaniac2 on 1/02/2010I don't see the problem with it as long as both owners have next season paid for and will be there...it would be a problem if they didn't, planned on making the deal, and then the deal fell through when one of the two owners the league.

Ethically speaking alone, I don't see how it is collusion either...teams trade draft picks all the time, I don't see how this is any different


Uh, no, they actually don't. It's not allowed in MLB.
1/2/2010 9:15 PM
metsmaniac2
Posts: 557 (0)
Hall of Famer
43 1 4 113 49 21
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 1/02/2010
Quote: Originally Posted By metsmaniac2 on 1/02/2010
I don't see the problem with it as long as both owners have next season paid for and will be there...it would be a problem if they didn't, planned on making the deal, and then the deal fell through when one of the two owners the league.

Ethically speaking alone, I don't see how it is collusion either...teams trade draft picks all the time, I don't see how this is any different.



Uh, no, they actually don't. It's not allowed in MLB.

Fair point...personally though, I always saw collusion for the most part as someone having two ID's in the same league, and doing lopsided trades to one team in order to improve that teams strength. That could also include one team, who's owner is planning on quitting, trading all their talent to teams for next to nothing back. However, in this case, it seems as though it is two owners trying to improve both their teams, I don't see the negative.
1/3/2010 6:14 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Two owners, acting together to bend rules that are in place (presumably for a reason), would be collusion.
1/3/2010 6:44 PM
jtrinsey
Posts: 237 (0)
All Star
1 4 2 30
Rookie
Quote: Originally posted by metsmaniac2 on 1/03/2010I don't see the negative.

The negative is seen simply by how many people are fired up about it in this very thread.

Anything that causes strife between owners can lead to guys quitting the league. If you happen to play in a league that rolls in a day or so because you only need to fill 1 or 2 spots, you learn to appreciate low owner turnover.

The benefit to allowing trades like these is VERY slight. Really, if you don't like any of the guys, is it that bad to just pick who you think is best and then try to deal him after the season?

The potential negatives are:
(1) Bickering amongst the owners on the world chat (annoying)
(2) A guy getting butt-hurt and leaving the league (annoying and slightly damaging to replace an owner)
(3) Somebody using this as another opportunity to trade-rape a newbie, which, if it happens repeatedly, can destroy the competitive balance of a league.

That's why I would hope that either of the leagues I play in never allow trades like this.
1/3/2010 6:59 PM
gjello10
Posts: 164 (0)
All Star
6 26
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By metsmaniac2 on 1/03/2010
Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 1/02/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By metsmaniac2 on 1/02/2010
I don't see the problem with it as long as both owners have next season paid for and will be there...it would be a problem if they didn't, planned on making the deal, and then the deal fell through when one of the two owners the league.

Ethically speaking alone, I don't see how it is collusion either...teams trade draft picks all the time, I don't see how this is any different.



Uh, no, they actually don't. It's not allowed in MLB.

Fair point...personally though, I always saw collusion for the most part as someone having two ID's in the same league, and doing lopsided trades to one team in order to improve that teams strength. That could also include one team, who's owner is planning on quitting, trading all their talent to teams for next to nothing back. However, in this case, it seems as though it is two owners trying to improve both their teams, I don't see the negative
This would, in fact, not be collusion, as collusion, by definition, requires 2 or more people to be involved. This is simply called "cheating".
1/3/2010 10:19 PM
mrpolo09
Posts: 249 (0)
Hall of Famer
10 5 173 2 34
Prospect
collusion would be if Coach A got information that he couldn't obtain himself from Coach B.

ie - Coach A says i dont like any recruits. Coach B says draft Player X and i'll trad you for him. Coach A doesn't see Player X. Thats collusion....

Now, what i would see as fair is if Coach A says "i dont like my draft board". I've got the #3 pick. I'm deciding between Player A, Player B, and Player C. He asks Coach B who to draft. Not collusion..
1/4/2010 2:04 AM
mrpolo09
Posts: 249 (0)
Hall of Famer
10 5 173 2 34
Prospect
BUUUUT this doesnt work in HBD

I just realized.

In any scenario, players names MUST be listed. That cannot happen in HBD. In HBD we dont all see the same players. So by listing a players name "someone" is getting free (illegal) information....

It could be the two parties involved. It could be an innocent bystander.

either way, this subject is over. Maybe its not collusion. Maybe its not cheating. Maybe its not fraud. but i do know that its not in the interest of fair play.
1/4/2010 2:07 AM
◂ Prev 123456 Next ▸
Is this Collusion? Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.