I was hoping to get the opinion of others on what they felt about two teams trading paid for players solely and only to relieve extreme fatigue. Whereby obtaining a fresh player at 100% after running their player down to extreme low levels of fatigue.  Does this go against the true spirit of the game.  Would you veto a trade like this where these two individuals add PAs when you had to spend X amount of dollars for your PAs please tell me what you think.

I would almost certainly veto such a trade, assuming I realized that's what was happening.

I dont believe traded players show up *refreshed* - their seasonal fatigue follows them.......at least according to support.

Fatigue does not follow them.  When you acquire a traded player, how much the previous owner used him is irrelevant.  You get a prorated portion of his actual PA/IP, based on how many games are left in the season.

What you may be thinking of is that if you re-acquire a player you had formerly, he reverts to his previous fatigue level with you.  For example, if you waive a $200K pitcher and add the same $200K pitcher from the waiver wire, he does NOT reset his fatigue in that case.

That is what I meant, just didnt say it right - players acquired in a trade are not *fully refreshed*.

Just so other folks reading this are clear - here's how it works.  Let's say a player has 200 real life PA/162.  Halfway through the season, owner A has used this player for 150 PA.  At midseason, you trade for this player.  At the moment you acquire him, he is assumed to have used 100 PA.  In other words, you can use him for 100 PA the rest of the reason.  Not 200 - you don't get the full version of the player because the season is half over.  And not 50 (how much the first owner used him doesn't matter).  You get 100 PA - exactly 1/2 the amount that he would have in a full season.

What crimsonblue is pointing out is that it's possible for two owners to take advantage of this and game the system.  Imagine both owners have different 200 PA players like in this example.  They could each burn their original player for 150 PA in the first half, then trade the players, and each gets 100 PA left.  They effectively get 250 PA for the price of 200.  And unlike the waiver wire, there is no transaction fee for making trades. 

Of course, by burning the original player for 150 PA in the first half, they will have had to play that player in a very fatigued state, but there may still be a net benefit to doing this.  Especially with low PA/IP players, it is a do-able strategy, and I would veto such a trade if I realized that is what was happening.

I'd veto that trade every time If I were paying enough attention to notice. I think it goes against the spirit of the game but so do a lot of the popular tactics. veto is your only recourse because it's not illegal. If somebody gets into a bind and is looking to dump a fatigued pitcher, that's one thing. but when they deliberately plan to use this loophole then that's shadier. And if two players repeatedly make such trades with each other then it looks like collusion and that's definitely illegal.
    You might have to rally the other players to get enough votes for a veto. sometimes it's not worth the hassle and hurt feelings.

This is why in my 80m OL type theme, and my 90m no AAA theme, I do not allow trades. In those leagues, 200k players were traded back and forth like ping pong balls, and I assumed they were arriving to their new owners fresh. So, those leagues are set up with no trade policies. Vetoing trades is an option, but too many managers have ambivalent feelings about using their veto power. Lots of trades go through that shouldn't, we all have stories about that, I am sure.

I'd veto the trade.  And solely has 2 Ls.

Thanks for the input. When I spoke out against this in a league I'm in, like a bad twilight zone episode, people immediately disagreed. I'm just going to form a veto block of people with integrity to stop it. I misspelled solely but did you begin a sentence with a conjunction dahsdebater? Lol.

Yes I did.

I'm in that league with Crimsonblue.  It's a $70m league with limited PA and IP for players, so fatigue will play a big part in this league. 

While I do not intend to use the strategy of dealing players to reduce fatiuge ( I may use the WW at some time ), I pointed out the possibility of doing that in the league.  It was obvious to me that it was within the rules of the theme league. 

The commisioner deliberately made the choice of allowing trades and WW.  The impact of WW and Trades on fatigue are well known, and have been posted many times on this site (I've done it several times over the years).

So, relying on trades and/or the WW to mitigate fatigue is a legitimate strategy in this league.  Again, it's not something I plan to do personally, but when I shared the information in the league about the impact of this (to make sure that EVERYONE knew it, that there was no secret knowledge advantage to doing this), I was suprised to hear CB call it cheating.  

In theme leagues, the owners who do the best are those who play by the rules, but still come up with a winning strategy. I see nothing wrong with relying on this type of strategy to win.

By forming a coalition of players to veto all trades, he's essentially saying
(1) - I didn't think of that strategy, so I don't like it
(2) - I had the option to complain about trading before the league started, I didn't, so now I'll block all trades
(3) - If you don't play my way, I'll ruin the game for you.

Again... I personally do not intend to use this strategy.  But I recognize that it is valid and that it is withing the rules of this league, and (by inference) somethng that the commish approves of with the rules he set.

I hope the additional background helps put this in focus...In my opinion, CB's arguement is essentially a case of "sour grapes".  He didn't think of the strategy so it must be wrong.

 

 

I'm also in the league, and saw the initial discussion, as well. I didn't really see the discussion as one of "I think this is cheating" vs. "I think this is legitimate strategy."

I don't plan on using either the WW or trading, but depending on how much fatigue I'm dealing with (and having 3 extra inning games in my last 5 is not helping) I may do either. I think this falls under the old question that has been floating around the site for years of playing a game vs simulating baseball.

Like Len says above, given the framework of the league, I wouldn't have a problem with any owners making such trades. In fact, one of the selling points for me on the league was the availability of trades. I thought it added an element of strategy to the league, as let's be honest, in a league without keepers or AAA, the only point to making trades or using the WW would be to reduce fatigue (unless you just drafted poorly and wanted to try to make a swap to save the WW fee in correcting your drafting mistake).

So, no, I didn't see it as unethical or as cheating for this particular league. In an OL, or progressive, or most other standard leagues, I would view it as unethical at the least, but not necessarily as cheating depending on the circumstances.