This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

Quote: Originally posted by MikeT23 on 12/14/2009Just to put it another way, maybe the guy picking first isn't interested in the R5.   Maybe he's not interested in said player.   Maybe the guy picking 2nd is interested in the player.   He no longer gets his shot at him because the guy picking first has been coerced into picking the player he desires.Right?

The guy picking second has the identical access to the player (edit *as the guy*) picking 30th prior to the draft. If he is that interested in the player, he is free to work out the same select-and-trade agreement that the team picking 30th is.

And, if you are playing in Worlds where the very worst team in the World "isn't interested" in free talent, then I am *really* glad I'm not in any of your Worlds.

I don't think we have anything to discuss. You obviously believe that anyone should be allowed to coerce other owners into doing them a "favor". I think such actions are collusion. I think that pretty much sums it up.

And you have no idea how glad I am that I'm not in a world with an owner who supports collusive activity.

Quote: Originally posted by MikeT23 on 12/14/2009I don't think we have anything  to discuss. You obviously believe that anyone should be allowed to coerce other owners into doing them a "favor".   I think such actions are collusion.   I think that pretty much sums it up.And you have no idea how glad I am that I'm not in a world with an owner who supports collusive activity.

What coercion? What "favor?" The team picking 30th is coercing the team picking first by offering him a sufficiently good prospect to make the deal worth his while? Under your warped definition, every trade is "coercive".

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

Quote: Originally Posted By snake_p on 12/14/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By tecwrg on 12/14/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By snake_p on 12/14/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 12/14/2009
Collusion: secret agreement or cooperation

miket and tecwrg are not guys who would ever collude. That is why every trade either of them has ever worked out in any of their worlds were worked out in the open, on the World Chat screen for all to see.

That's right, isn't it, guys? You aren't hypocrites.

Sez the alias, who has no credibility here while he (a) owns no teams under the posting ID, and (b) refuses to identify who he/she is an alias of.

LOL. Everybody will see you didn't answer the question

LOL. I don't answer to forum trolls who add zero value to any thread in which they post.

Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 12/14/2009

Just to put it another way, maybe the guy picking first isn't interested in the R5. Maybe he's not interested in said player. Maybe the guy picking 2nd is interested in the player. He no longer gets his shot at him because the guy picking first has been coerced into picking the player he desires.

Right?

LOL, mikey learned a new word, but he hasn't learned to use it correctly. mikey, when you and another owner work out a trade (out in the open on the World Chat, of course, so it isn't secret and therefore collusion) how do you decide which of you was coerced? Hahahaha, jeez, you're funny. You and tecwrg, hahahaha.

the rule V prospects have to be drafted to be acquired. to say that they are on the market is ludicrous.

as snake mentioned, by mike's definition (and using his reasoning tactics), any trade that's negotiated in private would be collusion.

is it collusion if the team with the first pick publicly offers to trade it (in advance)?

Nope. I realize it's being nitpicky to say it but......the owner with the first pick is initiating the deal. He's saying "I have this item. I am willing to trade it for the right offer." In the other scenario, the initiating owner is saying "You have the ability to acquire an item I desire. I'd like it to make an offer BEFORE you acquire it."

And, just to be clear, when you trade, you're negotiating with/for players under control of the two teams. A R5 player in not under contract with either team.

HBD is different from the real world.

To explain a little further(and hopefully make it clear why it's different if the player with Pick #1 openly says he's willing to deal), the owner is saying, on the open market, "I'm willing to do this." He is taking offers. In the other scenario, the deal is being negotiated behind closed doors. That opens it up to collusion. In the current state of HBD, the two parties might be "roommates." The open announcement gives everyone the opportunity to bid. If he takes a lesser offer, the world knows it.

In fact, after thinking about it, I don't think I'd have a problem is Owner A announced, in the world chat, that Owner B had offer him Player A in exchange for his choice of the first pick in R5 draft. Throw it out there in the open and let the world bid.

Quote: Originally Posted By schedule1 on 12/15/2009
as snake mentioned, by mike's definition (and using his reasoning tactics), any trade that's negotiated in private would be collusion.

Yes, exactly. And that is, of course, a ludicrous position. And further, that is why mikey has had no success trying to make sense in this thread, his underlying premise fails him every time.

MikeT, Esq.: Where did you get your JD degree? You're right - it is being nitpicky. 3 pages of posts to get down to this fine point of HBD jurisprudence:

An agreement to trade two players, one of whom is the first player to be drafted in the Rule 5 by the owner with the first pick, represents collusion if negotiations precede the draft, but is permissable if the same agreement is reached immediately after the draft.

On a second point....Like zbrent, I'm also interested in learning more about how one owner can take action "to coerce other owners into doing them a "favor".

Changing the subject only slightly, would anybody be interested in a feature that allowed us, prior to the Rule-5 draft, to "assign" our picks to another team as part of a trade? They system could be set up such that, to do this, both teams must have an open 40-man roster spot, and both teams' open spot would be "frozen" open until the Rule-5 draft. It would be both interesting and realistic, and would eliminate the debate as to whether it is collusion or not. Just a thought.