Posted by slashtc on 6/28/2022 1:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by coldfoot on 6/28/2022 1:20:00 PM (view original):
Would it not be better to let us read the posts against your opinion?
not a huge fan of ccensoring.

Wis is going to nuke this thread anyway. No reason to allow misleading posts. I wanted to make people aware and that's succeeded. If they want to join the league still, great! There are still good owners there, but new owners have the right to know the history.

I promise you he censored all the data I posted backing my case after he booted me.

I can see those posts you made right now in the league forum...

Posted by sinatra on 6/28/2022 1:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by slashtc on 6/28/2022 1:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by coldfoot on 6/28/2022 1:20:00 PM (view original):
Would it not be better to let us read the posts against your opinion?
not a huge fan of ccensoring.

Wis is going to nuke this thread anyway. No reason to allow misleading posts. I wanted to make people aware and that's succeeded. If they want to join the league still, great! There are still good owners there, but new owners have the right to know the history.

I promise you he censored all the data I posted backing my case after he booted me.

I can see those posts you made right now in the league forum...

All of them?

Posted by slashtc on 6/28/2022 1:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sinatra on 6/28/2022 1:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by slashtc on 6/28/2022 1:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by coldfoot on 6/28/2022 1:20:00 PM (view original):
Would it not be better to let us read the posts against your opinion?
not a huge fan of ccensoring.

Wis is going to nuke this thread anyway. No reason to allow misleading posts. I wanted to make people aware and that's succeeded. If they want to join the league still, great! There are still good owners there, but new owners have the right to know the history.

I promise you he censored all the data I posted backing my case after he booted me.

I can see those posts you made right now in the league forum...

All of them?

I THINK so. I can't say with 100% certainty but I don't notice any gaps/posts that I saw yesterday but are gone now. Nothing flagged for review, either.

I see your post in which you explain why you are questioning collusion.

I see your post in which you explain why you don't need Griffey.

I see where you explain the history of the wins floor.

I see your defense of playing guys at 3rd base out of position.

Those seem to be the main ones. Anything significant missing? There are also a lot of shorter posts you made that I don't really see much value in mentioning again here.

I don't remember each post exactly, but that certainly covers the stuff I was able to post before he booted me. Wasn't everything that needed to be said, but that doesn't matter now. We are where we are.

It's hard to take this thread seriously without details more specific than "He's supporting collusion that the former commish (crazyjoe02) was involved in". Apparently there was a dubious trade involving Griffey? What was the trade, what kind of collusion, and what is the evidence of collusion? I'm not in this league. I was in a league run by epup years ago, and his effort during the offseasons made it one of the best leagues I've been in.

One of the challenges with enjoying WIS leagues is that any mix of owners will have different ideas of what makes a league fun, fair, or ethical. Some owners are all about winning pennants, and will tank (or go into firesale mode) any time their team doesn't seem like a contender. To me, that approach can take all the fun out of a league, but some people wouldn't have it any other way. Some owners are more after nostalgia and want a fairly realistic alternative version of historical seasons and historical careers. Some like the challenge of finding quirks in the sim - or in a league's rules - to exploit. What one person considers a clever strategy that makes the site interesting, another considers unsportsmanlike. I don't know if any of that factors into the complaint about this league. The alleged collusion wasn't explained.

I’m in the league. It wasn’t collusion imho. Our league has a unique feature that u can only draft players that played at some point for your franchise.

Griffey was available to 2 teams (Cincinnati & Chicago White Sox. Seattle is not a franchise in our league).

Cincy traded Mike Morgan & a 1st (1.17) for 1.04. White Sox had 1.06.

I think Slash was upset that Cincy got Junior on the cheap. I don’t disagree, but it wasnt collusion. imho.

It got ugly from there.

I also support Epup1975. I’ve played with him in several leagues for long period of time & never had an issue with him.

I also liked competing against Slash.

DannyJoe is correct that we all play for different reaaons & have different viewpoints on what is fair play.

Too bad it went down that way.

DD

The collusion is there to see. You can call it whatever you want, but when an owner with an admittedly terrible team accepts what is universally viewed as a bad trade and doesn't even open a sitemail with a better trade, it's a problem. Collusion or not, it's bad for the league. I don't care what you call it, but it can't be ignored.

He'd have been better off making no trade than making that trade, but hey, the commish and the former commish are buddies, so let's look the other way, then boot the guy that calls them on it. That's the leadership you want for a league? Cancer all around.

I didn't even care about Griffey...that's the worst part. I told every single potential trade partner he was a nice to have, but I needed pitching. What was unacceptable was giving Griffey away for nothing, then having the commish try to bully me via sitemail to drop it.

Cincinnati made offers of 4 first round picks to other owners. That was turned down because late picks have little to no value. Somehow he gets away with 1 late worthless pick and a pitcher with 2 good seasons (seasons in which the acquiring team will be terrible). The whole thing is just a fraud. I didn't even ask for Griffey (DD and Sinatra can confirm this)...I just asked that he pay a fair price. That's it. That is my sin.

Posted by slashtc on 6/28/2022 11:10:00 PM (view original):
I didn't even care about Griffey...that's the worst part. I told every single potential trade partner he was a nice to have, but I needed pitching. What was unacceptable was giving Griffey away for nothing, then having the commish try to bully me via sitemail to drop it.

After all these posts, it still isn't explained enough to understand what the collusion was or what was so terrible about some trade. Slashtc is saying someone gave Griffey away for nothing. From what DodgerDon explained, only the White Sox at #6 and Cincy at #17 had a chance to draft Griffey. Cincy traded up to #4 and drafted Griffey. Did they turn around and make a bad deal, giving him away to someone for nothing? For whichever team had the #4 pick, what players were available to them without a trade?

There are almost too many side stories to explain here. slash and epup have a history in this league that predates him being commish so tensions escalate pretty quickly.
The varying definitions of the word collusion itself make it a tricky debate. To me, collusion is a planned deception which I don't think happened here. In Icon leagues, maneuvers are everything. I do think Cincy got the #3 pick lightly (especially since they also traded for the #5 pick and paid a higher price for it). However, a "bad" trade does not mean they colluded. It does stink when you make an offer and it isn't even looked at before an owner accepts another deal, but as some have pointed out the Oakland owner is pretty new and might not know the true value of the pick they held. The Reds were going to go all in for Griffey and it would have been easy to get more from them.
I think slash is off base on collusion, but right that Griffey should have gone for more. I also think it might have been a pretty quick league ejection unless something else happened that we don't know about.

collusive deals are horrible.
also do not discount the impact the damage that ' buddy/buddy' deals can make on fair play.
and dont take advantage of newbies.

passionate owners are good to have in a league even if you disagree with what they say.

if slash thinks he was wronged or cheated, he has the right to call foul, he shouldnt get the boot, but that does not mean he was wronged or cheated.

A week or so before the draft, I sent a sitemail to Oakland asking what he needed to trade the pick. His response was basically everything (and he's right...that team is terrible). So I told him I would trade him pick #6, Canseco, and Scott Sanderson for his pick. Pretty aggressive to move up a couple spots.

The day before the draft I checked in to see if I needed to offer more and that sitemail was never opened. Without ever opening it, he accepts a terrible trade. If you're scared of the word collusion, that's fine. Call it whatever, but as soon as he makes that trade without even making an effort to make a better one, it is unacceptable.

To hear that cincy subsequently traded more value to get pick 5 is even more damning. Commish allows the other trade, bullys me via sitemail to drop it, then magically after keeping assets he should have had to deal to get Griffey he adds pick 5? Maybe the collusion is between the commish and cincy. Some of all of these things that happened could be coincidence. At some point when fishy things keep happening, you have to look at the sum of it and not individual parts.

Posted by slashtc on 6/29/2022 7:19:00 AM (view original):
A week or so before the draft, I sent a sitemail to Oakland asking what he needed to trade the pick. His response was basically everything (and he's right...that team is terrible). So I told him I would trade him pick #6, Canseco, and Scott Sanderson for his pick. Pretty aggressive to move up a couple spots.

The day before the draft I checked in to see if I needed to offer more and that sitemail was never opened. Without ever opening it, he accepts a terrible trade. If you're scared of the word collusion, that's fine. Call it whatever, but as soon as he makes that trade without even making an effort to make a better one, it is unacceptable.

To hear that cincy subsequently traded more value to get pick 5 is even more damning. Commish allows the other trade, bullys me via sitemail to drop it, then magically after keeping assets he should have had to deal to get Griffey he adds pick 5? Maybe the collusion is between the commish and cincy. Some of all of these things that happened could be coincidence. At some point when fishy things keep happening, you have to look at the sum of it and not individual parts.

Your trade offer & what he accepted is the head scratcher.

Posted by 20ks on 6/29/2022 2:23:00 AM (view original):
There are almost too many side stories to explain here. slash and epup have a history in this league that predates him being commish so tensions escalate pretty quickly.
The varying definitions of the word collusion itself make it a tricky debate. To me, collusion is a planned deception which I don't think happened here. In Icon leagues, maneuvers are everything. I do think Cincy got the #3 pick lightly (especially since they also traded for the #5 pick and paid a higher price for it). However, a "bad" trade does not mean they colluded. It does stink when you make an offer and it isn't even looked at before an owner accepts another deal, but as some have pointed out the Oakland owner is pretty new and might not know the true value of the pick they held. The Reds were going to go all in for Griffey and it would have been easy to get more from them.
I think slash is off base on collusion, but right that Griffey should have gone for more. I also think it might have been a pretty quick league ejection unless something else happened that we don't know about.

Sorry, I missed this one.

I try really hard to be a fair guy. Everyone in that league has maneuvered around in ways that someone didn't like at some point or another. This isn't that though. If I remember what team 20ks had correctly, I outmaneuvered him for Tim Raines back in 81 or whatever season it was. I'm sure he wasn't happy about it. A few seasons later, there was a player that 20ks meant to protect or somehow got left off his list that I drafted. I believe I just gave him back to 20ks...didn't ask for anything in return, didn't fuss about it. I did it as a good will gesture knowing we had gone head-to-head on Raines before and that didn't end favorably for him. I could have kept the player. Some might argue I should have kept the player. Had it been a better player, I might have (though it's also unlikely a better player would have been missed on a roster).

I'm not as cutthroat as some in this league are and that has worked against me from time to time. People have been tanking in this league since before I was in it. There's a lot of wink wink nod nod type stuff...apparently there are unwritten rules on how to tank if you're not part of the in crowd. People get too greedy in my opinion and that is bad for the league as a whole. Back in the early 70s, the (now) commish tried to get greedy and I posted in the world chat that if he made the move he was threatening to make, I was going to trade my pick to someone that would be able to prevent him from doing what he was trying to do. He took that to mean I was going to give the pick away (which I wasn't, but that's kind of ironic given how everything ultimately played out here). Here we are in 1989 (close to 30 seasons later) and he's still ****** about that. If we're being 100% transparent, THAT is why I was booted from the league.

I am also brutally honest - I was honest about what I was trying to do with trade partners, and I tried to make offers that worked favorably for both teams. I was honest with potential trade partners about what I was trying to do and how it impacted the trade I was trying to make with them. If anything, I've been too forthcoming. Too open. Too honest. That doesn't mean I have been perfect (I haven't) or that I haven't made mistakes along the way (I have). Some of those mistakes have been trying to play the game the way the other cutthroats are playing it. That's not my strong point and it resulted in some bad decisions along the way. I don't sugarcoat my opinions. I prefer brutal honesty to doing things behind people's back as though that's somehow nicer. I don't believe debate should be done through sitemail where people can't see what is actually happening or being discussed; I believe it should be out in the open. I believe people have the right to know what is going on in their league. I believe the commish should not be (and in many cases cannot handle) having autonomy to do whatever they want.

I want a game that is fair. I want a level playing field. I don't want a clique running things one way for themselves and another way for outsiders. I believe that's a fairly reasonable approach.