Ethics: Three Interesting Scenarios.

[Favre.com]

Great discussion so far. Just wanted to clarify that these were hypothetical.

[skibrett15]

Great discussion so far. Just wanted to clarify that these were hypothetical.

well, congrats... you just ended the "long discussion" you were hoping for.

[Timbathia]

I agree with smack on A. I dont like leagues where you can make pickups or trades on sundays and momdays. It favors the nerd that watches the games through his computer and not the guys (like me) that like to get drunk and watch the games. Lock rosters as soon as the first game starts for the week and then Tuesday midday is a great time to unlock rosters!

[crapshooter]

Before the season starts set roster limits. Ours are 3 quarterbacks

Set a trade deadline of like week 9 to stop people out of it making trades

[quitesanemax]

I agree with smack on A. I dont like leagues where you can make pickups or trades on sundays and momdays. It favors the nerd that watches the games through his computer and not the guys (like me) that like to get drunk and watch the games. Lock rosters as soon as the first game starts for the week and then Tuesday midday is a great time to unlock rosters!

I'm not a commissioner, so I'm not sure how it works. If the commissioner is able to set it up so that players come off waivers on Tuesday morning automatically, when everything else is updated, I'm okay with that. If the commissioner has to physically unlock the rosters, as you suggest then the commissioner has an unfair advantage. He knows when it is going to be unlocked, so he can then go pick up what players he wants. Or, from the commissioner's perspective, he might feel that he can't pick up players for that very reason, which is unfair on him.

As far as the scenarios go:
A: IMO, immoral of the guy picking up all the QBs, but I don't think there is anything you, as the commissioner should do. If I'm the one with the injured QB, I'm going to let him (and the league) know exactly how I feel about it. Also, it isn't a very smart long term move. Yeah, maybe he gets into the playoffs because of this... especially considering that by this point it is past the trade deadline, so the other guy can't trade for a QB. But he could find himself in big trouble in the playoffs if any of his starters get hurt. And if I am the other guy, I'm dropping my injured QB to pick up his best backup... (assuming there is no other viable option at qb) and maybe I'll drop a few others if his backups are good enough... not to mention others in the league. He probably isn't getting any of those backups back.

B: No matter how much you know the person, I'm not sure how you could know its not collusion. It does seem very suspicious. I'm thinking that how well you know someone else in the league should not affect the way you run your league. From a neutral standpoint, if it is suspicious, its suspicious... doesn't matter how well you know the two involved.

C: If you are being offered the trade, I'd just refuse it and say that you believe this would ruin the integrity of the league, and ask him, as a friend, not to make such offers to others in the league.

[smackthefirst]

No. I did have that unfair burden on me the first year, but I have since figured it out. Basically all transactions lock five minutes before game time of the first game of the week. Tuesday night, late night, around 2am, the waivers run as entered by each team. Then on Wednesday morning at 9, the league automatically opens it back up to a first come first served basis.

So all teams are free at the same point to pick up players as they see fit.

[Crippler]

A) No problem with it at all. It's strategy

B) This is a horrible trade, but since you're sure that there is no collusion, it's not vetoable.

C) Collusion.

Agreed. I did the exact same thing as #1 earlier this season but with kickers instead of QBs.

[The Lung]

• A: I would immediately boot an owner who did this.

  No owner will make any roster moves (including waiver claims, trade proposals, etc.) whose sole purpose is to hamper the play of other owners.

  And,

  No owner will take any action whose purpose is to, in any way, interfere with fair play in a league.

  I'm also shocked at the number of people on this thread that support such actions. You guys have very little sense of the rules of fair play and good sportsmanship.
  
• B: This a horribly unbalanced trade - Tomlinson is still going to score more points than Mason and McGahee ever would. But if the last place owner honestly believes it will improve his team, and collusion cannot be proven, then the trade must be allowed to stand.
  
• C: This is the very definition of collusion.

  All league-related transactions will be executed with the intent of improving the owner's team or its standing within the league.

  Your brother admitted he is giving up Tomlinson as a Christmas present, and receiving far less value (Cadillac) in return.

  No owner will engage in any action that might be deemed to be collusive (two or more owners agreeing to make moves that benefit one team, but not the other).

  I would not allow this trade to go through, give the brother and cousin a stern warning, and educate them about the rules of fair play and good sportsmanship.