Suspected Collusion

[mariners100]

With the team dropping the DEF right after the trade, something smell's fishy... If you are not the commish in the league, I don't see why anyone would respond to you asking why they made the trade. If I was a team in your league, I wouldn't be telling you my "trade secrets".

The commish however, should get a response from both owners explaining why the move was made. If they cannot justify that trade should be reversed.

[Matthias]

The commish however, should get a response from both owners explaining why the move was made. If they cannot justify that trade should be reversed.

They did get an explanation; see near the bottom of page 1. The two guys were loaning players.

[spodog]

I talked to one of the owners and apparently the trade was the result of some mutual "loan" agreement which is of course collusion and is cheating. I've given a strict warning to both owners that they will be locked if they attempt anything like this again. I will also require an explanation for all future trades between those owners.

Put 'em on probation.


Just wondering . . . . we are looking at adding an explicit rule to our league for next year against "player loan" situations like this. It has never occurred, but better to have the rule and not need it than need it and not have it.

Do any of you have criteria that you've already developed for what constitutes player loaning? I think we all know it when we see it, but wordsmithing it for a rule book is a different matter.

[Matthias]

Lucky for you, you got a law school grad in the house.

"No owner shall make a trade that includes any other considerations, current or future, beyond the players traded. Other considerations include, but are not limited to: an agreement for a future trade, involving the same or different players; an agreement to another trade in a different league; an agreement to set a lineup in a certain way, and anything outside of the league itself."

[mariners100]

Sorry.. didnt see the reason why they made the trade.

I would put them on probation too. If they have done this before I would strongly consider booting them from the league. I would also make a clear explanation to the rest of the league about why you cannot "rent" a player for a week. I like how you are asking those two owners for an explanation for their trades... as long as you are not asking everyone else too...

I think you handled it well.

[spodog]

Lucky for you, you got a law school grad in the house.

"No owner shall make a trade that includes any other considerations, current or future, beyond the players traded. Other considerations include, but are not limited to: an agreement for a future trade, involving the same or different players; an agreement to another trade in a different league; an agreement to set a lineup in a certain way, and anything outside of the league itself."

Thanks for the offer, Matthias, but this one won't work for us, as we already DO allow other items besides players to be included in a trade package. We allow future year draft picks and Blind Bidding "cap dollars", for example, to be packaged into a trade.

[Matthias]

Ok: then how about this way?

"Upon the consummation of every trade, the owners involved shall disclose every consideration involved. Any consideration deemed unacceptable shall result in the nullification of the trade. Acceptable consideration shall be future draft picks, Blind Bidding cap dollars, etc. Unacceptable consideration shall be blah blah."

or, more simply and directly,

"Any trade made with the intent of effecting a future trade between the same owners, to create a player loan or player share agreement, shall be banned."

or a bit more general

"Any trade that cannot be completed at the time of the trade and requires future action on the part of one or more owners, shall be considered inoperative."

The last one might be your best bet; you can trade away the right to your future draft pick today but you can't trade the promise to do something in the future.

[Kilroy]

Sorry.. didnt see the reason why they made the trade.

I would put them on probation too. If they have done this before I would strongly consider booting them from the league. I would also make a clear explanation to the rest of the league about why you cannot "rent" a player for a week. I like how you are asking those two owners for an explanation for their trades... as long as you are not asking everyone else too...

I think you handled it well.

I don't think it's a bad idea for a Commissioner to ask the owners involved in any trade to provide their rationale for making the deal. I don't have to agree with it, but I think it can help cut down on misunderstandings when a trade is (from the Commissioner's POV anyway) a bit of a head-scratcher. I ain't gotta think it's a good deal, but it helps to know why you do.