Ethics question

[ABA316]

OK, little long winded so I apologize.

Owner A is shopping a player. He received offers from Owner B and Owner C. After much thought he accepts owner B's offer because he thinks owner C is more of a threat and does not want to make him stronger..this is communicated from A to B.

Immediately after the trade goes through (which is posted for 2 days for league vote), owner B trades the player he just received to owner C. Rumor has it that C approached B to acquire the player.

What would you think of the actions of owner B and owner C in this incident? Does it matter if any of the parties are the commish of the league?

[PHI]

I personally wouldn't have a problem with this as long as neither trade was obvious collusion. It's within each owner's rights to try to improve their team in the best way they can. As long as there is no cheating involved, the manner of how this is accomplished should be left up to the owners' themselves.

[ABA316]

A and B's trade had not yet finalized when B and C made the deal, if that matters.

My thought is that while I guess it's not against any written rules, it just comes off as a bit shady IMO.

[Matthias]

To quote Benjamin Franklin: "Three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead."

You can't control what other people do; if you let something loose to them and they use it in a way that you didn't expect or want, then that's your own problem.

[LegendoftheFall]

"A" shoulda put a clause in like the Packers did with the jets (they have to give the pack 1st round draft picks if they turn around and trade him to the Vikings)

I guess this could be considered borderline collusion since B and C are colluding together to get A to trade to C, but as long as B is looking out for his own best interests i think it slides by inspection.

also, if commish is involved (and they usually are in this type of thing, not because of shadiness, but because they tend to get a better sense of each team and what each team wants/needs because of more interraction with each individual owner-at least in my experience as commish) i think it still passes.

Seems legit for team C to try to trade with A and fail.... and after failing to work out a deal, go to team B and say "if you can get this player from "A", i will trade you this player you need for him". ive done it myself.

[bungle613]

The way I read it is that the deal was made and agreed upon be owners A and B prior to owner C approaching team B. Perfectly fine by me. Owner C was turned bown by the first owner, got waht he wanted from the 2nd owner.

[joejlitz]

If a>b and b>c, then a>c, but if b<a and c<a, than is a>b+c?

Depends on which players are involved and which team the commish owns.

Kudos to those who could follow this pythagorian thereom ethics question by ABA316.

BTW, is ABA>C? Is 316<ABC? IDK, but it's an interesting question.

[ABA316]

I guess what I am really wondering is, is this activity of the owners B and C collusive? Collusion being defined as "a secret understanding between two or more persons"

Joe, if you didn't understand the example I can try again..but I guess I wonder, what does it matter who the player involved is?

[Matthias]

No: it is not collusion. It is a trade.

[bungle613]

I guess what I am really wondering is, is this activity of the owners B and C collusive? Collusion being defined as "a secret understanding between two or more persons"

Joe, if you didn't understand the example I can try again..but I guess I wonder, what does it matter who the player involved is?

The final deal was cut AFTER the first deal. Doesn't matter if it is 10 minutes or 10 days. The 3rd owner saw the deal posted and went after the player he wanted from the new owner. No collusion.