ABA316 wrote:Makes sense Bungles, thanks for the reply. Had the "final" deal been agreed upon before the "first" one, I think that's a different story.
No, it doesn't make any difference. Either way it's not collusive. If anything, there would be collusion in the enforcement of A's stipulation that by trading a player to B, B agrees not to trade that same player to C. That is the closest thing to collusion that you have.
But the idea that someone worked out a deal to trade a player that they were bargaining for? That's the essence of 3-team deals: it happens all the time in the MLB and in fantasy sports.
Those are my sentiments, I've worked out 3 team deals that were not fishy at all, sometimes it takes 3 teams to get a deal done no matter how soon after...How can you just call it collusion because the other deal was struck soon after.
Maybe team B wants a player off of my team, but I don't like any of his, so I tell him if you work out a deal with team A that lands Steve Slaton(for example) I'll give you the player your looking for off my team(that team A may of not been interested in).
All I care about is that each individual trade was fair, and not shifting the balance waaaay outta wack...If it looks like everyone is improving their team I don't care how they came to the conclusion or when it was posted, I'd only have a problem if that third trade looked like somebody getting completely ripped off.