Trade made before auction but completed after?

[cleo]

I have an owner in my league who last year just hours after our auction was complete, was able to make a trade for Jose Altuve ($51) and gave up 2 very good keepers for the future.

We did have some upset owners over this trade as this deal gave the new Altuve owner a full season of stats and made this team the team to beat. This team did go on to win our 12 team AL only title last year.

We have one owner that whenever his keeper list is weak going into a season, does a 2 year plan. Last year this 2 yr plan guy goes into the auction and pretty much got Altuve at all costs and was the one that traded him for right after the auction.

So thinking back, I wonder if this deal was made before the auction even took place? We do not have any rules in place that limit trades on draft day, but wouldn't a trade like this be considered collusion? I have no proof of this being agreed upon before, but this year I have been approached by another team asking about my best keeper (lets call him player z) and they have said I will get you player x during the auction and then we can make the deal after. That would be the like me taking player x into the auction but at player z price.

I think there is a trend forming here and I don't like it. I would like to know if other leagues have seen this type of trade in the past? I have proposed a rule change to only allow trades after May 1, but that was shot down. We have a # of owners that love to trade and will make 15 deals a season.

Thanks for any comments.

[swampdragon]

collusion - sort of
ethical - not really

not sure how you stop it unless you have a trading window start date and they could have set it up to do it then anyway

[Art Vandelay]

I have an owner in my league who last year just hours after our auction was complete, was able to make a trade for Jose Altuve ($51) and gave up 2 very good keepers for the future.

We did have some upset owners over this trade as this deal gave the new Altuve owner a full season of stats and made this team the team to beat. This team did go on to win our 12 team AL only title last year.

We have one owner that whenever his keeper list is weak going into a season, does a 2 year plan. Last year this 2 yr plan guy goes into the auction and pretty much got Altuve at all costs and was the one that traded him for right after the auction.

So thinking back, I wonder if this deal was made before the auction even took place? We do not have any rules in place that limit trades on draft day, but wouldn't a trade like this be considered collusion? I have no proof of this being agreed upon before, but this year I have been approached by another team asking about my best keeper (lets call him player z) and they have said I will get you player x during the auction and then we can make the deal after. That would be the like me taking player x into the auction but at player z price.

I think there is a trend forming here and I don't like it. I would like to know if other leagues have seen this type of trade in the past? I have proposed a rule change to only allow trades after May 1, but that was shot down. We have a # of owners that love to trade and will make 15 deals a season.

Thanks for any comments.

This would cause MAJOR issues with in my main league.

[mgwiz22]

I think it's collusion

[Judge Jude]

wow, in 34 years I have never even heard of this

the guy who pays 20 pct of his auction budget on Altuve and then trades him hours later seems like an idiot, at best

many of these issues come down to league culture sensibilities. I don't see it as illegal per se, but in my league neither owner would ever get an even break in future deals again.

then again, what you have been asked about IS collusion, so hard to believe it isn't a variation on same.

I'd say the league has to decide if this is the environment they accept. if not, maybe it's time for a couple of owners to go.

[Pauly]

It sounds to me like this league needs a salary cap

[cavebird]

I'll be the contrarian here. I do not think this is collusion or even remotely unethical. Hell, given how MLB teams now try to tank, it is not that different from reality. From the original post, I have to assume that there is no rule against dump trades and no time restrictions for making them. If those are the rules and my keeper list means I am rebuilding, you can da*n sure bet that I would feel out all the teams with good keepers before the draft and figure out what they want. Then, if I can get two great keepers for one guy, I am sure a **** doing it. That's just being smart. On both sides. The dumping team gets a better haul by trading early (and his team for this year doesn't matter to him), and the contender gets the full year of the stud's stats.

I am facing a similar situation (possibly) this year. It is slightly different because my league bars dump trades for two months. I have one of the top keeper lists, but it includes Trea Turner, Dee Gordon, Albies, Amed Rosario, and Acuna. Barring injuries (or PED suspensions [yeah, I've had Gordon for a few years, and still bear a grudge against him]) I have steals on overkill. Another likely contender has tons of power, but lacks speed. I have tried to work out a trade of Gordon to him in the offseason, but he won't give up Judge or Correa for obvious reasons, and he doesn't have enough otherwise for me to bite. I have three obvious needs (power, SP, and closers), and he knows this. I will try to get as much as I can of those three at auction, but will obviously have excess speed and too little of one of those after the auction. With very little speed not being kept (Peraza might be the best one at auction), of course he might see how my draft is going and buy the stuff I haven't gotten in an effort to make a deal very early in the season for Gordon. So could anyone else who needs speed (unless I find a good offseason deal, which might be unlikely). It won't be a dump trade (Gordon's contract expires this year, and he cannot be kept.). But still, it is a sort of, kind of prearranged thing. With that guy--and all my league mates who lurk around here (yeah, I am doing it with this post, shamelessly).

The only way I see this type of deal as collusion would be if the guy trading the keepers for Altuve purposefully avoided bidding on Altuve and suppressed his price by not bidding. Given that this is Altuve, this is highly unlikely---everyone is going to be in on him. And honestly, even then, I do not know if it is collusion---the only way that a player's price is suppressed (which is what makes it collusion) is that the two teams with the pre-arranged trade are the two teams that otherwise would have been the two highest bidders on that player, which is wildly unlikely---the dumping team has no reason to go for Altuve in particular---he just wants anyone who will get him a good dump haul, and if that is obviously Altuve because he's the best available, then way too many teams will naturally be in on him anyway.

Sorry, I just don't see this as collusion or unethical. It is adapting to the rules that exist. If this leaves a bad taste in the league's mouth, then the obvious solution is to change the rules to avoid this. Or add an in-season salary cap so the studs are not as good trade bait. But under the rules as I understand them, both teams in the trade got great value for their situations. Neither gave more than they got given their situations. Almost the definition of a good trade. While it is slightly unseemly for a team not to try to win in any given season, it will always happen in keeper leagues. Sort of like the biggest, most expensive keeper league of all: MLB.

[cavebird]

And, Judge Jude, I respect your judgment, but I think the guy is being intelligent if he, as the original post implied, he had no realistic shot that year and got two great keepers for Altuve. I would except he wanted to the same with the other 3/4 of his auction budget!

[Art Vandelay]

I'll be the contrarian here. I do not think this is collusion or even remotely unethical. Hell, given how MLB teams now try to tank, it is not that different from reality. From the original post, I have to assume that there is no rule against dump trades and no time restrictions for making them. If those are the rules and my keeper list means I am rebuilding, you can da*n sure bet that I would feel out all the teams with good keepers before the draft and figure out what they want. Then, if I can get two great keepers for one guy, I am sure a **** doing it. That's just being smart. On both sides. The dumping team gets a better haul by trading early (and his team for this year doesn't matter to him), and the contender gets the full year of the stud's stats.

I am facing a similar situation (possibly) this year. It is slightly different because my league bars dump trades for two months. I have one of the top keeper lists, but it includes Trea Turner, Dee Gordon, Albies, Amed Rosario, and Acuna. Barring injuries (or PED suspensions [yeah, I've had Gordon for a few years, and still bear a grudge against him]) I have steals on overkill. Another likely contender has tons of power, but lacks speed. I have tried to work out a trade of Gordon to him in the offseason, but he won't give up Judge or Correa for obvious reasons, and he doesn't have enough otherwise for me to bite. I have three obvious needs (power, SP, and closers), and he knows this. I will try to get as much as I can of those three at auction, but will obviously have excess speed and too little of one of those after the auction. With very little speed not being kept (Peraza might be the best one at auction), of course he might see how my draft is going and buy the stuff I haven't gotten in an effort to make a deal very early in the season for Gordon. So could anyone else who needs speed (unless I find a good offseason deal, which might be unlikely). It won't be a dump trade (Gordon's contract expires this year, and he cannot be kept.). But still, it is a sort of, kind of prearranged thing. With that guy--and all my league mates who lurk around here (yeah, I am doing it with this post, shamelessly).

The only way I see this type of deal as collusion would be if the guy trading the keepers for Altuve purposefully avoided bidding on Altuve and suppressed his price by not bidding. Given that this is Altuve, this is highly unlikely---everyone is going to be in on him. And honestly, even then, I do not know if it is collusion---the only way that a player's price is suppressed (which is what makes it collusion) is that the two teams with the pre-arranged trade are the two teams that otherwise would have been the two highest bidders on that player, which is wildly unlikely---the dumping team has no reason to go for Altuve in particular---he just wants anyone who will get him a good dump haul, and if that is obviously Altuve because he's the best available, then way too many teams will naturally be in on him anyway.

Sorry, I just don't see this as collusion or unethical. It is adapting to the rules that exist. If this leaves a bad taste in the league's mouth, then the obvious solution is to change the rules to avoid this. Or add an in-season salary cap so the studs are not as good trade bait. But under the rules as I understand them, both teams in the trade got great value for their situations. Neither gave more than they got given their situations. Almost the definition of a good trade. While it is slightly unseemly for a team not to try to win in any given season, it will always happen in keeper leagues. Sort of like the biggest, most expensive keeper league of all: MLB.

If the contender told only the eventual altuve owner he would ship his youngsters in exchange post auction, then it is absolutely collusion. In fact, it is unbelievable to think the contender would even be involved in the altuve bidding since there was a pre-arranged deal.

There has to be morals and integrity among a small group of friends playing this hobby...money or no money, these two didn't behave with either but that's just my opinion.

Like JJ wrote, those two would be outcasts in my league.

[Ken]

It is absolutely collusion - two teams conspire to give one of the teams more resources than are allowed in the auction.

The biggest reason you know it is collusion is because the deal has been completed but that information is hidden from the rest of the league.

We have a policy stating that no trades can be made between keeper deadline and the auction. This trade would span that duration making it illegal.

We also specifically call out rental trades as illegal since they are collusion, and this is very similar to a rental.

Here's one definition I've seen that fits:

"A transaction between two or more owners with the intent of working together to share in potential future monetary or productivity gains without disclosing said intent to the League."

[Redbirds Fan]

It is absolutely collusion - two teams conspire to give one of the teams more resources than are allowed in the auction.

The biggest reason you know it is collusion is because the deal has been completed but that information is hidden from the rest of the league.

We have a policy stating that no trades can be made between keeper deadline and the auction. This trade would span that duration making it illegal.

We also specifically call out rental trades as illegal since they are collusion, and this is very similar to a rental.

Here's one definition I've seen that fits:

"A transaction between two or more owners with the intent of working together to share in potential future monetary or productivity gains without disclosing said intent to the League."

This.

[cavebird]

Wait. How do we know the deal had been completed? If there was a corrupt bargain and the guy who wanted Altuve would have bid on Altuve otherwise but did not at that price point (who cares who bids at $10?), that is collusion, as I noted. But otherwise, I don't see it. I do not see that what happened was anything different than a guy knowing he could not afford Altuve given what else he needs and then offering an overpay (two great keepers for one stud is an overpay in most keeper leagues, but I guess it would help to know who the "great" keepers were) to the guy who gets him? How do we know that this didn't happen? What if the guy just announced at auction that he would give the two keepers for Altuve to anyone who gets him? Same result.

I guess everyone is assuming that there was a corrupt bargain (despite their avatars) when it could have easily been the following:

1. Non-contender goes stars and scrubs, which is the most obvious strategy for non-contenders in keeper leagues without salary caps.

2. Contender wants Altuve but needs to spend that huge chunk of change elsewhere.

3. Contender contacts non-contender immediately after the auction and makes an offer he cannot refuse.

Why is that so unrealistic? If these guys have done iffy trades in the past, hey, that's different, but I am just going from the facts I know.

For those screaming collusion---what about my situation---is that collusion? My extra is known, my needs are known. teams can draft accordingly. No pre-arranged deal with anyone. But hey, I know what the other guy wants, too, so I won't bid him up on a guy I would guess he would trade me for my excess. (Not that this stops everyone else from doing so, and if someone else has top bid, I will bid.)

[cavebird]

The biggest reason you know it is collusion is because the deal has been completed but that information is hidden from the rest of the league.

From the facts given, how do you know this is true? Contender could easily have been ready to offer the deal that nobody can refuse to whomever got Altuve.

[Ken]

From the facts given, how do you know this is true? Contender could easily have been ready to offer the deal that nobody can refuse to whomever got Altuve.

The question posed that I responded to was the following hypothetical:

“So thinking back, I wonder if this deal was made before the auction even took place? We do not have any rules in place that limit trades on draft day, but wouldn't a trade like this be considered collusion?”

[cavebird]

Yes, I question the original argument that you can assume collusion from the facts presented. If there is a deal to avoid bidding on a player, that is collusion. Otherwise, I do not think it is collusion. Sorry if my original intent was not posted well---it is Lundi Gras.