Trade made before auction but completed after?

[Ken]

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.

If there is an agreed upon deal that has not been made public to the league, regardless of bidding, it is collusion based on how every league I have been in interprets it and rules on it.

That was the hypothetical that comments were invited on.

[mjl]

I agree with you. I think cavebird's point is that this looks like collusion but it also looks like the rational course of behavior for a rebuilding team. It's reasonable for a rebuilding team to buy the most expensive player and it's reasonable for them to trade that guy for a couple really good prospects. If they're willing to admit to having arranged that before the draft, then yeah, that's a problem, I guess... But it's a pretty fuzzy line between that and "hey, if you get anyone really good in the auction, I'll give you my two best prospects for him." The main thing that concerns me is that it sounds like other teams didn't have the option to get involved in the negotiations if Altuve was available, which isn't good.

Actually, someone in my NL-only league where the keeper list is a mix of majors and minors offered me Daniel Murphy $21 for Brendan Rodgers $5/minors, and my response was "even if I thought this was a good deal, which I'm not sure of, there's absolutely no reason for me to do it before the auction; I'd rather have the $21 in the auction and do it afterward. I understand that this deal may not be available right after the auction, but feel free to re-offer it then and I'll at least be more inclined to take it." Is that collusion?

I think the best solution is probably to have trading start in May or whatever. I think this trade is a basically valid thing to do and a terrible precedent for future league happiness.

[umjewman]

This happened in my league a few years back. I think it involved a $1 Freddie Freeman. It caused about 6 hours of debate and screaming for two reasons: 1) the guy who got the expensive studs knew he did not have to bid big on any superstars because he had those 2 locked up. So he was able to build a much more balanced team with the knowledge that he had 2 studs coming his way (as opposed to hoping he could pull off a deal), and 2) neither trade participant was known for bidding significant dollar amounts on players as both are more spread the wealth types instead of stars and scrubs. So the complaint was that the dumper was manipulating pricing by bidding on players he never bids on, not even in price enforcement.

Left a bad taste in everyone's mouth. Basically, we are on the honor system that there will be no pre-arranged deals. We also instituted a form of in-season salary cap.

[Redbirds Fan]

We were talking the other day about leagues moving from keeper leagues to redraft leagues. This is the type of trade which prompts discussions of such changes.

Whether you call it collusion or not, the concept of fantasy baseball competition starts to break down when individuals don't do their best to help their own teams win now. We accept it, however, because of the notion of "playing for next year" and the generally unproven idea that an owner knows what is best for his team in the long run. My experience is that many of the same teams tend to dump every year.

[chancellor]

I agree with cavebird vis a bis collusion. If the keepers are good, it’s a fair deal.

However, I also agree these types of deals leave bad tastes. My auction league, like Ken’s, has implemented a no-trade rule from keeper deadline until one week after the auction. And while there’s no direct rule, we don’t have owners who dump on day 1

[Gregg]

Our rosters are frozen a week before the auction.

We have an in season salary cap that starts with 260 and increases throughout the season topping at $400.

We do not allow more than one * player to come over in a trade without one coming back. * players are done contracts or contracts $25 and over. If you want a $45 Kershaw and 25X Wade Davis for a 10F Acuna the Acuna owner would have to add an X contact or a $25+ to get deal done. These trading rules only apply in season.

Lastly no rookie (F) contracts can be traded until after July 1st unless the rookie is activated.

The last two rules mentioned above were put in place last year. The goal was to make the auction more important to the league. Dumping while still a tool needed to be much less important.

The rule changes had positive results where more teams were in the hunt for the title as well as for the 4 place money slots.

[DMT]

We've never encountered this situation and I hope we never do.

[Hornsby]

I'd agree with umjewman...this would in essence give the player getting Altuve in a deal an extra 50 bucks to play with at the auction, really throwing off the dynamics.

I really don't know if there's a way to stop this if 2 owners are determined to do it...it comes down to the integrity of the guys involved.

[cavebird]

I'd agree with umjewman...this would in essence give the player getting Altuve in a deal an extra 50 bucks to play with at the auction, really throwing off the dynamics.

I really don't know if there's a way to stop this if 2 owners are determined to do it...it comes down to the integrity of the guys involved.

I think the contending owner, however, could do the same thing without any collusion at all. If he is willing to overpay in terms of good keepers, all he has to do is stop bidding on studs when a non-contender is winning the bidding (and that often happens, stars and scrubs is the most intelligent choice, IMNSHO, for a rebuilding team unless there are in-season salary caps that make studs not easily tradable), and then make an offer the guy cannot refuse. Probably easiest just to push back dump trades until later in the season.

[cavebird]

If there is an agreed upon deal that has not been made public to the league, regardless of bidding, it is collusion based on how every league I have been in interprets it and rules on it.

That was the hypothetical that comments were invited on.

He said he wondered if it was agreed before the draft, then asked if trades like the one made were collusion. I took that to mean that the question was whether the trade was collusion, not whether the trade was collusion only if agreed before the draft.

[Sour Masher]

Just to add my two cents--I think the line on this can get blurry.

I have never participated in a secret prearranged deal where I promised specific players in exchange for a particular player in the auction. However, I do frequently send out trade requests soon after auctions trying to make deals just like this, and I think about such deals while the auction is happening, and I'd bet some sellers have auctioned with such deals in mind, especially since we all know each other's favorite players.

If I see a team that is unlikely to contend, and their auction amounts to them landing a couple of high priced stars that won't be enough to get them close to the playoffs, my assumption is they are acquiring said players as potential trade pieces down the road. I try to sell them on the risk of holding said players till later in the season, and the advantages of taking my top prospects now for them. Last year, I landed Zack Greinke for a couple of prospects, and that was a big part of me winning. I got him before he pitched his first game. A rival of mine got Altuve three weeks into the season selling the same line as I usually do. It is just part of how our league does business. If you plan to contend, if you are not trying to trade for upgrades from the minute the auction ends, you will be left behind. Most teams won't agree to such deals, but we have a few owners who do, and that is who I target.

In keeping with this strategy, it would not surprise me if other owners arranged deals beforehand. As others have said, there is no way of telling, especially in a league where such deals, while not common, or not unheard of.

[Judge Jude]

Actually, someone in my NL-only league where the keeper list is a mix of majors and minors offered me Daniel Murphy $21 for Brendan Rodgers $5/minors, and my response was "even if I thought this was a good deal, which I'm not sure of, there's absolutely no reason for me to do it before the auction; I'd rather have the $21 in the auction and do it afterward. I understand that this deal may not be available right after the auction, but feel free to re-offer it then and I'll at least be more inclined to take it."

heh. just 2 days ago, I was offered Rodgers $5/minors for a 1-S1 Corey Knebel (can be 1-O in 2019 or 6-L2 in 2019 and 11-L1 in 2020). I was not insulted, but I said, "Try me again on June 1." Rodgers is useless to me right now, and Knebel can help me run up the score in SV early.....

[Ken]

He said he wondered if it was agreed before the draft, then asked if trades like the one made were collusion. I took that to mean that the question was whether the trade was collusion, not whether the trade was collusion only if agreed before the draft.

That's fair, your points are fair for that more nebulous scenario.

Of note the subject of this thread is "trade made before the auction but completed after", which is what I'm basing my comments on.

[cavebird]

That's fair, your points are fair for that more nebulous scenario.

Of note the subject of this thread is "trade made before the auction but completed after", which is what I'm basing my comments on.

Fair enough. The first post is ambiguous enough to make either interpretation fair.