trading ethics

[Hornsby]

I don't think it's necessarily a lie of omission. the info is out there and the guy who is making the offer should have researched it, but I'd still say something.

We'll have to agree that we differ on what constitutes a lie then. If my kids don't tell me some important information when asking if they can do something, I consider that a lie of omission. Now, if I should have been aware of the info, first time shame on you for not informing me...after that, shame on me for not checking things out thoroughly. But if you possess information that I should have, and you don't divulge it, it's at the least a breach of ethics, and I'm not likely to deal with you the same way in the future.

[heyelander]

We'll have to agree that we differ on what constitutes a lie then. If my kids don't tell me some important information when asking if they can do something, I consider that a lie of omission. Now, if I should have been aware of the info, first time shame on you for not informing me...after that, shame on me for not checking things out thoroughly. But if you possess information that I should have, and you don't divulge it, it's at the least a breach of ethics, and I'm not likely to deal with you the same way in the future.

I'd agree... but that's not what is going on here really. The other team made the suggestion. It's more like if your kids came to you and asked if they could do something. You know that that something sucks and they aren't going to enjoy it, but you don't tell them because they need to learn from the experience on their own or something. did you lie to them?

[mjl]

right, I would feel differently about this if I had made the offer, but he sent me this offer and the only reason I guessed what he was trying to do is that he also sent me another offer for an R player and when I looked at his roster I noticed that he didn't have any decent R players to keep.

[Hornsby]

I'd agree... but that's not what is going on here really. The other team made the suggestion. It's more like if your kids came to you and asked if they could do something. You know that that something sucks and they aren't going to enjoy it, but you don't tell them because they need to learn from the experience on their own or something. did you lie to them?

I'd tell them that what they were about to do would suck, urge them not to do it, but as long as there was no harm to come to them, allow them to do it. Then they would know that the old man was straight up with them and they might just trust my word next time.

Nothing changes the fact that, IMO, there should ALWAYS be full disclosure in any deal. I don't like the Caveat Emptor philosophy at all...

[Riff Raff]

So hitter ABC has switched to an extreme pitcher park. Disclose this to your trade partner as well? How about a prospect who may be very good blocked at the MLB level by the incumbent? Or a pitcher moving to a team that plays lackluster defense - disclose if you know it? Every time? I would think you would have to given the stated philosophy of full disclosure in the case you are aware of any potential information your trade partner may not be aware of. The question is where to draw the line. To get more zany ... if I know player ABC hits better in night games at home and that his schedule favours his future games and you offer him to me - do I need to disclose this as well? The possibilities seem endless and I can't possibly see why sharing everything you know - knowledge that is out there for others to also attain via due diligence - should be mandatory. I don't think i've met a trade offer ever where my trading partner shared everything he thought/knew/felt about the player(s) he was attempting to acquire or offer.

I'd tell them that what they were about to do would suck, urge them not to do it, but as long as there was no harm to come to them, allow them to do it. Then they would know that the old man was straight up with them and they might just trust my word next time.

Nothing changes the fact that, IMO, there should ALWAYS be full disclosure in any deal. I don't like the Caveat Emptor philosophy at all...

[Hornsby]

So hitter ABC has switched to an extreme pitcher park. Disclose this to your trade partner as well? How about a prospect who may be very good blocked at the MLB level by the incumbent? Or a pitcher moving to a team that plays lackluster defense - disclose if you know it? Every time? I would think you would have to given the stated philosophy of full disclosure in the case you are aware of any potential information your trade partner may not be aware of. The question is where to draw the line. To get more zany ... if I know player ABC hits better in night games at home and that his schedule favours his future games and you offer him to me - do I need to disclose this as well? The possibilities seem endless and I can't possibly see why sharing everything you know - knowledge that is out there for others to also attain via due diligence - should be mandatory. I don't think i've met a trade offer ever where my trading partner shared everything he thought/knew/felt about the player(s) he was attempting to acquire or offer.

Now you're just being silly, Simon...see what I did there?

[heyelander]

I'd tell them that what they were about to do would suck, urge them not to do it, but as long as there was no harm to come to them, allow them to do it. Then they would know that the old man was straight up with them and they might just trust my word next time.

Nothing changes the fact that, IMO, there should ALWAYS be full disclosure in any deal. I don't like the Caveat Emptor philosophy at all...

But the dude isn't the buyer here... he's the seller. Again, I would tell him, but I don't see it as lying if I have to try to figure out what the guy wants in the deal and then make sure he's getting it. If he wrote me and said, hey, I'll trade you my guy for your R level guy who I knew wasn't an R guy, then yeah, I'm sort of screwing him by not mentioning it. Full disclosure is one thing, trying to read the guys mind is another.

I think he should mention it, but I don't think it's lying if he doesn't.

[The Dane]

I'd tell them that what they were about to do would suck, urge them not to do it, but as long as there was no harm to come to them, allow them to do it. Then they would know that the old man was straight up with them and they might just trust my word next time.

Nothing changes the fact that, IMO, there should ALWAYS be full disclosure in any deal. I don't like the Caveat Emptor philosophy at all...

So, you're trying to say that if today your $1 Soriano went down with a blown elbow, but I wasn't paying attention and I threw out an offer for him for my cheap Yonder Alonso, you wouldn't just snap it up?

[Hornsby]

So, you're trying to say that if today your $1 Soriano went down with a blown elbow, but I wasn't paying attention and I threw out an offer for him for my cheap Yonder Alonso, you wouldn't just snap it up?

That's exactly what I'm saying...what good does it do me to peddle bad merchandise? It'll just sour whatever relationship that we may have, and really cast a pall on any future deals we may end up doing. I'm no saint, but I also don't want to "win" a deal...I want both sides to get what they want. Again, making a future working relationship easier.

Any Wayne, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, but now you know that I'll try not to screw you in any future RJEL deals.

[The Dane]

That's exactly what I'm saying...what good does it do me to peddle bad merchandise? It'll just sour whatever relationship that we may have, and really cast a pall on any future deals we may end up doing. I'm no saint, but I also don't want to "win" a deal...I want both sides to get what they want. Again, making a future working relationship easier.

Fair enough. And I totally agree that this is the way the RJEL runs and should run, and I would act the same. However, it is also evidence that RJEL is NOT an experts league.

[Hornsby]

Fair enough. And I totally agree that this is the way the RJEL runs and should run, and I would act the same. However, it is also evidence that RJEL is NOT an experts league.

So you're saying that we should change the name to the RJHAL (Roto Junkie Honest Amateur League)?

[The Dane]

So you're saying that we should change the name to the RJHAL (Roto Junkie Honest Amateur League)?

HA! It would certainly be more accurate. I'd settle for just RJL. Truth in advertising and all that.

[heyelander]

dude... my participation alone should be enough to prove that it's not an experts league.