Fantasy ethics question

[Pauly]

Here's the deal: Two teams in my league just consummated their 12th trade together this year. Our league policy does allow for protests (only in very extreme circumstances). Nobody has filed a formal protest (because none of the deals were egregious) - however someone pointed out that it was their 12th trade and it "smells bad" (so to speak).

Anyway, as commissioner, I told the complainer that there's really nothing I can do, but that I would encourage both teams to shop their players around more than to each other.

Is this an ethical dilemma? Could I have done anything more? Should I have?

[Pogues]

First, it might be a good idea to look at the twelve trades together, see if there is some type of discernible pattern. Twelve trades, that would certainly have the potential to be collusive.

Second, perhaps your league wants to consider a limit on the number of trades between two teams in a year...if something does seem fishy.

[popeye]

First, it might be a good idea to look at the twelve trades together, see if there is some type of discernible pattern. Twelve trades, that would certainly have the potential to be collusive.

Second, perhaps your league wants to consider a limit on the number of trades between two teams in a year...if something does seem fishy.

If trades are going to be scrutinized at all, it should be for their semblance of reasonableness, not their frequency.

[swampdragon]

agree with all - just check out the trades for fairness and potential collusion - and stupidity is not collusion

[Pauly]

the trades are definitely not collusion...just high volume

[revo]

This is a big-time dilemma that I've encountered a bunch of times over my 15+years as commish of my FBL and FFL leagues. And I agree it needs to be reined in.

The problem is that one owner has "greater access" to another owner that the rest of the league does not have. Typically what I have found is the opposing owner rarely trades with other teams, rarely counters other offers, yet makes deal after deal with the other owner, who more often than not is his friend. There's usually no collusion per se, just a greater willingness to accept deals from the buddy. That creates a lot of resentment in the league, which is why I tend to have discussions with the two and see why the one owner never counters or leaves offers up for days, yet makes deal after deal with the other guy.

I'd reach out and see what's up.

[Judge Jude]

yeah, I think both owners need to be informed that yes, the other owners have noticed, and maybe you guys ought to think about that.

I swear I play in the daintiest keeper league on earth, as mentioned before - the defending champ is age 71, he and I are original owners from 1984, half the owners go back to the 1980s, and no one new has joined since 2002. and never a complaint about a trade.

but you know what, we're friendly but we're not chumps. if two owners made a dozen trades in the same year and there was any undertone of others not getting a fair shot - not a word would be said, but both owners would be a little nervous the following year if they were contending and offering a top prospect like other contenders for a lame duck player. Because the odds of them getting zapped - and this is just 'all things being equal' comps - is close to 100 pct.

so enjoy your lovefest, and we'll move forward.

And that's in the DAINTIEST league I can think of.

So no veto, no collusion. enjoy. and reap what ye shall sow, bro.

[ironfist]

This is a big-time dilemma that I've encountered a bunch of times over my 15+years as commish of my FBL and FFL leagues. And I agree it needs to be reined in.

The problem is that one owner has "greater access" to another owner that the rest of the league does not have. Typically what I have found is the opposing owner rarely trades with other teams, rarely counters other offers, yet makes deal after deal with the other owner, who more often than not is his friend. There's usually no collusion per se, just a greater willingness to accept deals from the buddy. That creates a lot of resentment in the league, which is why I tend to have discussions with the two and see why the one owner never counters or leaves offers up for days, yet makes deal after deal with the other guy.

I'd reach out and see what's up.

I agree. We have had the same problem in our league and it drove a huge wedge between two sides in the league, causing a mass exodus last year. The trades in question were all fair enough on their own, but the two guys were best friends and like you said they pretty much only traded with each other. Didn't help that one of the guys would be the first to bitch about every other persons trade. I've tried to introduce trade limits but no one would go for it. Hopefully you'll have better luck.

[Sour Masher]

I guess this sort of thing is fairly wide spread. We have a couple of owners in our league that trade mostly with the friend who brought them into the league. It gets frustrating, and I made it a point this year to call out one of them, as I practically begged him to let me know what he'd want for Greinke Desmond. He never responded but then practically gave both players away to our commish, who originally brought him into the league many years ago. He responded to me after the fact saying he figured I wouldn't want Greinke and Desmond anymore, because I had just traded for another SS and pitcher after he never responded to me. I let him know that going forward, I'd really appreciate him getting back to me, but the bottom line is he just feels more comfortable trading with his friend than me.

What really set me off is the guy I got the SS/SP combo from? The commish, who got a lot from me, then flipped lesser assets to fill the holes by landing greinke and desmond cheap.

[Grinch]

It should come down to this.....did the others in the league have knowledge that the players were available? Did anyone make 'better offers' ? (of course better is subjective) Lastly, did anyone point this out to the two parties? Just asking them to defend themselves may be enough to curtail it----or at least force them to be a little more transparent when looking to trade.

[The Dane]

So no veto, no collusion. enjoy. and reap what ye shall sow, bro.

Agreed. Collusion (or even the appearance of it) can ruin leagues. But if this is clearly not collusion, then you gotta let it ride. Maybe make a joke or two at next year's draft. Ask them if they would like a separate room together, or if just holding hands under the table is enough. When one owner drafts a player, say to the other owner, "and he can be yours for the low low price of [one of his players]." Get them a beer with two straws. "Bob and Doug sittin' in a tree, T-R-A-D-I-N-G. First comes love, then comes marriage, then comes some trades we can all disparage."

That sort of thing. I think it would fix it right then and there.

I can surely understand having preferred trading partners. Some people just communicate better than others, or value players in a way I can understand. For example, when I trade I don't ever try to "win" the trade. I try to make something we can both get something out of, so I usually just lay my cards on the table, and tell the truth. I find that when I deal with owners who do the same, trades get done easily and quickly and both owners are happy. With other people, it could take dozens of emails to get the same trade done. Gotta dance their stupid dance. So if I trade with that first owner more, it's not really favoritism, it's just ease-of-play. Twelve trades is a lot, but I can see it on the far reaches of reasonableness, especially if that league does trade a lot.

In a related story, one owner in my league rarely answers his emails. He's active with FAABs and keeping a lineup, but if an email doesn't immediately grab his attention, he reads it and tosses it. We contemplated kicking him and would have if he didn't get very sick last Christmas (heart problems) and we felt bad. Well, this year he's in the hunt and no one is replying to his emails and he is PISSED and screaming collusion. None of us planned a thing, we just prefer to trade with the owners that answer our emails when we're the ones in contention, so he feels like he's out in the cold... and he is. Reap what you sow, man.

[Pogues]

the trades are definitely not collusion...just high volume

With 12 trades, I'd be curious if there is perhaps some shuttling of players back and forth...and back. If there isn't that, then yes, trades are probably not collusive. But not seeing each of the trades, I can only offer things to look for.

[Vecmizer]

Agreed. Collusion (or even the appearance of it) can ruin leagues. But if this is clearly not collusion, then you gotta let it ride. Maybe make a joke or two at next year's draft. Ask them if they would like a separate room together, or if just holding hands under the table is enough. When one owner drafts a player, say to the other owner, "and he can be yours for the low low price of [one of his players]." Get them a beer with two straws. "Bob and Doug sittin' in a tree, T-R-A-D-I-N-G. First comes love, then comes marriage, then comes some trades we can all disparage."

That sort of thing. I think it would fix it right then and there.

We had the same problem in our league. Two owners were trading with one another every few weeks. No trade on its own was horrible, but team A always got the stats he needed and team B was always at the bottom. Team B would frequently turn down better offers and deal with team A. Team B had and owner that always kept a proper line up but 99% of his decisions were horrible. After a while the rest of us owners started openly calling team B team A's farm team. Team A wins the league we ask if his farm team gets a cut of the $. It took about a season and a half before they stopped trading with just themselves and started to trade with the rest of the league.

[Pauly]

thanks for all the insight guys...I got both of the owners on a combined facebook chat last night and wouldnt you know it, they start trying to make another deal right then LOL. I encouraged them to please use the "On the Block" and make sure the league knows who is available, etc etc. Hopefully that nips it in the bud.

[Judge Jude]

sounds like they'll need to see other owners make a deal that they wish they could have gotten in on before they "see the light." kind of weird how clueless they are.