Chloroform Rx Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 (edited) Question about a move*** Just wanted an opinion on this: Player 1 has #1 waiver. Player 2 has #2 waiver. Player 1 will not be using claim on account of there being no one worthwhile to him. Player 2 wants Player A and Player B but won't be able to get both. Player 1 makes it known that he wants Player C which Player 2 owns. Player 2 says for Player 1 to grab Player A off waivers, so that he can grab Player B. Player 1 would then trade Player A to Player 2 for Player C. Player 2 gets Player A and Player B. Is this wrong/immoral? Edited September 10, 2014 by Chloroform Rx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loaf Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 that sounds like collusion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever in debt to mo lewis Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 its kind of a tough call for me on the surface i dont think theres anything wrong with it.....especially at this point in the year....if player 2 is willing to give up player c for a waiver wire guy....then thats on him.....apparently he think it will make his team better....its early and both teams are in contention now if this is a high stakes league...and its later in the year when one team is clearly fading....its a whole new ballgame.....especially if there is an agreement made(which will prob never be known) to kick some winnings over......at this stage of the year its fairly innocent....but it could breed something ugly down the line Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chloroform Rx Posted September 10, 2014 Author Share Posted September 10, 2014 I'll be perfectly honest, it is me who is involved. And we're both wondering if it's fair or not. We are both highly competitive (we actually played each other in the championship game last year) and it is a fairly high-stakes league. Both of us are making the move with the sole intention of making our team better, period. The reason I'm asking is because I'm actually not sure if this is immoral or not. And I don't want to cross that line. I've been playing FFB for about 10 years and have never faced a dilemma like this. As of now I told him to get the player, put him on the block to field offers, and if he wants to accept mine so be it. At the same time, it is well understood he will be taking my offer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 That is not collusion ... that is straight up trading. Essentially Owner 1 traded his first waiver pick (and a dropped player) for one of Owner 2's players, seems legit to me. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rattsass Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 Yeah, I am reading tht and thinking....isn't this just a trade? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flemingd Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 What kind of question is this? This is called trading. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slambo Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 As the commish in my local, if something like this went down I wouldn't have a problem with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 ... and Owner 2 simply decided Player A + Player B provided more value to his team than Player C ... by definition that is the stuff trades are made of Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chloroform Rx Posted September 10, 2014 Author Share Posted September 10, 2014 If not for the fact that both of us questioned it I wouldn't have asked. Thanks for the feedback! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 Agree with others, this is nothing more than a standard trade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cow3r Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 Nothing wrong here it's a straight trade. Player 1 is essentially trading waiver wire pick for Player 2's bench warmer. I wouldn't find it suspect unless we're talking tier 1 player for waiver pick. I.e. Player 1 gets megatron player 2 gets potential sleeper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolphin_Akie Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 Sounds fair enough to me. We unfortunately use last to first for waivers, I propose other methods yearly then lose the vote at the AGM, and we always end up with people discussing who they will take so you can plan accordingly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stethant Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 I think it's a trade - and about a hundred times less complicated than your average 3- or 4-team NBA trade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loaf Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 Like I said, this sounds like a great trade! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BA Baracus Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 Not collusion but good that you at least stop and consider it. You are each using clearly defined assets (players and waiver priority) to improve you teams the best you can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 When you've completed the moves can you tell us who the players are. We've had people do similar trades in the draft "at your 1.06 pick, if so and so is there, we'll do this trade (involves that pick, other picks, players, etc.) Not really collusion, no player sharing and nothing else shady. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chloroform Rx Posted September 10, 2014 Author Share Posted September 10, 2014 Deal is done, and these are not big-time players by any means. I wanted Terrance West and Bobby Rainey (I own Doug Martin). Yesterday he asked about Jeremy Maclin who I owned. I needed a RB and his 3 bench RB's were unappealing. Knowing already he wasn't going to burn his waiver, I asked him if he'd use it on Maclin if he were on waivers, he said yes. So I told him to grab West and I'd trade Maclin for him. Taking nothing else into consideration I would rather have Maclin than West. I made the trade based on two reasons: 1. I drafted Maclin as my WR5 (I'm happy with my other 4) & I am thin at RB. 2. His production yesterday came on one play. He was at 3 for 29 most of the game and I was banging my head before a 68 yard TD on broken coverage. I've owned him in the past so I was comfortable letting him go. That's it! I didn't name the players because it wasn't the quality of the players that I was worried about but rather the method we were employing to make this happen. Thanks again for the feedback! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BA Baracus Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 Deal is done, and these are not big-time players by any means. I wanted Terrance West and Bobby Rainey (I own Doug Martin). Yesterday he asked about Jeremy Maclin who I owned. I needed a RB and his 3 bench RB's were unappealing. Knowing already he wasn't going to burn his waiver, I asked him if he'd use it on Maclin if he were on waivers, he said yes. So I told him to grab West and I'd trade Maclin for him. Taking nothing else into consideration I would rather have Maclin than West. I made the trade based on two reasons: 1. I drafted Maclin as my WR5 (I'm happy with my other 4) & I am thin at RB. 2. His production yesterday came on one play. He was at 3 for 29 most of the game and I was banging my head before a 68 yard TD on broken coverage. I've owned him in the past so I was comfortable letting him go. That's it! I didn't name the players because it wasn't the quality of the players that I was worried about but rather the method we were employing to make this happen. Thanks again for the feedback! I dig it man. You don't always have to "win" the trade to improve your team. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECK Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 I'm the commissioner of my league and I would not have any problems with it. I've done similar things where I will pickup the handcuff to someone's team and then use that to trade for a guy they have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 I'm the commissioner of my league and I would not have any problems with it. I've done similar things where I will pickup the handcuff to someone's team and then use that to trade for a guy they have. That is a little different though since you didn't already have a deal worked out for the guy you're grabbing off waivers. I think that is where the OP saw a grey area and wanted some feedback. (He essentially traded his waiver move for a player.) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowboutthemCowboys Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 That is not collusion ... that is straight up trading. Essentially Owner 1 traded his first waiver pick (and a dropped player) for one of Owner 2's players, seems legit to me. yep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.