News Flash: Colluding.....

[WestCoastExpress]

But offering to secure a player for a specific GM is a slippery slope that I believe should be avoided.

That's fair, no sweat, I see what you're getting at.

That said, I was planning on signing some FA's for trade bait at a later date, and given we have the 60-day clause, it would obviously be wise for me to open up offers from any interested teams, not pre-negotiate a trade with just 1 team and stick to it.

That said, not sure committing $30m+ of my limited cap space to one player is the wisest thing to do, so I might end up just sitting on my hands after-all and let the big cap teams spend out.

I do see what you're saying though.

 

[Flash]

How do you figure though. And I'm not trying to argue, I'm trying to understand your point of view.
There are several leagues I'm in where bottom feeder teams with a lot of cap will sign FA's, only to trade them with some money paid on the contract, to secure good prospects in return. It's happening as we speak in some leagues. I view that as "smart business" for rebuilding teams, not "bad business. Would you rather I sit on my hands and just let my $60m+ in cap sit there and me do nothing and just be a terrible team for the next 5+ seasons?
We can PM if that makes things easier and doesn't clutter the message board.

I believe you should use your cap to secure players to become competitive and elevate yourself from the bottom feeder level.

[Flash]

It makes total sense if you make a specific offer to a particular GM and then 60 days later, the two teams post a “negotiated” trade.  We all do things to improve our teams, so yes, you are free to get any player through free agency as a future asset, but to do so with the specific intent of helping a particular GM is simply not good for the league.

As the league moderator, my job is to be on the lookout for things which affect our league.  This issue was brought to my attention by another league member, so instead of avoiding it to prevent any hurt feelings, I thought it best to put the issue on the table as a reminder that certain things need to be avoided if possible.  We may have a difference of opinion here, but sometimes the appearance of impropriety can cause more damage than actual reality.  All of us run our teams differently, and your way is just as viable as the other GMs in the league, so if you want to accumulate assets for future trade, that is certainly your prerogative.  But offering to secure a player for a specific GM is a slippery slope that I believe should be avoided.

[WestCoastExpress]

It’s bad business no matter how you look at it.

How do you figure though. And I'm not trying to argue, I'm trying to understand your point of view.
There are several leagues I'm in where bottom feeder teams with a lot of cap will sign FA's, only to trade them with some money paid on the contract, to secure good prospects in return. It's happening as we speak in some leagues. I view that as "smart business" for rebuilding teams, not "bad business. Would you rather I sit on my hands and just let my $60m+ in cap sit there and me do nothing and just be a terrible team for the next 5+ seasons?
We can PM if that makes things easier and doesn't clutter the message board.

[WestCoastExpress]

Posted this on chat:

I don't get how that is "collusion." It is simple business of a sign-and-trade. Collusion to me would be "hey, I'm going to trade you all my good players and you give me scraps in return and we'll see if we can sneak it by the TC so you can win." Sign-and-trade deals have always been around in fantasy and real life, that's not collusion (to me). Plus, with the 60-day no-trade rule, it takes "collusion" out all together as any other team would know X-Player is on the trade block 60-days from signing.

I pointed that out as a way for me to use my cap space to pay for a player as a resource to better my team in the future.
Using my cap space to sign a good player, and trade him for younger assets (prospects).

In no way, shape or form is that collusion to me. To me I view this as trade negotiations on a trade that has yet to happen.

Maybe we have vastly different views of what collusion is.

What's the difference now if I sign say an Arenado or Trout and trade them to some other GM (including your franchise for instance) in 3-4 months time. Would others start accusing us of collusion because I signed a top end FA and then traded him away a month into the MLB season?

Essentially what you're saying is that any team who signs a FA for a lot of money, and then goes and trades that player later on that same year and pays some money on that big cap hit, has colluded with whatever GM they traded that player to. That doesn't make any sense...

[Flash]

GMs:

From time to time, comments appear in the Chat Room, which may, or may not be made in jest—but nonetheless, need to be addressed. 

This morning a comment was posted regarding a free agent on the FGM board that is troubling to say the least.  There was an offer made to secure a free agent through the bidding process for the purposes of trading him to another team who had limited resources.  Within the offer was the proviso that part of the salary would be absorbed to make sure the second team could afford to take on the player in question.  While such a comment might have been made flippantly, it nonetheless is not something that would be looked upon very favorably by Franchise GM.

We all have seen trades made with Cash Exchanges, but specific agreements to win a player for the purposes of trade seems to be something of a black hole we should avoid.  An agreement of such sorts would fall into the realm of collusion, which is undeniably a polite way of saying cheating.  No one wants to deal with such an issue, I know I certainly don’t, so let’s not venture down that road.

Now, whether the comment was made in jest, or not, we want to make sure our league stays away from unnecessary drama.  We all do this for fun, so let’s avoid controversy if we can.