Why would one NOT use trading blocks?, Pt. II

[jeronemitchell]

Hey all,

In a follow-up to my earlier question about trading blocks, I thought about what one may define as "collusion". Think about this TOTALLY FICTICIOUS scenario:

My friend from outside the online community and I are both playing in a league. If one were to rate our teams on a scale of 1-100, let's say mine is an 85 and his is a 90. We get together and decide to do a totally unadvertised trade which makes both of our teams better (mine is now 90, his is now 95). Is that collusion? It doesn't "feel" bad... but it also does not maximize the possible effectiveness of the trade...

[Celeval]

Nope.

Collusion, imho is you and your friend agree on two trades - one that brings your team from 85 to 99, and his from 90 to 70; but you also send him Albert Pujols for Jose Valentin in your fantasy baseball league.

[JeeberD]

Originally Posted by jeronemitchell

Hey all,

In a follow-up to my earlier question about trading blocks, I thought about what one may define as "collusion". Think about this TOTALLY FICTICIOUS scenario:

My friend from outside the online community and I are both playing in a league. If one were to rate our teams on a scale of 1-100, let's say mine is an 85 and his is a 90. We get together and decide to do a totally unadvertised trade which makes both of our teams better (mine is now 90, his is now 95). Is that collusion? It doesn't "feel" bad... but it also does not maximize the possible effectiveness of the trade...

Isn't the purpose of a trade to try and improve both teams? Who is going to make a trade in which they knowingly hurt their team?

[jeronemitchell]

Follow-up question, Celeval - since you're not necessarily getting the best bargain for your guy, if this is not collusion, is it still a smart thing to do?

[gottimd]

Originally Posted by jeronemitchell

Follow-up question, Celeval - since you're not necessarily getting the best bargain for your guy, if this is not collusion, is it still a smart thing to do?

Isn't that based on the GM's own opinion? If you need to get rid of the guy, whether it be for Cap reasons, age vs. youth, depth at another position, etc, and this was the best offer you received for the player, the aforementioned GM must think if the deal is totally worth it or should he keep the player and hold out for a better offer, or if the deadline is coming up, just keep him.

[jeronemitchell]

Originally Posted by JeeberD

Isn't the purpose of a trade to try and improve both teams? Who is going to make a trade in which they knowingly hurt their team?

Well, by the thought I had, anyone that made that trade. By not advertising, you don't know if you got the best thing available. Taking a trade which does not do the best thing for your team is hurting it, is it not? Taking things a step further, hurting your team while helping another is usually what we call "collusion", right?

Again.. this is all philosophical. I'm trying to wrap my head around some alternative gaming mindsets here...

[Celeval]

Depends. More goes into the results of a trade than simply who is included. A team might be willing to take a lesser deal with a team from the other conference, rather than improve a divisional team - say my Gridlock are going from 70 to 80 and Astoria is going from 80 to 90... may be a better deal than the Gridlock going from 70 to 85 and Tucker going from 80 to 95.

There's the question of relationships with GMs, as well. If you're going to bid out every deal whether you're buying or selling, some GMs might be less likely to talk to you about a player in the future if they think it's going to get bid out of their range regardless.

[gottimd]

Originally Posted by jeronemitchell

Well, by the thought I had, anyone that made that trade. By not advertising, you don't know if you got the best thing available. Taking a trade which does not do the best thing for your team is hurting it, is it not? Taking things a step further, hurting your team while helping another is usually what we call "collusion", right?

Again.. this is all philosophical. I'm trying to wrap my head around some alternative gaming mindsets here...

Hurting your own team how? Do you mean by decreasing the current ratings at a certain position? What about a scenario of building for the future. You trade away a stud on your team who is currently at a 80 rating with 12 years exp, for a player who is a 30/100 with 1 years experience. In this case you would be hurting your current value but improving your future potential. I guess it depends on the mindset of the GM, are they going for the championship, or waiving the white flag and building for the future?

[flere-imsaho]

The example is most certainly collusion. The two owners in question are engineering a trade without public oversight.

Having said that, I would have no problem with it. If, once the trade is announced, it's clear that it benefits both teams, then hey, good stuff.

The problem comes when two owners collude to the benefit of only one. Maybe one owner is a newbie and got taken for a ride. Maybe one owner has gotten tired of MP FOF and wants to trash his team. Etc....

Thus it's my feeling that while a MP doesn't need to have owners advertise their trade block, there must be a "review" period once the trade is agreed upon by both parties.

Now, on a related subject: Would one, as an owner, want to not advertise their trade block? Maybe, but most often I would doubt it. Most often I think you want to advertise your trade block, early and often, so as to get maximum value. There are situations when a quick one-to-one trade with a specific owner may make better sense, but in general I think trades in MP should be about maximizing value.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Celeval

Depends. More goes into the results of a trade than simply who is included. A team might be willing to take a lesser deal with a team from the other conference, rather than improve a divisional team - say my Gridlock are going from 70 to 80 and Astoria is going from 80 to 90... may be a better deal than the Gridlock going from 70 to 85 and Tucker going from 80 to 95.

There's the question of relationships with GMs, as well. If you're going to bid out every deal whether you're buying or selling, some GMs might be less likely to talk to you about a player in the future if they think it's going to get bid out of their range regardless.

Good points. I hadn't thought of these. Of course, if you advertise your block and Astoria come back with the best offer of the bunch, there's nothing saying you have to take Astoria's offer.

[jeronemitchell]

Originally Posted by Celeval

Depends. More goes into the results of a trade than simply who is included. A team might be willing to take a lesser deal with a team from the other conference, rather than improve a divisional team - say my Gridlock are going from 70 to 80 and Astoria is going from 80 to 90... may be a better deal than the Gridlock going from 70 to 85 and Tucker going from 80 to 95..

So... if a league has 32 teams, and your friend is in the other conference, there's still 15 more teams that might give you a better deal. Maybe they will... maybe they won't. How are you not hurting your team when you turn down 15 chances for something better?

Originally Posted by Celeval

There's the question of relationships with GMs, as well. If you're going to bid out every deal whether you're buying or selling, some GMs might be less likely to talk to you about a player in the future if they think it's going to get bid out of their range regardless.

Hmmm... now THAT is interesting. I've always asked people to give me a day or two to see if I got something better, and it's never been problematic thus far. As well, if I do get a better offer, there's ALWAYS a chance for the first team to match it. Do you think that this philosophy would turn people off? I mean, basically it seems to be saying "I'm going to only trade with those that will take whatever is offerred"... which,a s I type it, does seem pretty stratgic...

[jeronemitchell]

Originally Posted by gottimd

Hurting your own team how? Do you mean by decreasing the current ratings at a certain position? What about a scenario of building for the future. You trade away a stud on your team who is currently at a 80 rating with 12 years exp, for a player who is a 30/100 with 1 years experience. In this case you would be hurting your current value but improving your future potential. I guess it depends on the mindset of the GM, are they going for the championship, or waiving the white flag and building for the future?

The phrase "maximizing what you can get" ignores scale. Maybe youth is most important. Maybe a high stat in a certain area. Cap cost. Long term contract. All of the above. Whatever your criteria is, why not give others a chance to give you something better by your criteria?

[gottimd]

Originally Posted by jeronemitchell

The phrase "maximizing what you can get" ignores scale. Maybe youth is most important. Maybe a high stat in a certain area. Cap cost. Long term contract. All of the above. Whatever your criteria is, why not give others a chance to give you something better by your criteria?

Maybe the player you have put on the block is injury prone, over valued, etc, and the first offer you get is way more than you thought you would actually get, and you are positive no one else will offer that much.

[jeronemitchell]

Originally Posted by gottimd

Maybe the player you have put on the block is injury prone, over valued, etc, and the first offer you get is way more than you thought you would actually get, and you are positive no one else will offer that much.

Then you advertise, get nothing, and take the original bid.

Would anyone here NOT wait a day or two if someone asked for more time to see if they could get something better?

[gottimd]

Originally Posted by jeronemitchell

Then you advertise, get nothing, and take the original bid.

Would anyone here NOT wait a day or two if someone asked for more time to see if they could get something better?

Believe me, in certain instances I would wait. But in this scenario, if you put up a player, and get an offer which is way more than expected, and you wait for a better offer, you run the risk of other GM's convincing the GM that offered you this deal that they are "off their rocker", and they retract the offer.

[Joe]

it's always possible that in the period of time you are seeking out other offers, the other team gets another deal and pulls the trigger for the player you wanted.

[jeronemitchell]

Originally Posted by George W Bush

it's always possible that in the period of time you are seeking out other offers, the other team gets another deal and pulls the trigger for the player you wanted.

So, again... it's better to advertise... it's just not better for ME.

I'm finding that the argument against this, essentially, is that you don't want to maxiize the opportunities for the OTHER team. The philosophy is still solid, you just don't want it used against you.