Pred's Fantasy Football Forums - View Single Post - WR Kevin Curtis PHI - SOLD - to Insects for 605 * Matched (duh) by Popes *

Nittany Dodgers · May 16th, 2007, 10:23 PM

I'll take the cue and enter the conversation. I definitely think this kind of this would be a gray area. To me, though, it is only gray because we can't really legislate against it, though to me it is unquestionable something that should not go on. We specifically have a rule in place stating a team cannot raise their own bid, nor can they retract a bid once placed. That, to me, means this league wants teams to make bids they are willing to honor, be it too high, or too low. Mike says this is only a "minor" loophole, but I see it as a major one. Why major? Because in my mind it is collusionary. Normally, my opinion is that this league should operate as 12 independant teams working for their own personal self interest, not in planned coordination with another team against another team.

The only time I think teams should work together with each other is in a trade. In a trade, the spirit of competitiveness and fair trade a protected by each team working for their own self interest. The only teams that can be harmed are the ones agreeing to make a trade.

Here, we have a third team who is being harmed by two teams working together to artificially (yes, artificially) inflate the market value of a player.

Here we have a player, where 11 teams were unwilling, or unable to make a bid higher than 605, until one team traded a player, freeing up cap room. Unfortunately, that player had the high bid. There were still 10 teams unwilling or unable to make a higher bid. If we want that one team to increase their own bid, why don't we just allow it to happen? We could easily adopt a rule stating a team can raise their own RFA bid if we all think that would be a fair practice. I would think it would be rejected almost universally, and we would all see the flaw in a system like that. Working under the assumption that is true, why then would we support a system that in effect allows that to happen?

By the league not addressing this type of situation in the rules, I see it as a tacit consent that it be allowed. I disagree that it should be allowed, and while I doubt there is support to outlaw it on the surface, I want to at least go on record to say I think it is a anti-competitive and anti-fair play pratice.

May 16th, 2007, 10:23 PM	#25
Nittany Dodgers Feeding Frenzy Moderator Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Maplewood, MN Posts: 5,204	Re: WR Kevin Curtis PHI - SOLD - to Insects for 605 * Match Pending by Popes * I'll take the cue and enter the conversation. I definitely think this kind of this would be a gray area. To me, though, it is only gray because we can't really legislate against it, though to me it is unquestionable something that should not go on. We specifically have a rule in place stating a team cannot raise their own bid, nor can they retract a bid once placed. That, to me, means this league wants teams to make bids they are willing to honor, be it too high, or too low. Mike says this is only a "minor" loophole, but I see it as a major one. Why major? Because in my mind it is collusionary. Normally, my opinion is that this league should operate as 12 independant teams working for their own personal self interest, not in planned coordination with another team against another team. The only time I think teams should work together with each other is in a trade. In a trade, the spirit of competitiveness and fair trade a protected by each team working for their own self interest. The only teams that can be harmed are the ones agreeing to make a trade. Here, we have a third team who is being harmed by two teams working together to artificially (yes, artificially) inflate the market value of a player. Here we have a player, where 11 teams were unwilling, or unable to make a bid higher than 605, until one team traded a player, freeing up cap room. Unfortunately, that player had the high bid. There were still 10 teams unwilling or unable to make a higher bid. If we want that one team to increase their own bid, why don't we just allow it to happen? We could easily adopt a rule stating a team can raise their own RFA bid if we all think that would be a fair practice. I would think it would be rejected almost universally, and we would all see the flaw in a system like that. Working under the assumption that is true, why then would we support a system that in effect allows that to happen? By the league not addressing this type of situation in the rules, I see it as a tacit consent that it be allowed. I disagree that it should be allowed, and while I doubt there is support to outlaw it on the surface, I want to at least go on record to say I think it is a anti-competitive and anti-fair play pratice.