In one of the leagues I am in, a couple of trades I've made have come under scrutiny by one owner, he also happens to be my division rival.  Needless to say he has become very outspoken not just against the trades, but against my integrity and the integrity of the owners involved in the trades accusing of collusion.   I made four trades between the 63 draft and the 64 season (they will all be listed below).  

Now anyone who plays progressives knows that there is a big difference between a bad trade, and a BAD trade.  In other words, just because you wouldn't have done it, doesn't mean its not a fair trade for the owners involved.  Not only does every team have different plans and needs, but each owner values players, positions, and attributes differently.  That being said, do you feel any of the below are trades that you would call out against as being collusive trades, or unfair trades benefitting one owner to build a super team...

Trade 1 (took place before 1963 draft) -1963 #1 overall pick for #4 overall pick and Don McMahon: (the #1 pick ended up being Pete Rose, and the #4 was Dave McNally) 


Trade 2 (took place during 1964 draft) - Tony Conigliaro, 1965 1st round pick, and 1965 2nd round pick for Henry Aaron-OF and a 1964 2nd round pick:


Trade 3 (took place before 1964 season) - Mickey Mantle for Alex Johnson and Dave Morehead:

Trade 4 (took place during 1964 draft) - Roger Maris and a 3rd for Phil Ortega:

Are we to assume you are *getting* the first part of these trades, or giving?

Posted by grayfoxx on 7/9/2012 6:35:00 PM (view original):
Are we to assume you are *getting* the first part of these trades, or giving?

Who is getting or giving what shouldn't matter - 

the question is whether or not the trades - in and of themselves - is fair or unfair.  

also I would like to add that if you are in this league - please refrain from placing input until others have had a chance to do so.  

were all four trades made between the same two teams?

Posted by wonker on 7/9/2012 7:38:00 PM (view original):
were all four trades made between the same two teams?

no- but still i'm asking if the trades individually are fair or unfair - keeping in mind that some teams/owners may value players (pitchers vs hitters vs now vs future vs good d vs bad d...etc) differently

All the trades seem fine to me.

I've played about 50 prog seasons total now, and I have to say there were only a couple of deals that I've seen that I disapproved of -- and even then, I didn't disapprove enough to vote against the deals or even suggest they should be vetoed.  These were deals where owners with very bad teams traded away their upcoming (i.e., the next season's) 1st round pick for a player with one good season left in the tank.  Their teams still stunk, and what the two owners wound up giving up was a top 3 overall (both Hall of Fame players) so they could win, say, 55 games instead of 45.  Those are just about the only kind of prog deals that rub me the wrong way.  

None of these trades seem remotely unfair to me. 

In progressives, as you say chargingryno, every owner places different values on a player's present vs future, on how much winning 1 pennant now is worth versus the possibility of winning multiple pennants in the future...I've made trades where I know I gave up more talent than I received, but the talent I received happened to line up perfectly with the season I was building for.  Real MLB teams do this all the time (ugly flashback to Bagwell for Larry Andersen...).

In my opinion, the bar to veto a trade in a progressive should be very very high.  In the NWP, we don't allow trade vetoes at all.  An owner can object to a trade, but he has to publicly state his case in the forums, and we require a supermajority of the non-trading owners to overturn a trade.  In 14 seasons it has never happened.

Posted by contrarian23 on 7/9/2012 9:23:00 PM (view original):
In progressives, as you say chargingryno, every owner places different values on a player's present vs future, on how much winning 1 pennant now is worth versus the possibility of winning multiple pennants in the future...I've made trades where I know I gave up more talent than I received, but the talent I received happened to line up perfectly with the season I was building for.  Real MLB teams do this all the time (ugly flashback to Bagwell for Larry Andersen...).

In my opinion, the bar to veto a trade in a progressive should be very very high.  In the NWP, we don't allow trade vetoes at all.  An owner can object to a trade, but he has to publicly state his case in the forums, and we require a supermajority of the non-trading owners to overturn a trade.  In 14 seasons it has never happened.

that is one of the many reasons your NWP is one of my favorite leagues!!  

He forgets to mention that two of these trades are with his rl brother whom has had his account previously. Also the Pete Rose trade was done AFTER they knew where they were picking so it was Pete Rose for Dave McNally and Don McMahon. There was never any question who the people would be.

Also in the Hank Aaron trade the fist rounder will be bottom 4 and the 2nd rounder is a huge trade up for him probably 10+ spots.

Posted by daveymac on 7/10/2012 3:17:00 AM (view original):
He forgets to mention that two of these trades are with his rl brother whom has had his account previously. Also the Pete Rose trade was done AFTER they knew where they were picking so it was Pete Rose for Dave McNally and Don McMahon. There was never any question who the people would be.

Also in the Hank Aaron trade the fist rounder will be bottom 4 and the 2nd rounder is a huge trade up for him probably 10+ spots.

Only the Aaron trade was with me, and I stopped using the chargingryno account when I gave it to my brother 6+ years ago.

This is what I posted in the league trade thread when this trade was first questioned as if I was being ripped off by trading away Aaron (additional commentary in brackets):

"I'm in four different progressives that have gone through the 1961-1965 seasons. I've owned Conigliaro in three of them. My ballparks in those three were Crosley, Cleveland, and Wrigley, so in this league, Fenway would make four.

Over the next 6 seasons Aaron puts up seasons that range between 120-160 RC in those 4 progressives. Over that same span Conigliaro puts up seasons that range from 75-130. Aaron then puts up numbers over the four following that range from 75-110 while Conigliaro is worthless.

So, during the 6 overlapping years I only need to make up 30-45 RC per season, which is very easy to do with just the 2nd round pick alone, which (according to the projected value of the pick and the normal 1965 draft) should net me a player such as: Duke Sims, Tito Fuentes, Curt Blefary, or Horace Clarke. Then, as for the 4 remaining years where Aaron is putting up good numbers while Tony C is done (and my late 2nd rounder is also done providing value), the mid-late 1st round pick I got will have provided value in the form of Tony Perez, Larry Dierker, Rico Petrocelli, or Paul Blair that in peak value exceeds Aaron for a couple of seasons and provides extended average-above average value beyond the 6 years of Tony C. 

I'd trade Aaron and Mikkeson [the player my brother used the '64 2nd I sent him as part of the deal] for Conigliaro, Petrocelli, and Sims any day [On the worst end of the picks, it could easily be better]... I'm coming out a good 30-60 RC per season during the relevant portion of their careers and we come out about even over the full careers of everyone involved. I come out ahead overall in the short term and he comes out ahead in the long term. It's a pretty solid trade. Now, if one of these two teams [I get the better of chargingryno's two first round picks] should actually falter and net me a decent pick, then I come out way ahead.

Not to mention I have another 1st and two more 2nds in this deep draft. This is the year of quick rebuilding if there ever was one. I should be able to get two franchise players and three solid players to complement my current core just in this one draft. I think I win."

If the draft were today it would be the 12th pick in the first round, but three teams are within three games of the better pick, so it could easily end up as the 9th pick over the remaining 80 games until the draft order is determined. There's also a chance (albeit, a slim one) the team falters and it drops below those teams within 7-8 games and it ends up as the 5th overall pick.

Posted by daveymac on 7/10/2012 3:17:00 AM (view original):
He forgets to mention that two of these trades are with his rl brother whom has had his account previously. Also the Pete Rose trade was done AFTER they knew where they were picking so it was Pete Rose for Dave McNally and Don McMahon. There was never any question who the people would be.

Also in the Hank Aaron trade the fist rounder will be bottom 4 and the 2nd rounder is a huge trade up for him probably 10+ spots.

None of which changes my assessment.

I would say that knowing you are brothers making trades, there is an advantage in negotiating that comes from having a face to face partner. I would think that for that reason, any trade this domestic advantage gives, by definition, is unfair, is it not? Certainly, for the purpose of good relationships and permanence among managers, it might be wise to hold this advantage in check. It is much easier to negotiate face to face, than to go back and forth trying to read one another's mind, and convey your thoughts in the 2 or 3 sentences the comments block allows when we submit a trade. There is an absence of opportunity for other managers, who may have desired players that they didn't know would be available, or what you might be looking for to get them. So, while the trades themselves aren't so bad, the fact that you frequently take advantage of a domestic advantage creates bad feelings that detract from the enjoyment other managers have with the league. The majority of managers who are disgruntled will simply finish out the season silently, and not return. I would not go so far as to say you two shouldn't trade at all, but you should not trade when you have advantages in negotiating ability, as in proximity and convenience, coupled with knowledge that other managers in the league would not be able to act on. Fair is Fair, after all.