This week I'm going to continue my series on cheating in Play-by-Mail leagues.  In the end, I will have ten rules of Strat-O-Matic PBM etiquette.  Here are the first two rules from last week.

1.) Thou Shalt Not Cheat to Win.
2.) Thou Shalt Not Cheat to Lose.

This week we are looking at all things transactions, Lying, Bending Rules, Collusion, and Hording.  Rule number three is...

3.) Thou Shalt Not Be Inconsistent in Transactions.

Every league I have ever been in, except the expert leagues, has some protocol for voiding transactions (usually trades).  Some leagues allow the Commissioner on his own volition to void trades that he feels disrupt the integrity and competition of the League.  Other leagues have procedural rules that allow an owner to call for a league vote anonymously to allow or void a trade.

In an ideal world (or an expert league) laissez-faire should be the word of the day.  Owners should be free to do whatever they want with their franchises.  No one should be prevented from improving their team and no owner should be protected from poor judgment.

On the other hand, there is a reason nearly every league has rules limiting transactions.

The reality is that the fate of every keeper league is based upon the balance of competition.  Every league has a few owners who are better than others and therefore tend to have winning teams.  That is great.  Smart decision making reaps its own rewards.  What must not happen is that the cards be so stacked in favor of those better teams, that a new owner is unable to make his team competitive.

If a league becomes so unbalanced between the haves and have-nots, it will surely die.  Once an owner of a crappy team leaves and the league searches for a new owner, they will discover that quality owners are hard to come by when the team available has little hope of succeeding.

Yes, one can solve this dilemma by only having the best owners, but if you have ever tried to find a quality owner, much less eighteen to twenty-four of them, then you don't know how hard it can be.

Here are some types of transactions that you might consider illegal in your league.  I have first hand experience in all these types of transactions.  I'm sure there are more.

Failure to Inform

I have been told of a story back before nearly everyone was on the Internet and real-time information was available.  An owner was down in Spring Training and watched one of his pitchers get hurt.  He immediately went to a pay phone and called an owner that was lusting after that player.  So, he promptly made a trade in his favor as he knew something the other owner had no hope of knowing.  In the trade discussions, he did not disclose that he saw that player get hurt and the other owner didn't figure it out until news of the injury appeared in the next week's Baseball Weekly. As Commissioner, should you void this deal?

Prior to Internet and real-time news feeds, I would say yes, this trade needs to be voided, because it was done in bad faith.  Now, I'm not so sure.  What is important is that the rulings be consistent.  Not every person in the League is technically savvy.  On the other hand, if there is an owner like this in your league, he is probably known to be unethical by the rest of the league.  Part of art of making a deal is selling the deal.  At what point in selling the deal do you cross the line?

Borrow or Leasing Players

How about this deal?  Just prior to the mid-season trading deadline, the Commissioner announces a trade between two teams.  It is a simple two-player deal, Player X (a veteran with a good card) for Player Y (a prospect with a good card next year).  At the end of the year, Player X and Player Y are traded again back to their original teams with a draft pick attached.  The deal is Player X and a second round pick for Player Y.  As Commissioner, should you void this deal?

In this deal, the one owner has borrowed a card for the final part of the season.  Once the season was over, he gave the player back to the original team with a payment of a draft pick.

I gave this situation to a long time Commissioner and he said that his concern with the deal was the loose end.  The team that gave up the veteran player knew he was getting that card back with the expectation of payment.  Unless that payment is strictly defined, he may be disappointed when what he expected to get in return was no longer there due to another trade.  Worse yet, there is always owner turnover.  If the other owner leaves the league, the owner expecting payment might not receive anything in return.

Collusion

Owner 1 and Owner 2 are good friends.  Owner 1 is in the middle of a big playoff run and Owner 2 season is done.  Owner 2 makes a lopsided deal to his friend for "future considerations".  Future considerations are an opposite lopsided deal in Owner 2's favor once his team is in contention.  Should this deal be voided?

I made this deal a little bit obvious.  Collusion is the primary reason Commissioners are granted the power to void trades.  If I take out the good friends part, it becomes much more difficult to judge.  Is it collusion?  Does Owner 2 just want to be a kingmaker?  Or did Owner 2 just have a lapse of judgment which he shouldn't be protected from?

Other Trade Resources

Owner 1 and Owner 2 are in the middle of trade discussions.  Owner 2 wants a player that Owner 1 is not willing to give up, so they make a compromise.  Owner 1 includes twenty pounds of smoked spareribs in return for completing the deal without the extra player. Should this deal be voided?

Every once in a while you will hear about a player that was traded for a team mascot, catfish, or whatever an owner can dream up.  In baseball, you always here about cash changing hands.  In the business of baseball, that is not a big deal.  In your local league, it is a slippery slope.

Hording

Owner 1 has five starting catchers.  Owner 2 needs a catcher and makes what an average Strat player would consider to be a reasonable offer for one of those catchers.  Because Owner 1 owns the market on catchers, his going price is the same as what the average person would consider to be fair for an elite player like Albert Pujols or Alex Rodriguez.  Do you force the trade to go through?

Hording.  Owner 1, in a series of trades and draft picks has built a little empire.  He has single handedly created a shortage in a position and hopes to cash in on it.  Why should he suffer?  In a 20 team league, it may not be a big deal. 

I've tried not to give my opinion on what is right and what is wrong.  I have left it up to you to decide.  In law, the bad faith deal and collusion are reasons for voiding a contract.  In economics, hording is the same as a monopoly and there are anti-trust laws to fight against monopolies.

In my leagues, the Commissioner can void a deal on procedure and volition.  Each type of transaction here is strictly prohibited.  In my opinion, it prevents the an unbalanced league.  A balanced league is a happy, long lived league.

JP Kastner is the Commissioner of the Strat-O-Matic Baseball Online Experts’ League and plays in three other Strat-O-Matic leagues.  He is also a second year member of Tout Wars in the Mixed League.