Ethics in Roto

Anonymous asks:

Ever considered a post on ethical dilemmas in Roto?

I probably have, though I've never really had a good example of something to write about.

Here's one to ponder. Let's say I'm in 2nd place in a 12 team 5x5 AL only pool on September 8. And let's say I'm in 3rd in Strikeouts. The team that is 2nd in Strikeouts is the 10th place team overall.

Now, let's say that 10th place team acquired Jon Lester in a dump deal a while back. They aren't playing for anything, but have Jon Lester on their active roster - the same active roster they've had for the last 45 days - as they have no reason or incentive to incur any transaction costs.

On to the question - Is it ethical, unethical or otherwise to offer that team something of value (a draft-pick, a potential keeper, something pool-related) to move Lester to their reserve roster?

I don't know if I would call this unethical, but no league should allow an owner to dictate what another owner does with his roster upon the completion of a trade.

It's a fine line, but there's a difference between offering an owner a minor league pick or some kind of future to manipulate your league's categories versus making a trade that dictates to your trading partner how he must manage his roster.

The other issue I have with this idea is that I believe you should get something back in a trade.

Here are two examples of deals that I think would be OK.

1) The owner who is second in strikeouts has Lester and 2-3 mediocre starting pitchers he definitely isn't going to keep, but who are racking up the whiffs. You offer him a draft pick for two of those mediocre starters, then immediately waive or reserve those starting pitchers.

2) A dead-duck owner is right behind your opponent in HR and RBI. You're in a position where you won't gain or lose any points if you deal a power hitter. You swap your best power hitter for Dead Duck's third catcher.

In both of these examples, you're not telling your opponent what to do after the trade is completed. You might be giving up too much in terms of actual value in order to (hopefully) manipulate the standings, but you aren't actually dictating to another team the players he should or shouldn't have on his roster.

I also think this is why a trade deadline is important. Allowing teams to make trades with two or three weeks left in the season opens the door to too many opportunities like this...where an owner can try to make trades that manipulate the standings. While I don't think there's anything wrong with trying to make trades like this, part of the fun of trading is the inherent risk on both sides of the ledger. The closer you get to the end of the season, the more opportunities there are to make trades where there is far less opportunity to lose points in one or more categories.