Yet Another Roto Ethics Post

Good grief. Now Anonymous wants to have a philosophical discussion.

...there seems to be a larger issue/question at play in these roto-ethics postings.

...In the absence of law, there is freedom....if there isn't a rule telling me I can't do it, I should be able to do it. If the great thing about roto-league is it allows ordinary folks to make like-decisions to sports General Managers, shouldn't we take our cues from sports?

(Of course I'm pulling your collective chains. This is blog is designed for these geeky types of discussions.)

The answer to all of this depends less on the rules of your league and more upon the temperament of your owners.

In some leagues, it's understood that it is cutthroat, that anything short of collusion goes, and that winning is the only thing. You might have an owner or two who feels squeamish about this idea, but eventually these owners are weeded out. The goal in these leagues is to just win, baby.

On the other hand, some leagues are more laid back and relaxed. Owners want to feel like they're playing on a level playing field and not being taken advantage of due to a technicality. In leagues like this, there's a different decorum.

As I often say, I don't have the "right" answer to the type of league that's right for you and your buds. If playing in a cutthroat league makes you happy, do it. If playing in a laid back beer league makes you happy, do that. The advice I've given over the last few days sits closely to where I stand. I tend to err on the side of letting owners exploit loopholes, but also felt that some of the scenarios presented were awfully close to collusion.

...is it not good roto strategy to understand the rules of the league you're in, and then work that knowledge to your advantage? If the purpose of roto is to approximate the experience of a big-league GM, is this not consistent with that purpose?

Generally speaking, it's good strategy to know your rules and work all of the angles you can.

On the other hand, it's important to have a strong commissioner who is able to look at a maneuver, decide that it's too close to collusion to allow, and disallow it - even if it isn't in the rules. I've seen leagues fall apart due to these types of slippery slopes.

Keep in mind that while the goal is to win, there are always strategies that will go beyond the pale. Implementing an aggressive category dump strategy is not beyond the pale. Paying an owner $20 to acquire Derek Jeter is...even if your rules don't call this collusion and don't address trading players for cash. If your league wants to allow anything that isn't in the official rules, then so be it. But in my experience I've found that these leagues typically go under or eventually wind up with more stringent guidelines at the end of the day.