FAAB, Collusion, (?) and Networking (!)

Noah wrote a long description of his own league's FAAB machinations at the trade deadline. One portion of it, however, jumped out at me.

that 2nd place team took (Lance) Berkman at 44 (out of his 70, am betting he spoke to team with next lgst. amt of money) - interestingly since he either could have traded R(afael) Soriano for SB, (Jacoby) Ellsbury, and taken (Matt) Capps or with his leftover money taken Bourjos (he blinked and bid too little). 4th place team took Capps for 44 - see, am sure they spoke (he had one closer - but really needed Berkman since (Kevin) Youk(ilis) went out that morning).

As someone who has worn the Commissioner hat many times over the last 20+ years, I instantly found myself wondering if this situation could be considered collusive.

Without proof in the form of an e-mail trail, I would never suggest voting something like this down. However, even with such proof, I might still be inclined to let something like this go through.

One of the best things you can do in Rotisserie is network. I don't think you should tell other owners what you're going to bid (or not bid), but by all means talk as much to your fellow owners as possible. Find out what their likes and dislikes are. You're not gathering "inside information", but rather gleaning tidbits here and there that you can use down the road to your advantage.

Uber-competitive Rotisserie pushes us to our limits, and one of these limits is in your ability to network. Owners who are comfortable talking to other owners and who are good at asking the right questions are going to get farther than those who cannot or - worse - owners who are unwilling or unable to build the time in building these relationships. Even in a league that communicates solely via e-mail, you should be able to build these relationships with the more involved owners over time.