by BassballJG » Tue Jul 11, 2006 2:53 pm
[quote:852b968eda="wjanssen"]Bass... sticking with the business analogy...
There's clearly a difference between...
1.) "quid pro quo" amongst a business and a customer base
- your examples
- loyalty rewards programs
- frequent buyer discounts
- and so on...
vs.
2.) agreements BETWEEN competitors that reduce competition
- antitrust actions
- market domination
- price gauging
- and so on
Number 1 is acceptable, Number 2 is not
My personal opinion... the issue at hand with the type of trade suggested is more similar/analagous to number 2... where other competitors are hurt by the collusive action of two or more. My two cents.[/quote:852b968eda]
Ok, of course I totally get the difference between example groups a and b. I guess what I'm asking is how does this fit into example group b. I'm a proudly ethical businessman, so I'm a little surprised at myself for not seeing this as clearly as y'all.
Look at it this way: If I'm in last place and have Stargell, and I get 3 offetrs from contenders around game 138 just before the deadline, am I wrong to either 1, take an offer and then ask that manager in the future for a deal when our roles are reversed when we will both have knowledge of the "favor" I have done him or 2, if I took the offer for Stargell from a manager with whom I have made deals in the past which were helpful to me? Assume a non-$200m league and equal salary exchange.