collusion by commissioner?

[robzm19 6]

I'm in a 16 team money league and a team trades Chris ivory for george kittle. here's the background.

 

The team named "fu murphy let's go fish" is the commish. he trades ivory to "fish" who has only one rb. there is no one on ww since this is 16team. fu murphy gets George kittle in return even though he has 2 top ten te, he proceeds to drop little. the team that gets ivory is playing murhpy.

 

remember this is 16team league where 2 to 3 points and ww priority is huge. trade got pushed thru in 2 hours. no chance to vote.

 

what say you guys...

[brotherbock 349]

So, wait, trade was Ivory for Brate and Kittle? The second team is named 'Fish'? I'm confused.

 

Do you not know these people?

[weepaws 2,459]

I'm not to sure who has who and who's trading with whom.

 

But Ivory for Brate, what ever it's all good.

 

Don't see any true winner.

[robzm19 6]

Sorry had brate on my mind. Brate not involved.

 

Trade was kittle for ivory. Which kittle was waived right away.

[brotherbock 349]

Huh. Maybe super ineffective collusion. LOL. I mean, you're talking about two players who aren't going to affect almost anything. Ivory wasn't even the guy when Fournette was out.

 

I'd maybe be concerned though if I was in a money league with people I didn't know and trust.

[Brutal Brutus 182]

Sounds fishy

[Quickolas1 80]

I wouldn't want Team FU in my league.

And he's the Commish so that's really bad.

[robzm19 6]

So, wait, trade was Ivory for Brate and Kittle? The second team is named 'Fish'? I'm confused.

 

Do you not know these people?

Team 1 "fu Murphy lets go fish" (commissioner)he gets kittle. Has brate and asj

 

Team 2 "fish". He gets ivory

Team 3 "Murphy ". Plays fish. Affected by this.

[jrokh 568]

Is this like a Fantasy Football Brain Teaser?

[robzm19 6]

I am in a money league...with so many teams...o points at rb vs 2 could be the difference. He has no other rb. None on ww.

[weepaws 2,459]

Did anyone say go fish?

[brotherbock 349]

Team 1 "fu Murphy lets go fish" (commissioner)he gets kittle. Has brate and asj

 

Team 2 "fish". He gets ivory

Team 3 "Murphy ". Plays fish. Affected by this.

 

So...it's all one guy who owns three teams? And his team name is cheering for one of those teams to beat the other?

[Brutal Brutus 182]

I think I get it. Based on team names, Team A, that trades Ivory for Kittle who then proceeds to drop Kittle, really wants Murphy to lose, so he trades Ivory to "fish" because "fish" has no other backs and is playing Murphy. So it's a situation where he trying to get Murphy to lose by trading Ivory for nothing.

[brotherbock 349]

I think I get it. Based on team names, Team A, that trades Ivory for Kittle who then proceeds to drop Kittle, really wants Murphy to lose, so he trades Ivory to "fish" because "fish" has no other backs and is playing Murphy. So it's a situation where he trying to get Murphy to lose by trading Ivory for nothing.

 

Right. But why is his team named "one team should beat the other"? Is he a Batman villain?

[Drizzay 645]

Who did he pick up after dropping Kittle?

[weepaws 2,459]

Did anyone contact Abe Vigoda?

[nobody 2,037]

Definitely collusion. Veto the trade. Veto the league. Veto the commish.

[brotherbock 349]

Definitely collusion. Veto the trade. Veto the league. Veto the commish.

 

No no. Vito is the Commish. You don't want to veto Vito. You'll wake up with Rex Grossman's head on the pillow next to you.

[robzm19 6]

I think I get it. Based on team names, Team A, that trades Ivory for Kittle who then proceeds to drop Kittle, really wants Murphy to lose, so he trades Ivory to "fish" because "fish" has no other backs and is playing Murphy. So it's a situation where he trying to get Murphy to lose by trading Ivory for nothing.

 

Exactly. Now fish voted to boot me out league.

[robzm19 6]

Trade couldn't be vetoed commish pushed it thru in 2 hours

[brotherbock 349]

Exactly. Now fish voted to boot me out league.

 

Because you complained? Who are these people?

[robzm19 6]

So...it's all one guy who owns three teams? And his team name is cheering for one of those teams to beat the other?

3 separate guys, 3 separate teams.

[Mullog 12]

Exactly. Now fish voted to boot me out league.

 

I think you should rejoice and run for the hills

 

Is a lot of money at stake here? They shouldn't be able to boot you out if your cash is in the pot and you haven't been part of the shenanigans.

[shredhead 21]

Did anyone say go fish?

No, but it must be Murphy's law........he is the commish and all.

[robzm19 6]

bout 1000 to winner. I'm sure I won't be booted.

 

was stepping in for someone else who quit. but definitely thinking twice about staying

[lesjroza 70]

I see some teams make a version of this trade in my 16 teamer several times a season. Forget about the trade specifics, drops, players involved etc. because there are too many unknowns, it could still be argued to benefit the team who made the Kittle drop in waivers next week for instance.

 

IMO the question boils down to is it truly collusion to help move another team forward if a team involved doesn't benefit from the players but rather as a result a 3rd team being theoretically restrained (more difficult matchup) .

 

A version of my enemies, enemy, is my friend.

 

16 team leagues are very different, very small things matter and playoff teams often come down to tie breakers among multiple teams.

 

There is a lot of room for different opinions on this one but mine is that it likely isn't against the rules, its in a grey area, and probably not a good idea by the commish............yes I think commishes have a diffident standard (to stay far from the grey).

 

What was given up in Ivory is not currently a sure boost though. Last I read it was under consideration that Yeldon might pass Ivory so I think that also provides the commish with some cover.

[brotherbock 349]

I see some teams make a version of this trade in my 16 teamer several times a season. Forget about the trade specifics, drops, players involved etc. because there are too many unknowns, it could still be argued to benefit the team who made the Kittle drop in waivers next week for instance.

 

IMO the question boils down to is it truly collusion to help move another team forward if a team involved doesn't benefit from the players but rather as a result a 3rd team being theoretically restrained (more difficult matchup) .

 

A version of my enemies, enemy, is my friend.

 

16 team leagues are very different small things matter and playoff teams often come down to tie breakers among multiple teams.

 

There is a lot of room for different opinions on this one but mine is that it likely isn't against the rules, its in a grey area, and probably not a good idea by the commish............yes I think commishes have a diffident standard.

 

What was given up in Ivory is not currently a sure boost though. Last I read it was under consideration that Yeldon might pass Ivory so I think that also provides the commish with some cover.

 

I thought the definition of collusion was two teams arranging some operation that was only intended to benefit one of those teams. I don't see how team that got and dropped Kittle benefited. Unless you're saying that the 3rd team maybe losing is what benefited the Kittle-dropper? That would be similar to tanking a match to get what you see as a better playoff seed--indirect benefit. Is that enough to make it not collusion, if the makeup of the team wasn't benefited?

[lesjroza 70]

 

I thought the definition of collusion was two teams arranging some operation that was only intended to benefit one of those teams. I don't see how team that got and dropped Kittle benefited. Unless you're saying that the 3rd team maybe losing is what benefited the Kittle-dropper? That would be similar to tanking a match to get what you see as a better playoff seed--indirect benefit. Is that enough to make it not collusion, if the makeup of the team wasn't benefited?

 

I don't know about the specifics of this situation........... but what you are calling "indirect benefit" is what I was addressing as a thing I see a couple of guys in my league attempting during the year so I was assuming this is could have been what is happening, and it definitely can affect outcomes. Those guys would likely say it directly benefits them, just not via team makeup. It is possible FWIW the team that dropped Kittle could benefit from having him on waivers next week knowing that he personally doesn't need a TE and others do, making it an easier road for him on any other player. Again, small things matter in a 16 teamer that wouldn't even be considered in a 12 team league.

 

When I say I think there is room for different opinions I'm really talking about the definition of collusion, guys will see it different ways based on their definition.

 

I get the comparison about tanking for a better matchup which is also a grey area IMO, so it is indeed similar, but I also don't see it as perfect correlation.

[brotherbock 349]

 

I don't know about the specifics of this situation........... but what you are calling "indirect benefit" is what I was addressing as a thing I see a couple of guys in my league attempting during the year so I was assuming this is could have been what is happening, and it definitely can affect outcomes. Those guys would likely say it directly benefits them, just not via team makeup. It is possible FWIW the team that dropped Kittle could benefit from having him on waivers next week knowing that he personally doesn't need a TE and others do, making it an easier road for him on any other player. Again, small things matter in a 16 teamer that wouldn't even be considered in a 12 team league.

 

When I say I think there is room for different opinions I'm really talking about the definition of collusion, guys will see it different ways based on their definition.

 

I get the comparison about tanking for a better matchup which is also a grey area IMO, so it is indeed similar, but I also don't see it as perfect correlation.

 

No, definitely not a perfect correlation. Just the 'direct vs indirect' thing. What I mean by 'direct' is 'making my team more likely to score more points'. I'm using that as the definition of 'direct' because that's supposed to be the intention of any trade, right? In a perfect world? Even in a keeper league trading draft picks, the goal is to score more points in the future. So trading to hurt a third team and put my team higher in the rankings would be an 'indirect' benefit. Similarly in that way to tanking for a better seed.

 

I know in my leagues, the very few times we've had someone try tanking, the rest of us just "come on man"ed the guy into not tanking. To me, those indirect trades should count as collusion. The trade itself did not benefit one team. Not directly. It was the fallout of the trade that (hopefully) did.

[lesjroza 70]

 

No, definitely not a perfect correlation. Just the 'direct vs indirect' thing. What I mean by 'direct' is 'making my team more likely to score more points'. I'm using that as the definition of 'direct' because that's supposed to be the intention of any trade, right? In a perfect world? Even in a keeper league trading draft picks, the goal is to score more points in the future. So trading to hurt a third team and put my team higher in the rankings would be an 'indirect' benefit. Similarly in that way to tanking for a better seed.

 

I know in my leagues, the very few times we've had someone try tanking, the rest of us just "come on man"ed the guy into not tanking. To me, those indirect trades should count as collusion. The trade itself did not benefit one team. Not directly. It was the fallout of the trade that (hopefully) did.

 

Yeah, trust me, if you are the target of one of these attempted headwind trades it doesn't feel great, and I have been a number of times, but I still go back and forth on whether its actually wrong in any way.

 

Again, I think its very grey, and I also know that there can be benefits that are not considered such I described as having Kittle available on waivers next week.

 

Also if Ivory is inactive this week while Yeldon is active, does everybody say man you are really 2 steps ahead of us rather than collusion?

He will have succeeded at removing a player from somebody else' roster at a position he doesn't need but others might, while giving up zero value.

 

Also, who did he subsequently pick up?

Maybe he wanted to make that pickup and drop Ivory anyway.......in which case is it OK then?

Its just not as cut and dried as anybody who gets upset wants it to be.......IMO of course.

[cavern 70]

freaking middle school leagues

[robzm19 6]

reason I oppose and put it here.

 

1 he's the commish. didn't allow for ww process to play out. 8 teams ahead of fish and 4 needs a rb that will get a few touches during bye week.

 

2. te was picked up off ww traded 4 days later than dropped. no other player involved.

 

3. was up for vote for 2 hours.

[robzm19 6]

he picked up Kai forbath

[jgcrawfish 232]

So i have questions:

 

1. Is the OP of this post "Murphy"?
2. What has "Murphy" done to the commish that is so bad that the commish would change his team name to "FU Murphy, let's go Fish"?
3. WTF kind of childish league is this?

The first clue is that commish is so fockin impartial that he is OPENLY rooting against one team?

 

If I'm the OP (and if the OP isn't Murphy) and I didn't have much chance to win the league, I'd trade every player on my roster (if trades are still available) to Murphy, rename my team to "Peace Out Asshats" and change my logo to a big middle finger. Otherwise, I post a message on the league page saying how very wrong this is and dump my whole team on waiver wire.

[robzm19 6]

no I'm an outside team. just joined league replacing a quiter. thought it looked off so I wanted to veto but trade went thru too quick.

[robzm19 6]

I have an outside chance. but that is a great suggestion and am considering it.

[jgcrawfish 232]

no I'm an outside team. just joined league replacing a quiter. thought it looked off so I wanted to veto but trade went thru too quick.

drawback is you have money invested money, and it's hard to just walk away from that. If they want to kick you out anyway, might as well go all the way. I recommend the team name of "FU Childish B@stards" and a roster dump or preferably a trade to Murphy...well, unless he's a complete and utter a-hole.

[DankNuggs 305]

I assume commish will say he was going to drop Ivory anyways to pick up a K.

[lesjroza 70]

reason I oppose and put it here.

 

1 he's the commish. didn't allow for ww process to play out. 8 teams ahead of fish and 4 needs a rb that will get a few touches during bye week.

 

2. te was picked up off ww traded 4 days later than dropped. no other player involved.

 

3. was up for vote for 2 hours.

 

If I had to come down on one side or the other, this is the biggest determinant for me even though it doesn't address the definition of collusion in any way.

 

Commishes should make a commitment to stay out of the grey IMO.

 

Like I say from experience it feels awful when you are the team the headwind is being put against........if the commish is the one doing it, it can create a sense of paranoia about other things involving the league as well.

 

That said, you know that old saying, the best revenge is living well? The FF version here is winning anyway.....it brings a whole different level of satisfaction knowing what was attempted and foiling it. "Dude, I can beat you with one hand tied behind my back"!

 

I would be curious to know though if he was asked what his rationale for the trade was and his answer. It is possible he was thinking of something that was a whole different level of gamesmanship...............really smart or really stupid are also possible instead of collusion. Sounds like a bad fit for that league either way but unfortunate the way it went down.

[robzm19 6]

trade vetoed. fish pissed.

 

thing is players not that huge a difference. just enough.

 

but it's " principality smokey"