1 week trade

[snarky 0]

last week team A traded j. flacco to team B for m. crosby.

 

as it turns out the team that received flacco would have been without a qb, and would have lost if not for receiving flacco in the trade.

 

now 1 week later they want to make the same trade....in reverse.

 

this is collusion, correct?

[FrankRizzo 0]

Most leagues frown (and have rules) against "borrowing" of players ... hence, collusion.

 

In our league once you trade away a player, you cannot receive him in return ever for that season (unless he was subsequently dropped and then you can pickup off the wire).

 

Rules say anything about it? If not, did both teams receive a benefit each week? If so, then you have to let it go and revisit the rules. Otherwise, if it was completely one sided then yes, COLLUSION.

[TimHauck 1,898]

Probably shouldn't have let it go through the first time.

[FrankRizzo 0]

 

Good point ... starting QB1 Flaco for a kicker??

[desertfire 4]

absolutely collusion. those teams involved should have the points taken away from them. If it resulted in a win because of those points, then it should be counted as a loss. Your commish should take of this on behalf of the league.

[nobody 2,113]

Loaning out players is always a no-no.

[CH42 0]

Definitely collusion and agree with above that the trade should have been vetoed from the onset. As it is, any 'return' trade should be vetoed and the owners (specifically the flacco owner) will need to deal with the reality they created.

[PATSSOX 22]

last week team A traded j. flacco to team B for m. crosby.

 

as it turns out the team that received flacco would have been without a qb, and would have lost if not for receiving flacco in the trade.

 

now 1 week later they want to make the same trade....in reverse.

 

this is collusion, correct?

 

first how the hell was the trade allowed in first place

 

second no way in hell would trade be allowed the next week. i asked kinda this same question a week ago but atleast my trade was a legit trade. i traded Garrard, Donald Brown and Owen Daniels for Romo and Cooley and this week i just finished trade with Aaron Rodgers for Barber. origianlly i wanted Garrard back with Barber but realized that wasnt right.

 

who ever you commish is, is a dumbA$$ for letting it go through last week and even more of a dumbA$$ for letting it go back through.

 

 

its Colusion, stupidity, sharing players, cheating, stealing and just plan dumb

[PanicAttack 13]

COLLUSION!!! And take away the win from both players if wither won this week! Hell to be honest I would throw them out of my league.

 

[goodoldalky 0]

Both players should receive losses for last week and have the involved players dropped to waivers (Crosby, Flacco).

 

Definately cheating.

[snarky 0]

yeah, unfortunately i'm the commish and now i'm in the middle of this mess.

 

i agree, in hindsight i shouldn't have allowed the trade in the 1st place, but i try to stay out of trying to figure out if a trade is "fair" or not. and also i just figured if the team that traded flacco is stupid enough to trade away his very talented back-up qb, and ONLY back-up qb for that matter, then he's just a dummy and should pay the price of losing his qb depth.

 

the other problem is there is no official rule in our league saying you can't trade a player/players for 1 week and then trade them back the next. mainly because it's kind of an unwritten rule. and, this is our 5th year in the league and no1 has every tried this before.

 

also, when the 2 teams made the trade i didn't know of their intention to trade the same players back to each other this week.

[jerryskids 5,461]

Tough call. If you don't have any rules about trading players back during the season, they didn't break a rule. Then again, it is not clear to me what the benefit was to the guy who loaned out Flacco. Did he need a kicker that week because of byes? If so, they can argue that they were helping each other out, which is not collusion -- trades are theoretically supposed to help both parties. Arguably slimy, but not collusion. If he did NOT need Crosby, then it is clearly collusion.

[Law 220]

I don't care if there are stated rules on this or not. Some things are clearly not right and this is one them. It's an implied rule if not in fact stated. It doesn't pass the stink test and both owners know it. For that matter, any owner in any of my leagues that did willing accept the reversal of both deals, including any points and wins won, would have their teams locked and would not be invited back.

 

Total BS!

[PATSSOX 22]

here is a simple solution

 

just make last weeks trade stand and they can not trade back players because that is obvious loaning a player. and hope the guy, who loaned the QB, starting QB goes down and he has not QB

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

Surprised no one mentioned going to both their houses, punching them in the face in front of the wife and kids.

[PATSSOX 22]

Surprised no one mentioned going to both their houses, punching them in the face in front of the wife and kids.

 

that is another solution why do everytime i read your name i think of a DIRTY SANCHEZ

[madd futher mucker 36]

Since some leagues do allow this practice, I would NOT consider this collusion if there are no written rules against this type of "trade".

 

Your league should have had written rules in place to cover this.

Example: (from our league rules) "In-Season Trades MUST be player-for player during the league season. Each trade must stand on its own. Two-step trades, "string trades" and/or contingent trades are not permitted. Since an owner may elect not to participate for the following year, trades for future draft choices are also not permitted during the season. "Loaning" of players and/or trade backs to avoid bye week problems are also not permitted. If Team A trades a player to Team B, that player may not be traded back to Team A for 3 weeks worth of games, even if the composition of the trade is different from the original trade."

 

 

 

At this point, it is too late to establish a rule for this year. But your league can and should follow whatever veto procedure you have in place.

 

Again, for like the thousandth time I say to ALL COMMISSIONERS: Have your league rules in writing and complete enough to cover 90% of all easily forseen problems like this that may come up.

[GridironGuzzlers 3]

As commisioner you should have at least questioned the original trade to get their reasons. This is one of those .001 % of the time to veto a trade. But since you put it thru it's hard to veto the second one. And I think you look like a jerk if you claim collusion (even if it was) or veto the tradeback now when you should have been on top of it from the get go. Put it thru then amend the written rules next season since the implied rules were not followed. You put yourself in a bad spot

[Ravens 03 0]

Both players should receive losses for last week (Crosby, Flacco).

 

Definately cheating.

 

Make the players stay on the respective teams for the balance of the year.

[PATSSOX 22]

Make the players stay on the respective teams for the balance of the year.

 

 

i said same thing Its easy just make them keep the players and dont allow the trade back. I dont care if there is not any written rule against it. When it is that obvious they are just borrowing players just make them keep them. its an easy solution

[jgcrawfish 232]

first, that trade should not have gone thru in the 1st place. a top 5 QB should never have been allowed to be traded for a kicker. Honestly, I think both of them should forfeit that game, but that's probably overly harsh. The bottom line is that there is at least one other player who got completely screwed by this deal. And in the grand scheme of things, it could have affect on lots of teams. If there are payouts for standings in divisions, high scorer for the year and such, it affects them. It can also affect the playoff lineups by enabling a weaker team to get a better matchup or a stronger team to have to face stiffer competition.

 

Your job as commish of the league is to protect the integrity of the league, to ensure fairness. There was nothing fair about this and it was the definition of collusion, one team helping another team, even if temporary. The more I think about it, the more I believe that both teams should be given 0 pts for their games this week. It's probably too late to punish them for the trade in the first place, but you can prohibit Flacco from going back to his original team to teach a lesson.

[dhockster 0]

Assessing the first trade without knowing the second one was going to happen, I would have asked the following questions:

 

How does the owner getting M. Crosby benefit? Is Crosby, who is ranked 5th among kickers, that much better than the

kicker he already had? Is that increase offsetting having a quality back-up like Flacco when he has no other backup Qb? Who is his starting QB and has he had his bye yet?

 

My guess is you could have vetoed the first trade for collusion based on the fact that the Owner who was getting M. Crosby did not benefit from the deal, and that the other owner was getting a player who filled a bye week open position.

 

Now when the trade back occurs it is easy to see the collusion. Did the Owner who loaned out Flacco even play Crosby in the one week? If not, then these transactions did nothing to help his team, and by covering the other owners open QB Position, collusion is easily seen (two owners working together).

 

What are your league rules on collusion and penalties for collusion? How much latitude as commissioner do you have?

[Knowsome Bobarino 0]

yeah, unfortunately i'm the commish and now i'm in the middle of this mess.

 

i agree, in hindsight i shouldn't have allowed the trade in the 1st place, but i try to stay out of trying to figure out if a trade is "fair" or not. and also i just figured if the team that traded flacco is stupid enough to trade away his very talented back-up qb, and ONLY back-up qb for that matter, then he's just a dummy and should pay the price of losing his qb depth.

 

the other problem is there is no official rule in our league saying you can't trade a player/players for 1 week and then trade them back the next. mainly because it's kind of an unwritten rule. and, this is our 5th year in the league and no1 has every tried this before.

 

also, when the 2 teams made the trade i didn't know of their intention to trade the same players back to each other this week.

 

I do think this scenerio is collusion, but I don't agree with some of the commenters when they say you shouldn't have let it go through in the first place. I'm very hesitant to veto any trade that isn't OBVIOUS collusion. People make bad trades all the time. Unless it's obvious, you need to let trades be trades.

 

I think you can step in and rectify this issue without having to absolutely fall on the rules. Collusion is hard to put into the rule book since collusion is subjective. That being said, I wouldn't do anything unilaterally. I'd be sure to get other team owners involved and find a solution that the masses agree with. You can't have collusion, and these two teams can't possibly (in their heart of hearts) not think this was shady at best.

 

Work with the other owners in the league and come up with a solution that everyone is happy with. Hopefully you play with better people than the two that pulled this ruse, and can objectivelly come up with a fair solution.

[Knowsome Bobarino 0]

yeah, unfortunately i'm the commish and now i'm in the middle of this mess.

 

i agree, in hindsight i shouldn't have allowed the trade in the 1st place, but i try to stay out of trying to figure out if a trade is "fair" or not. and also i just figured if the team that traded flacco is stupid enough to trade away his very talented back-up qb, and ONLY back-up qb for that matter, then he's just a dummy and should pay the price of losing his qb depth.

 

the other problem is there is no official rule in our league saying you can't trade a player/players for 1 week and then trade them back the next. mainly because it's kind of an unwritten rule. and, this is our 5th year in the league and no1 has every tried this before.

 

also, when the 2 teams made the trade i didn't know of their intention to trade the same players back to each other this week.

 

I do think this scenerio is collusion, but I don't agree with some of the commenters when they say you shouldn't have let it go through in the first place. I'm very hesitant to veto any trade that isn't OBVIOUS collusion. People make bad trades all the time. Unless it's obvious, you need to let trades be trades.

 

I think you can step in and rectify this issue without having to absolutely fall on the rules. Collusion is hard to put into the rule book since collusion is subjective. That being said, I wouldn't do anything unilaterally. I'd be sure to get other team owners involved and find a solution that the masses agree with. You can't have collusion, and these two teams can't possibly (in their heart of hearts) not think this was shady at best.

 

Work with the other owners in the league and come up with a solution that everyone is happy with. Hopefully you play with better people than the two that pulled this ruse, and can objectivelly come up with a fair solution.

[Knowsome Bobarino 0]

One idea that may work for your league going forward is something we did in my dynasty league.

 

I've run a dynasty league since 1997, and a number of years back, I asked who I deemed to be the fairest, most objective members of my league to join a "Competition and Controversay" committee. I asked 3 other owners if they'd join me on this committee. When we have a controversial issue arrise, we discuss it first amongst ourselves to decide what action needs to be taken...if any. We vote, and in the event of a 2-2 split, we open it up to a league wide vote. I should also point out that the non committee members are all cool with us having a committee and are still free to speak their minds when they want. It's not like we don't give them any say or anything like that. They just prefer to stay out of all the drama and just play fantasy football. They trust that the commitee will always rule in a fair, objective, rational, manner.

 

Having a committee does a couple of things. It takes all the power away from the commissioner. It helps when trying to work out issues as (presumably) the people on the committee will be accessable and willing to work at finding a solution. Have you ever requested a league wide vote on something and ended up only hearing back from 75% of the members? Or you're looking to get a swift resolution, but couldn't because you had a couple of slow responders. A committee sort of stream lines things and helps move more swiftly and easily. To be completely honest, we haven't had a need to call on our committee much at all over the years, but when we have, it's worked pretty well.

[MUHOF 0]

last week team A traded j. flacco to team B for m. crosby.

 

as it turns out the team that received flacco would have been without a qb, and would have lost if not for receiving flacco in the trade.

 

now 1 week later they want to make the same trade....in reverse.

 

this is collusion, correct?

 

Yes, this is the definition of collusion!!! However the real question is who the @#$% trades for a kicker?!?!

[jerryskids 5,461]

The more I think on this, the more I think it is collusion

 

Main Entry: col·lu·sion

Pronunciation: \kə-ˈlü-zhən\

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin collusion-, collusio, from colludere

Date: 14th century

: secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose

 

Any trade with an agreement to trade the players back in the future fits the above definition. If it affected the outcome of either game, I think you need to void the wins. If not, have a stern daddy talk with the league and let them know it won't be tolerated and you'll formalize it in the rules at the end of the season.

[TimHauck 1,898]

I do think this scenerio is collusion, but I don't agree with some of the commenters when they say you shouldn't have let it go through in the first place. I'm very hesitant to veto any trade that isn't OBVIOUS collusion. People make bad trades all the time. Unless it's obvious, you need to let trades be trades.

 

Whenever someone trades someone straight up for a kicker I'd suspect collusion unless it's a 31-team league or maybe if the other guy was an absolute scrub. Kickers are a dime a dozen, there is absolutely no reason to trade anyone straight up for a kicker.

[snarky 0]

update:

 

the team that received flacco won his game, without flacco he would have lost.

 

the team that received crosby lost & would have lost regardless of whom he started, but he did end up starting crosby & did score more points than his normal starting kicker. i think crosby scored 15-16 points(in our scoring system). kris brown, his normal starter, scored 10 pts.

 

the more i think about it the more i'm leaning toward just nullifying their trade last week and giving a loss to the team that traded for flacco.

 

actually i gave them 2 choices.

 

1. nullify the trade & adjust scores accordingly.

2. let the trade stand but definatley no trading the players back.

 

and like i said, i'm starting to think i should just make the decision for them & go with #1.

 

 

jgcrawfish said:

The bottom line is that there is at least one other player who got completely screwed by this deal. And in the grand scheme of things, it could have affect on lots of teams. If there are payouts for standings in divisions, high scorer for the year and such, it affects them. It can also affect the playoff lineups by enabling a weaker team to get a better matchup or a stronger team to have to face stiffer competition.

 

that's why i'm leaning heavily towards nullifying this whole mess and undoing last weeks trade.

[Knowsome Bobarino 0]

Whenever someone trades someone straight up for a kicker I'd suspect collusion unless it's a 31-team league or maybe if the other guy was an absolute scrub. Kickers are a dime a dozen, there is absolutely no reason to trade anyone straight up for a kicker.

 

I can certainly see what you're saying about a kicker, but I'll also contend that even though it may seem silly to actually trade for a kicker (and it probably is), there can be reasons for it. Here are a list of "ifs" that we don't necessarily know about the OP's league.

 

What is the value of a kicker? Bonus points for long kicks, negative points for a missed FG, etc.?

 

What does a guys roster look like that was trading Flacco? What if he had Manning, Cutler and Flacco?

 

What if he's using this deal to somehow position his roster in such a way that this could actually make sense?

 

Even though these are probably still not good reasons to make a Flacco for a kicker trade, depending on the situation, I could understand why someone might make this deal on the up and up. (Which clearly isn't what the OP's guys were doing.)

 

It's a stretch, I know.

[snarky 0]

What is the value of a kicker? Bonus points for long kicks, negative points for a missed FG, etc.?

 

What does a guys roster look like that was trading Flacco? What if he had Manning, Cutler and Flacco?

 

3 pts - 39 yrds

4 pts - 49 yrds

5 pts - 50+

 

no negative pts for anything field goal related.

 

the guy that traded flacco has eli manning, no other qb's.

 

this wasn't anything more than a 1 week qb loan.

[Dr Hook 6]

Since some leagues do allow this practice, I would NOT consider this collusion if there are no written rules against this type of "trade".

 

Your league should have had written rules in place to cover this.

Example: (from our league rules) "In-Season Trades MUST be player-for player during the league season. Each trade must stand on its own. Two-step trades, "string trades" and/or contingent trades are not permitted. Since an owner may elect not to participate for the following year, trades for future draft choices are also not permitted during the season. "Loaning" of players and/or trade backs to avoid bye week problems are also not permitted. If Team A trades a player to Team B, that player may not be traded back to Team A for 3 weeks worth of games, even if the composition of the trade is different from the original trade."

At this point, it is too late to establish a rule for this year. But your league can and should follow whatever veto procedure you have in place.

 

Again, for like the thousandth time I say to ALL COMMISSIONERS: Have your league rules in writing and complete enough to cover 90% of all easily forseen problems like this that may come up.

 

 

Wonderful stuff!! Wondering if you would be able to copy and post all your league rules here so all commish's can use.

[Stewburtx8 67]

3 pts - 39 yrds

4 pts - 49 yrds

5 pts - 50+

 

no negative pts for anything field goal related.

 

the guy that traded flacco has eli manning, no other qb's.

 

this wasn't anything more than a 1 week qb loan.

 

 

This trade should of been vetoed last week. A top 10 QB for a kicker should never be allowed unless kicker scoring is something much different than "standard," which obviously it isn't. I do not believe in vetoes unless their is collusion but there is really no rhyme or reason someone should trade a solid QB for a kicker unless their is some kind of collusion going on. The guy only did it because he knew he was getting Flacco back, and also because he probably wanted that person to beat whoever he was against. This can not be allowed. I can not believe the league was not up in arms about this (especially the guy who would now have to be against Flacco). THIS IS COLLUSION and I would reverse the ramifications immediately, and put out a warning that if it happens again, the consequences will be a whole lot worse.

[LOD01 196]

last week team A traded j. flacco to team B for m. crosby.

 

as it turns out the team that received flacco would have been without a qb, and would have lost if not for receiving flacco in the trade.

 

now 1 week later they want to make the same trade....in reverse.

 

this is collusion, correct?

 

 

Textbook case of collusion by 2 homos who can't win by themselves.

[Stewburtx8 67]

Wonderful stuff!! Wondering if you would be able to copy and post all your league rules here so all commish's can use.

 

 

I can not believe there are standard head to head leagues out there that would allow teams to SHARE players. Obviously a cumulative group league or something out of the ordinary would be the exception.

[snarky 0]

I can not believe there are standard head to head leagues out there that would allow teams to SHARE players. Obviously a cumulative group league or something out of the ordinary would be the exception.

 

 

 

 

this is the 5th year for this league and it's just never come up before. it's not allowed as much as it's just never been addressed.

[Stewburtx8 67]

this is the 5th year for this league and it's just never come up before. it's not allowed as much as it's just never been addressed.

 

 

I guess thats my point. You do NOT need a concrete rule in place for people to understand that it simply is not allowed. It should be understood regardless. It is collusion, which should not be allowed in ANY league. You do not need a rule for this.

[madd futher mucker 36]

I guess thats my point. You do NOT need a concrete rule in place for people to understand that it simply is not allowed. It should be understood regardless. It is collusion, which should not be allowed in ANY league. You do not need a rule for this.

 

Having played in over 25 leagues so far in my fantasy career, and reading and posting on this and other boards, I have to disagree completely. Commissioners who do not have a complete written set of rules covering this and other potential snake pits (and there are many) are just asking for trouble. At this point I WILL NEVER JOIN a league that doesn't have well spelled out rules.

 

And Snarky, if you (or anyone else reading this) wants a copy of the rules in the league that I commish - at least you can get a format that works - but of course you can pick and chose which rules you you might want to ignore, modify or apply, just email me at thinkinbig@yahoo.com

[jerryskids 5,461]

update:

 

the team that received flacco won his game, without flacco he would have lost.

 

the team that received crosby lost & would have lost regardless of whom he started, but he did end up starting crosby & did score more points than his normal starting kicker. i think crosby scored 15-16 points(in our scoring system). kris brown, his normal starter, scored 10 pts.

 

the more i think about it the more i'm leaning toward just nullifying their trade last week and giving a loss to the team that traded for flacco.

 

actually i gave them 2 choices.

 

1. nullify the trade & adjust scores accordingly.

2. let the trade stand but definatley no trading the players back.

 

and like i said, i'm starting to think i should just make the decision for them & go with #1.

jgcrawfish said:

that's why i'm leaning heavily towards nullifying this whole mess and undoing last weeks trade.

You answered my question, he had a kicker who wasn't on a bye. That trade stinks like nasty diarrhea. I'm intrigued to know what his motivation was; the most likely scenario, like mentioned, is he wanted the guy who got Flacco to beat that particular opponent. Void that shiot, and if he threatens to quit, show him the door and just manage his team via top rankings on his website thru the season.

[jerryskids 5,461]

Having played in over 25 leagues so far in my fantasy career, and reading and posting on this and other boards, I have to disagree completely. Commissioners who do not have a complete written set of rules covering this and other potential snake pits (and there are many) are just asking for trouble. At this point I WILL NEVER JOIN a league that doesn't have well spelled out rules.

I respectfully disagree. We do not live in a codified legal system like Germany; instead we have an intricate precedent-based court system where human beings analyze and rule on the specifics of a case. I think the commish has taken too much flak here; "AARRRGGGHHH you should have had a rule against in-season trade backs!!!" Well yeah, that is obvious now. Sometimes you need to run into scenarios to realize the need to codify a rule. Commishes don't do this stuff for a living, they typically volunteer to help run a league, and I am very grateful for the time and effort spent by the commishes in my leagues. Sometimes common sense needs to take over in the absence of a minutia rule. My 2 cents.