I hate when people start these forums BUT . . .

[dantetheactor 0]

Because of the bye weeks Team A needs a RB this week and Team B needs a WR next week. rosters are limited so they make one trade this week to help team a and they agree to make another trade next week to help team b. Is this collusion, shady, etc?

[jgcrawfish 232]

yes. you are correct, these threads suck.

 

and yes, that's collusion.

[SNZ11 5]

I guess it could be looked at like that since they are agreeing ahead of time, but what would have stopped them from making those trades anyway? They are the ones taking a chance that the other team will not agree later, but setting this up like this ahead of time, and announcing it, seems odd.

[Old School 360]

yes. you are correct, these threads suck.

 

and yes, that's collusion.

 

+1

Two owners combining their teams & players is collusion.

Loaning players, trade backs, trading away big time producers for scrubs, it's all collusion.

 

House. Door. Punch. Face. Wife & Kids.

HTH

[montana 89]

+1

Two owners combining their teams & players is collusion.

Loaning players, trade backs, trading away big time producers for scrubs, it's all collusion.

 

House. Door. Punch. Face. Wife & Kids.

HTH

+1 or is this +2?

[huskerinct 1]

+1 or is this +2?

+2 or is it +3?

[dantetheactor 0]

+1

Two owners combining their teams & players is collusion.

Loaning players, trade backs, trading away big time producers for scrubs, it's all collusion.

 

House. Door. Punch. Face. Wife & Kids.

HTH

This isnt loaning players, it isnt trading back players and it isnt trading big time producers for scrubs. Lets say team a needs a rb and team b needs a wr and they make that trade, thats ok. So why isnt it ok to say lets do part of the deal this week and part of it next week?

[JT 137]

yes. you are correct, these threads suck.

 

and yes, that's collusion.

 

This/thread

[dream_team 2]

Yes, collusion.

 

My league has a rule to protect against this. "no trades allowed involving 'promises' or 'conditions'."

[JT 137]

This isnt loaning players, it isnt trading back players and it isnt trading big time producers for scrubs. Lets say team a needs a rb and team b needs a wr and they make that trade, thats ok. So why isnt it ok to say lets do part of the deal this week and part of it next week?

 

 

It's both loaning and trading back. It's a deal that has compnoents to it beyond just the trade of players.

[chroniciguana 13]

yes. you are correct, these threads suck.

 

and yes, that's collusion.

 

Unless Team A's borrowed RB goes off and Team A reneges on the rest of the deal. Which I would be enthusiastically encouraging Team A to do. And Team B would be quietly getting the word that Team A has no intention of doing the back end of the trade.

 

Just a little good clean fun.

[Magnum T&A 0]

Because of the bye weeks Team A needs a RB this week and Team B needs a WR next week. rosters are limited so they make one trade this week to help team a and they agree to make another trade next week to help team b. Is this collusion, shady, etc?

The only problem is someone could not keep there mouth shut. Shady maybe but not collusion.

[dantetheactor 0]

Its a complete 2 for 2 trade where half is completed this week and half is completed next week. Its not a loan or a trade back becuase they arent exchanging the same players. Im also talking about where both trades are equal. i.e. you give me pierre thomas for deangelo williams (whos on a bye) this week. and i give you tampa mike for crabtree (whos on a bye) next week. Just as an example. I dont see it as collusion. If this is collusion then trading all these players within the same week would have to be collusion too. What makes it collusion because we are completing part of the trade next week? I disagree.

[madd futher mucker 36]

I'm not sure if it is technically collusion, but if I were commissioner of your league, it would not be allowed even if your league had no specific by-laws addressing this.

 

However, leagues should specifically address and outlaw this practice in their by-laws. Here is some sample language:

 

10. Sportsmanship Rules:

a. You MAY start a player who is on a bye week to avoid messing up your roster. However, intentionally ‘tanking’ a game is NOT allowed. The commissioner will decide if ‘tanking’ has occurred and determine the appropriate penalty. ‘Tanking’ or giving up, generally occurs when an owner feels that his team is ‘out of it’, but it unfairly affects all the other owners competing for play-off spots, as well as the draft order in the following year. So in general, anyone who does not change their line-ups to field a competitive team on a weekly basis will not be invited back into the league the following year.

 

b. Collusion: ‘Tanking’ a game in order to help a friend make the play-offs is Collusion. In the event of collusion, the commissioner will ban the player from the league and the player will forfeit his entire fee, prize money, and any remaining games. Trades where the sole intent is to help another team with no benefit to your own is also collusion. ‘Fire Sales’ type trades made because a team has given up will also result in immediate expulsion from the league and the trades will be reversed.

Two-step trades, ‘string trades’ and/or contingent trades are not permitted. ‘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.

 

c. Picking up a free agent or a player from waivers and then dropping them just before the weekend’s games - solely to deny them to another team – will not be permitted and repeated or intentional violations will be subject to commissioner sanctions.

 

 

I've often stated in this forum that well written by-laws can head off almost all of league management problems before they arise.

[jgcrawfish 232]

This isnt loaning players, it isnt trading back players and it isnt trading big time producers for scrubs. Lets say team a needs a rb and team b needs a wr and they make that trade, thats ok. So why isnt it ok to say lets do part of the deal this week and part of it next week?

 

this isn't trading, it's loaning, and it's unfair to the people both these guys are playing those weeks. And now that we know the "hypothetical" situation is you, it's even worse because you're trying to justify your cheating actions.

[JT 137]

this isn't trading, it's loaning, and it's unfair to the people both these guys are playing those weeks. And now that we know the "hypothetical" situation is you, it's even worse because you're trying to justify your cheating actions.

 

Beat me to it. Bad enough to cheat. Worse to try and justify it by getting others to support your actions.

[JT 137]

Its a complete 2 for 2 trade where half is completed this week and half is completed next week. Its not a loan or a trade back becuase they arent exchanging the same players. Im also talking about where both trades are equal. i.e. you give me pierre thomas for deangelo williams (whos on a bye) this week. and i give you tampa mike for crabtree (whos on a bye) next week. Just as an example. I dont see it as collusion. If this is collusion then trading all these players within the same week would have to be collusion too. What makes it collusion because we are completing part of the trade next week? I disagree.

 

Of course you disagree. You're trying to get over on your league mates, and thought you'd practice by trying to get over on the people here.

[dantetheactor 0]

Of course you disagree. You're trying to get over on your league mates, and thought you'd practice by trying to get over on the people here.

I'm not trying to get over on anyone. The issue came up in my league and we were asked to vote whether or not we thought it was collusion. I don't think it is. My replies were to fuel the discussion and play the other side of the arguement. I voted that it wasn't collusion but i just wanted to get an idea of what some people thought. I always thought collusion was 2 teams trying to make one team better. IF the league has a by law against two step trades or string trades then thats one thing but if not i dont think its against the rules. When we trade with others it is for the purpose of 2 teams helping each other. i.e. I need a Rb and you need a WR. I am deep at WR and you are deep at RB, lets trade. In my 20 years of fantasy football I never came across 2 teams making a trade like this, with part of it going through this week and part of it going through next week and i dont think anyone has really given me a good reason why it is against the rules therefore i am standing by my vote of letting it go through. I dont think its collusion. So like i said im not trying to get over on anyone, its quite to the contrary. I want to ensure that i am making the right decision to be fair to all parties involved. As a side note, sometimes people who post on here have this air of douchebaggedness that comes across in their posts. "Oh your trying to get over on your league mate and practice by getting over on us". No. That's not true. Now that I've made my intentions clear I'll be waiting for an apology.

[sheadtoo 1]

I'm not trying to get over on anyone. The issue came up in my league and we were asked to vote whether or not we thought it was collusion. I don't think it is. My replies were to fuel the discussion and play the other side of the arguement. I voted that it wasn't collusion but i just wanted to get an idea of what some people thought. I always thought collusion was 2 teams trying to make one team better. IF the league has a by law against two step trades or string trades then thats one thing but if not i dont think its against the rules. When we trade with others it is for the purpose of 2 teams helping each other. i.e. I need a Rb and you need a WR. I am deep at WR and you are deep at RB, lets trade. In my 20 years of fantasy football I never came across 2 teams making a trade like this, with part of it going through this week and part of it going through next week and i dont think anyone has really given me a good reason why it is against the rules therefore i am standing by my vote of letting it go through. I dont think its collusion. So like i said im not trying to get over on anyone, its quite to the contrary. I want to ensure that i am making the right decision to be fair to all parties involved. As a side note, sometimes people who post on here have this air of douchebaggedness that comes across in their posts. "Oh your trying to get over on your league mate and practice by getting over on us". No. That's not true. Now that I've made my intentions clear I'll be waiting for an apology.

This is 2 teams making one better. One team is better this week and the then the next week the other is better. And FYI you will never get an apology here with out documentation they were wrong

[JT 137]

I'm not trying to get over on anyone. The issue came up in my league and we were asked to vote whether or not we thought it was collusion. I don't think it is. My replies were to fuel the discussion and play the other side of the arguement. I voted that it wasn't collusion but i just wanted to get an idea of what some people thought. I always thought collusion was 2 teams trying to make one team better. IF the league has a by law against two step trades or string trades then thats one thing but if not i dont think its against the rules. When we trade with others it is for the purpose of 2 teams helping each other. i.e. I need a Rb and you need a WR. I am deep at WR and you are deep at RB, lets trade. In my 20 years of fantasy football I never came across 2 teams making a trade like this, with part of it going through this week and part of it going through next week and i dont think anyone has really given me a good reason why it is against the rules therefore i am standing by my vote of letting it go through. I dont think its collusion. So like i said im not trying to get over on anyone, its quite to the contrary. I want to ensure that i am making the right decision to be fair to all parties involved. As a side note, sometimes people who post on here have this air of douchebaggedness that comes across in their posts. "Oh your trying to get over on your league mate and practice by getting over on us". No. That's not true. Now that I've made my intentions clear I'll be waiting for an apology.

 

It's collusion. There's a component to the trade aside from the initial exchange of players.

 

I'm sorry you're not bright enough to see it. Does that qualify as an apology?

[Old School 360]

Now that I've made my intentions clear I'll be waiting for an apology.

 

Fock you- you whiney ass b!tch.

 

Take it to the no one gives a rat's ass bored.

[gocolts 300]

I'm not trying to get over on anyone. The issue came up in my league and we were asked to vote whether or not we thought it was collusion. I don't think it is. My replies were to fuel the discussion and play the other side of the arguement. I voted that it wasn't collusion but i just wanted to get an idea of what some people thought. I always thought collusion was 2 teams trying to make one team better. IF the league has a by law against two step trades or string trades then thats one thing but if not i dont think its against the rules. When we trade with others it is for the purpose of 2 teams helping each other. i.e. I need a Rb and you need a WR. I am deep at WR and you are deep at RB, lets trade. In my 20 years of fantasy football I never came across 2 teams making a trade like this, with part of it going through this week and part of it going through next week and i dont think anyone has really given me a good reason why it is against the rules therefore i am standing by my vote of letting it go through. I dont think its collusion. So like i said im not trying to get over on anyone, its quite to the contrary. I want to ensure that i am making the right decision to be fair to all parties involved. As a side note, sometimes people who post on here have this air of douchebaggedness that comes across in their posts. "Oh your trying to get over on your league mate and practice by getting over on us". No. That's not true. Now that I've made my intentions clear I'll be waiting for an apology.

I was thinking the same thing about most of your posts, especially this one.

[Drizzay 646]

By-laws

[SUXBNME 1,335]

Why do you hate MikeFFT ?

 

EDIT: Dantetheasshole is clearly an asswhole.

[dantetheactor 0]

It's collusion. There's a component to the trade aside from the initial exchange of players.

 

I'm sorry you're not bright enough to see it. Does that qualify as an apology?

Apology accepted.

[dantetheactor 0]

Why do you hate MikeFFT ?

 

EDIT: Dantetheasshole is clearly an asswhole.

And you're obviously a bald homosexual who holds his cigarette like a ghey frenchmen. Check the link:

 

[Big Blue 06 195]

This is the very definition of collusion and should not be allowed.

[mlmeloy 0]

I'm not trying to get over on anyone. The issue came up in my league and we were asked to vote whether or not we thought it was collusion. I don't think it is. My replies were to fuel the discussion and play the other side of the arguement. I voted that it wasn't collusion but i just wanted to get an idea of what some people thought. I always thought collusion was 2 teams trying to make one team better. IF the league has a by law against two step trades or string trades then thats one thing but if not i dont think its against the rules. When we trade with others it is for the purpose of 2 teams helping each other. i.e. I need a Rb and you need a WR. I am deep at WR and you are deep at RB, lets trade. In my 20 years of fantasy football I never came across 2 teams making a trade like this, with part of it going through this week and part of it going through next week and i dont think anyone has really given me a good reason why it is against the rules therefore i am standing by my vote of letting it go through. I dont think its collusion. So like i said im not trying to get over on anyone, its quite to the contrary. I want to ensure that i am making the right decision to be fair to all parties involved. As a side note, sometimes people who post on here have this air of douchebaggedness that comes across in their posts. "Oh your trying to get over on your league mate and practice by getting over on us". No. That's not true. Now that I've made my intentions clear I'll be waiting for an apology.

 

Oh, NO officer. I didn't STEAL the car; I just BORROWED it for a trip to mexico.