Sigh...accusation of collusion in the league

[RicemanX 20]

Brothers in our league just made a trade.

Bro #1 is in 1st place, stacked in every position, sends McGahee, his #4 RB over to Bro #2.

 

Bro #2 is fighting for the last wild card spot, needs a 2nd RB, sends Romo, his backup QB to bro #1.

 

People in the league are saying that this is obvious collusion.

 

I called Bro #1, he argues that this is a trade of a top 15 QB for a top 15 RB. Even if it skews to Bro #2's side, you can't call this collusion.

 

I tend to agree with the brothers. Trade goes through.

 

Your thoughts FFT?

[Vikings4ever 496]

While not even, no way it should be vetoed.

 

Hell, 99% of collusion is to stack the better team. This makes the better team worse.

[johfi 0]

Collusion is really the backbone of trade deadlines. It's just the way of things. People like screwing other people over when they are down and out.

[Brian Bozworth Fan Club 0]

The trade itself isn't lopsided in any way. I'd imagine bro 1 is helping bro 2 but it's a fair trade. Who does bro 1 have at QB?

[RicemanX 20]

The trade itself isn't lopsided in any way. I'd imagine bro 1 is helping bro 2 but it's a fair trade. Who does bro 1 have at QB?

 

Bro 1 have Brees, Bro 2 has Brady. Both are pretty set.

[Almadenbass 0]

This appears to be collusion only too those not in the playoff race :banana:

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,590]

I think its collusion and here is why

 

Bro 1 is doing nothing to try and improve his team.

 

Bro 2 is gaining a starter for a backup QB that Bro 1 would never start

 

Maybe if Bro 1 had Eli, Ben, or something then sure

[chroniciguana 13]

You can easily test whether Brother No. 1's goal is to help his sibling or if he really sees this as improving his team. Offer Brother No. 1 an informal, but obviously better deal for McGahee.

[schaubmynob 0]

Obviously Bro #1 isn't making this trade for his own best interest... which means that this trade should be vetoed

[Meglamaniac 380]

When did gaining or having quality backup players on your roster not become a way to improve your team?? Unless you have a crystal ball that can accurately predict the future you have no way of knowing if Brees gets the all popular concusion or some other type of injury. Having Romo as a safety valve is good managing in my eyes.

[Djgb13 2,338]

I see no collusion here. Bro #1 sent someone he probably will never use to Bro #2 for someone he would never use. Maybe Bro #1 wants a back up QB just in case his gets hurt? Or maybe he likes one of Romos match ups better than Brees matchups during play offs? I have Rodgers and Week 15 he plays Chicago so I know Im sitting him for Freeman since he plays the Saints. It could very well be one of those situations.

[jgcrawfish 232]

I don't think you can say it's collusion, but it's definitely not a fair trade. It does not benefit the stronger team in any way. The argument could be made that, depending on league settings, McGahee is an automatic starter on almost any team (#12 ranked RB definitely qualifies in standard 2RB leagues - 10/12 team) where as Romo isn't necessarily a starter at all even in larger leagues (18th ranked QB). It's one thing when you're a stronger team trading your depth to acquire a better starter, or trading depth at one position to strengthen another one...it's another thing completely to trade a player you might use for one that you likely won't use.

[KSB2424 3,083]

Why not just give us the players names for cyring out loud.

[Dr Hook 6]

4 Qb's went down with injury this last weekend. Bro #1 is giving himself the best chance to win IF/When his starting QB goes down. Fair trade.

[jrbdmb 28]

Sure is a lot of wah wah wah in this thread. I see no issue with this trade, #1 is trading a RB he will never use for a decent backup QB. Push it through.

[Evil Genius 0]

 

I tend to agree with the brothers. Trade goes through.

 

Your thoughts FFT?

 

I agree with you...with one caveat. You let it go, but explain to both of them that these types of trades are not great for the League.

 

It opens the door to shadier shite down the line, when it appears one team (admittedly the stronger team) helps another team - with little or no sense of gain. So you tell them as much and explain that a similar trade in the future will very likely get vetoed (by the Commish/you).

 

Now, a lot depends on the social ramifications: if this is a collective of friends, then you have to care a little about the fallout, if people are going to get pi$$ed off. If so, explain to others privately that the Brothers were spoken to - and that further trades between them will be scrutinized.

 

For the moment, it was a trade that made two teams just as, if not more, competitive than they were previously. Fair enough.

[jgcrawfish 232]

I agree with you...with one caveat. You let it go, but explain to both of them that these types of trades are not great for the League.

 

It opens the door to shadier shite down the line, when it appears one team (admittedly the stronger team) helps another team - with little or no sense of gain. So you tell them as much and explain that a similar trade in the future will very likely get vetoed (by the Commish/you).

 

Now, a lot depends on the social ramifications: if this is a collective of friends, then you have to care a little about the fallout, if people are going to get pi$ed off. If so, explain to others privately that the Brothers were spoken to - and that further trades between them will be scrutinized.

 

For the moment, it was a trade that made two teams just as, if not more, competitive than they were previously. Fair enough.

 

I think this is a good approach. I can't call the trade collusion, but I can't exactly call it fair either.

[Stewburtx8 67]

What you should of done right away is ask Bro #1 why he is making this trade and how it improves his team. If you put him on the spot right away without even mentioning collusion, you should be able to tell whether this trade was made in good faith or not. When someone makes a trade in good faith, they would obviously be able to rattle of the reasons they made the trade.

 

If he says "my team is a stacked across the board but I didn't feel comfortable with my backup QB in case something happens to Brees," then the trade goes through. If he says "I like Romo's matchup in Week 15 against so and so much more than I like Brees matchup that same week against so and so," trade goes through. BUT if he made the trade only to help his brother, his explanation will likely make very little sense. If you put him on the spot, he's not going to be able to rattle off the reasons he made the trade IF the only reason was to help his brother. Just my opinion.

[RicemanX 20]

What you should of done right away is ask Bro #1 why he is making this trade and how it improves his team. If you put him on the spot right away without even mentioning collusion, you should be able to tell whether this trade was made in good faith or not. When someone makes a trade in good faith, they would obviously be able to rattle of the reasons they made the trade.

 

If he says "my team is a stacked across the board but I didn't feel comfortable with my backup QB in case something happens to Brees," then the trade goes through. If he says "I like Romo's matchup in Week 15 against so and so much more than I like Brees matchup that same week against so and so," trade goes through. BUT if he made the trade only to help his brother, his explanation will likely make very little sense. If you put him on the spot, he's not going to be able to rattle off the reasons he made the trade IF the only reason was to help his brother. Just my opinion.

 

It's similar to what i asked him. I asked him why he wanted Romo instead of picking up someone like Russell Wilson or Tannehill off the FA market. He explained it like this:

 

"I want a backup QB, which I have none at this moment. Trading away McGahee will also help make my flex starter decision a little bit easier every week."

 

It is true. The guy literally has 4 players (excluding McGahee) that he can put into the flex spot and do well.

 

Obviously, it's the 2 teams competing with Brother #2 for that last wild card spot making the biggest fuss about it. I made them both aware that I understand it is not an even trade, but vetos aren't for uneven trades, Even if it's as uneven as this trade, your veto means you are questioning another owner's strategies. Bro #1 is the same owner that picked Adrian Peterson at 1.05 in the draft and we all chuckled a little bit, but look at him now. So why are we questioning him getting rid of McGahee and picking up Romo, maybe he sees something we don't.

[SexyRexy 60]

Brothers in our league just made a trade.

Bro #1 is in 1st place, stacked in every position, sends McGahee, his #4 RB over to Bro #2.

 

Bro #2 is fighting for the last wild card spot, needs a 2nd RB, sends Romo, his backup QB to bro #1.

 

People in the league are saying that this is obvious collusion.

 

I called Bro #1, he argues that this is a trade of a top 15 QB for a top 15 RB. Even if it skews to Bro #2's side, you can't call this collusion.

 

I tend to agree with the brothers. Trade goes through.

 

Your thoughts FFT?

 

trade is perfectly legit. The fact that they are brothers may have helped the trade go through but that doesn't make it collusion. If people don't like it, don't have brothers on 2 different teams in the league.

[Quickolas1 80]

out of pure curiosity is this a re-draft or dynasty?

 

what 3 does he have besides ADP?

hopefully they all get hurt

 

(he's helping out bro but can't veto this trade)

 

post on your message board that it can't be vetoed but if a wildcard contending team doesn't make the playoffs as a direct result of mcgahee... he has every right to go to bro's house and punch him in the face in front of his wife & kids. that's a better message than "we'll allow this trade but in the future overrule" as someone said earlier...which is an inconsistent empty threat anyway.

[WhiteWonder 2,172]

I think its collusion and here is why

 

Bro 1 is doing nothing to try and improve his team.

 

Bro 2 is gaining a starter for a backup QB that Bro 1 would never start

 

Maybe if Bro 1 had Eli, Ben, or something then sure

 

its collusion in the sense that i'm sure Bro 1 would not do a similar deal with anyone else. (but in the end there is no way to prove this)

 

however, when you look beyond their relationship, there is nothing wrong with the trade. Giving up your 4th RB for a better backup QB is a valid trade if you wan't to cover your ass in the event your starter goes down. It's not a trade I would make because I covet RB's but every FF owner is different,.

[jeffkomlo 19]

no collusion, especially with the no. of QBs being hurt and McGahees fumble troubles.

In fact I'm grabbing Palmer off WW so Roethlesberger owner can't get him!

[RicemanX 20]

out of pure curiosity is this a re-draft or dynasty?

 

what 3 does he have besides ADP?

hopefully they all get hurt

 

(he's helping out bro but can't veto this trade)

 

post on your message board that it can't be vetoed but if a wildcard contending team doesn't make the playoffs as a direct result of mcgahee... he has every right to go to bro's house and punch him in the face in front of his wife & kids. that's a better message than "we'll allow this trade but in the future overrule" as someone said earlier...which is an inconsistent empty threat anyway.

 

Redraft.

It's a disgusting roster:

 

QB - Brees (Traded via Gronk)

RB - ADP, Gore, Mcgahee, Alf Morris

WR - Mike Wallace, Demaryus Thomas, Andre Johnson (traded via Andrew Luck), Denarious Moore, Cecil Shorts

TE - Heath Miller, Myers

 

8 starters. QB, RB, WR, WR, TE, RB/WR/TE flex, K, DT

 

And someone already posted on the board "If McGahee gets **** into the playoffs, I'm punching someone in the face"

[PackYourNut 47]

 

And someone already posted on the board "If McGahee gets **** into the playoffs, I'm punching someone in the face"

 

Sounds like a league full of cry babies!

 

I dont see what's wrong with the trade at all...

[Serpent 51]

All these leagues with whiny little girls complaining about everything tells me the average fantasy football player is just a total ######.

[KSB2424 3,083]

Redraft.

It's a disgusting roster:

 

QB - Brees (Traded via Gronk)

RB - ADP, Gore, Mcgahee, Alf Morris

WR - Mike Wallace, Demaryus Thomas, Andre Johnson (traded via Andrew Luck), Denarious Moore, Cecil Shorts

TE - Heath Miller, Myers

 

8 starters. QB, RB, WR, WR, TE, RB/WR/TE flex, K, DT

 

And someone already posted on the board "If McGahee gets **** into the playoffs, I'm punching someone in the face"

So he traded McGahee for who exactly?

[IAMWood 6]

Here is the twist.

 

Bro #1 is Riceman.

[sirensong 111]

not collusion. uneven, but not collusion.

[Quickolas1 80]

not collusion. uneven, but not collusion.

 

if behind closed doors the guy told you he could care less about romo/backup QB but would rather see his bro make the playoffs than the other guys (for an RB he won't start)...would it still not be collusion?

[RicemanX 20]

Here is the twist.

 

Bro #1 is Riceman.

 

Awww cmon, that's not a good twist.

A good twist is if bro #2 was JERRY JONES. DUH DUH DUHHHHHHHH.

[Kopy 491]

Sounds like a league full of cry babies!

 

I dont see what's wrong with the trade at all...

Agreed. Take out the brothers part, and it's a fine deal.

Offer the rest of the league some cheese.

[CookieG 4]

I'd be a little bent were I in there league.. but you can't really legislate stupid, or over cautious, etc. in FF. Look at it this way.. Brother #1 should really be shopping McGahee and players like AJ or Wallace for a better WR. He very well may wind up screwing himself in the long run.

 

I think the fact that they're related makes it smell a little more than it normally would.. and of course, that it doesn't appear to do anything to add pop to his starting roster. The "helps me decide who to start" thing is not exactly a benefit, is it?

 

I'd be unthrilled if I were in their league, but if this guy looks like a shoo-in for a #1 or #2 seed and he can have Romo instead of someone like Tannehill at backup QB, you can't exactly fault his logic. Romo does have a nice late schedule and Willis has been fumbling lately.

 

Agree with you Riceman: irritating for the league (and the brothers may feel the wrath a bit in seasons to come), but IMO, you can't knock this trade down.

[epinindy 0]

Bottom line is this is a fair trade. The logic that Brother 1 used to explain makes sense.

 

By the way Romo is likely an improvement over his QB2 so the argument he is not helping his team is bogus. McGahee was his RB4....which means he has a backup already there if someone should get hurt and McGahee wouldn't even play for him in that circumstance.

 

So going into the playoffs and Brees gets hurt, did he not put himself in a position to compete by adding Romo.

 

I think this is a decent deal for both, a fair deal and the only real reason people think its collusion is because they are brothers. If they were unrelated nobody would have mentioned collusion.

[RicemanX 20]

Yes. Like I said before, I approved the trade, it's fair.

Bro #1 didn't have a backup QB, so he traded for Romo. Bro #1 also probably decided that McGahee was the last RB on his depth chart, so he traded the guy away.

 

I'm sure the other guys in the league are just:

A. Bitter because a boarderline playoff team is getting better.

B. They could also have gotten McGahee with a Romo caliber QB.

 

None of those reasons validate a veto.

[Fantasy Noob 10]

It's fairly obvious collusion but you let it go through! Why? Team #1 is losing a possible playoff stud based on some choice matchups and thins his bench in case of injuries (they can still happen late in the season and especially at RB).

 

Especially egregious considering Denvers final three games of the season; Baltimore week 15 (not truly elite against the run), Cleveland and KC. Pretty sure your going to have a funny follow up post after the post season starts if both teams get in.

[jaxjag 43]

I agree with you...with one caveat. You let it go, but explain to both of them that these types of trades are not great for the League.

 

It opens the door to shadier shite down the line, when it appears one team (admittedly the stronger team) helps another team - with little or no sense of gain. So you tell them as much and explain that a similar trade in the future will very likely get vetoed (by the Commish/you).

 

Now, a lot depends on the social ramifications: if this is a collective of friends, then you have to care a little about the fallout, if people are going to get pi$$ed off. If so, explain to others privately that the Brothers were spoken to - and that further trades between them will be scrutinized.

 

For the moment, it was a trade that made two teams just as, if not more, competitive than they were previously. Fair enough.

 

 

I think you're overreacting a lot here... You let two brothers play in the league - you can't jump to the "collusion" conclusion because they make a trade... Very easy to justify wanting a better backup QB heading into the stretch run... If you "talked to me in private" I would bunch you in the face in public...

[jaxjag 43]

It's fairly obvious collusion but you let it go through! Why? Team #1 is losing a possible playoff stud based on some choice matchups and thins his bench in case of injuries (they can still happen late in the season and especially at RB).

 

Especially egregious considering Denvers final three games of the season; Baltimore week 15 (not truly elite against the run), Cleveland and KC. Pretty sure your going to have a funny follow up post after the post season starts if both teams get in.

 

Truly a "fantasy noob"... You're complaining that the 1st place team in the league made a deal that made his team worse... That's funny!

[mobb_deep 917]

You guys want to talk collusion? McGayhe was traded for Celek in my league.

 

/thread

[sirensong 111]

if behind closed doors the guy told you he could care less about romo/backup QB but would rather see his bro make the playoffs than the other guys (for an RB he won't start)...would it still not be collusion?

 

that would be an admission of collusion--attempting to alter the competitive balance of the league. let's ask another question...

 

if the two guys were not brothers, would there be an automatic suspicion of collusion?