Is it collusion if I just want to help his team so it helps me?

[Dueces Will Be Wild 15]

I am in 1st place in my division by one game and the 1st place team gets a bye. The 2nd place team is playing the 4th place team. The 4th place team has A Rod out and could use help at QB this week and I have a spare I could "trade" him to help out (he most likely wouldn't use him against me later on in the playoffs because he has A Rod). Would that be considered collusion if the trade was unbalanced? He isn't involved at all I'd just offer him a really lopsided deal...

[Squintz82 45]

If you have to ask....

[heffley 12]

I think that's the Urban Dictionary definition of Collusion...

[kilroy69 995]

Its not collusion but also trades that throw the competitive balance of the league out of whack should not be allowed. If you are offering a lopsided trade and its obvious what you are doing its still shittary that needs to be voided and you warned. 4th place team needs to use the waivers and pick up palmer,tolzein or someone like that

[Matt Mueller 146]

Yeah that's shady with a loopsided deal.

 

If you offered him a decent offer, even though you might not be improving your team, that could pass maybe.

[JT 137]

It's not great for the league necessarily, but it's not collusion.

 

Collusion has to involve two knowing parties. If he's simply accepting what he thinks is a bad trade offer there's nothing wrong with it.

 

Shady? Sure. Wrong? Maybe. Collusion? No.

[jbizzle06 2]

STRAIGHT FROM THE MOTHERSHIP ITSELF:
"B: Collusive transactions

Collusion occurs when one team makes moves to benefit another team, without trying to improve its own position. One-sided trades are an obvious example of this. Another example is when a player drop is made so another team can pick up that player. Teams found in violation of this policy will be cancelled and their owners prohibited from participating in future ESPN Fantasy Games."

 

That my friend, is collusion to a T.

[weepaws 2,461]

I am in 1st place in my division by one game and the 1st place team gets a bye. The 2nd place team is playing the 4th place team. The 4th place team has A Rod out and could use help at QB this week and I have a spare I could "trade" him to help out (he most likely wouldn't use him against me later on in the playoffs because he has A Rod). Would that be considered collusion if the trade was unbalanced? He isn't involved at all I'd just offer him a really lopsided deal...

thats a trade that just can not take place

[TheUsualSuspect 207]

If that is not collusion, it is close enough.

[justforbeer 39]

Amazing.....heck, it is the world we live in.

 

Gotta grin and bear it!

 

Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right.....

[FeelingMN 273]

It's a trade that benefits both teams. While it may not improve your roster per se, it accomplishes the same thing by increasing the odds your competition loses. So it's not collusion.

 

But these things have a way of backfiring. It's almost guaranteed that whoever you're trading away will snap a tendon or something on the opening drive, and 4th place team would have been better off playing the wire. Instead he loses by 6....thanks to you.

 

Whatever the case, 2nd place probably ain't sending you a Christmas card this year.

[AnaheimRams 28]

STRAIGHT FROM THE MOTHERSHIP ITSELF:

"B: Collusive transactions

 

Collusion occurs when one team makes moves to benefit another team, without trying to improve its own position. One-sided trades are an obvious example of this. Another example is when a player drop is made so another team can pick up that player. Teams found in violation of this policy will be cancelled and their owners prohibited from participating in future ESPN Fantasy Games."

 

That my friend, is collusion to a T.

 

He is improving his own position. There's no collusion here...

 

Surprised by all the whiners whining about this.

[Dueces Will Be Wild 15]

I'm not going to do it; I just thought it was an interesting debate. This is a group of friends. Also, I've already been in another league of friends that disbanded over the whole Marquis Colston thing when he was a rookie (it got back together a few years later). I don't think it'd be worth it.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

Good move if you want to get punched in the face in front of your wife and kids.

[Love My Lions 1]

Collusion for sure! Your responsibility as a fantasy team owner is to better your team and that is the only focus you should have. Making an unbalanced trade to give the competitive edge to another team is collusion.

[DrG 94]

Yes

100%

[Serpent 51]

Collusion for sure! Your responsibility as a fantasy team owner is to better your team and that is the only focus you should have. Making an unbalanced trade to give the competitive edge to another team is collusion.

 

But he is bettering his team, he's getting playoff position and picking his matchup. It might not work out, but that's his intent. He could easily get crushed by that team, or they miss the playoffs.

[bscheibs 8]

I'm not going to do it; I just thought it was an interesting debate. This is a group of friends. Also, I've already been in another league of friends that disbanded over the whole Marquis Colston thing when he was a rookie (it got back together a few years later). I don't think it'd be worth it.

So this was all just a big tease! I don't appreciate being led on like this.

 

But I don't see this as collusion. You're trying to secure a first round bye.

[jaxjag 43]

STRAIGHT FROM THE MOTHERSHIP ITSELF:

"B: Collusive transactions

 

Collusion occurs when one team makes moves to benefit another team, without trying to improve its own position. One-sided trades are an obvious example of this. Another example is when a player drop is made so another team can pick up that player. Teams found in violation of this policy will be cancelled and their owners prohibited from participating in future ESPN Fantasy Games."

 

That my friend, is collusion to a T.

 

No, it isn't. He is trying to increase the chance the 4th team can beat the 2nd team to procure the #1 seed.

 

Not collusion but poor sportsmanship, shady, shaky and a strategy that could backfire. Do you remember the Golden Rule?

[tanatastic 2,061]

He prob wouldn't even accept your trade even if u think its lopsided. Getting position players for qbs is like pulling teeth and 90% of fantasy players are too gun shy to trade anyone even if its a good deal. He will refuse unless its a kicker and even then people have weird attachments to certain kickers.

[Love My Lions 1]

 

But he is bettering his team, he's getting playoff position and picking his matchup. It might not work out, but that's his intent. He could easily get crushed by that team, or they miss the playoffs.

 

But you are not bettering your team and that is what this is all about. That's why it is collusion. An unbalanced trade can happen from time to time, but if there is no advantage on one side it is unacceptable.

 

We have an owner with Peyton and Cam. If that owner gives up Peyton for Carson Palmer, as a Commish I would not allow that to go through. That trade would smell pretty rotten on one side and for good reason.

[AnaheimRams 28]

You guys need a farking dictionary.

 

Collusion requires involvement and action by at least two parties. One person/team cannot collude.

[Quickolas1 80]

I love when the lawyers get involved and dissect the dictionary definition of collusion in these circumstances.

Like it matters much.

[jrbdmb 28]

Dumping players (which is what this would be) may not technically be collusion, but it should not be allowed. If I was out of the playoffs and saw you pull a move like this, I'd immediately trade my best player to the 2nd place team for a kicker just to get back at you.

 

Plus these type of "cute" moves always tend to backfire ... next week you lose your QB for the year and have to start Dalton or Eli in the playoffs.

[JBT 1]

Not collusion, but strategically manipulating his team to improve his chances at winning the championship. I wouldn't do this personally, but I wouldn't vote to veto it either.

[slash 0]

STRAIGHT FROM THE MOTHERSHIP ITSELF:

"B: Collusive transactions

 

Collusion occurs when one team makes moves to benefit another team, without trying to improve its own position. One-sided trades are an obvious example of this. Another example is when a player drop is made so another team can pick up that player. Teams found in violation of this policy will be cancelled and their owners prohibited from participating in future ESPN Fantasy Games."

 

That my friend, is collusion to a T.

Minor difference.... the above statement is only collusion if both parties are in on it. If some one made you a trade offer that you thought it was to your advantage, would you turn it down and say .. no no nooooo,,, you should ask for more..... no my friend... you will accept it in a heart beat.....

 

 

now.... it is shady and bad karma... and you know what they say about karma....

[LunaTick 29]

I am in 1st place in my division by one game and the 1st place team gets a bye. The 2nd place team is playing the 4th place team. The 4th place team has A Rod out and could use help at QB this week and I have a spare I could "trade" him to help out (he most likely wouldn't use him against me later on in the playoffs because he has A Rod). Would that be considered collusion if the trade was unbalanced? He isn't involved at all I'd just offer him a really lopsided deal...

 

This is not, I repeat, is not collusion.

 

As you stated, "he is not involved at all I'd just offer him a really lopsided deal".

 

Now there could be an issue of "balanced trades" for as you have mentioned you would offer what would be construed as a really unbalance offer.

Depending upon your league, if there are votes on trades, it would not past that test most likely.

However, I contend, the team that offers a trade is often doing so from a position of weakness frequently and ultimately should expect to be giving up more than they are receiving (from a balance pov).

 

Where it would go into collusion is if you negotiated a "he canot start against me" provision.

 

 

Finally, as a Strategy. I would toss this into the category of setting your line up on the Cancel Out Theory. Wherein you are not basing your lineup on the best possible score or studs. But rather you are starting say a WR because he is on the same team (say Packers) as you opponents QB (say A Rod).

 

Like the Cancel Out Theory, there is nothing to say this strategy will succeed in doing what you intend.

 

True, it may improve the guys chance for one week, but only improve chances.

Furthermore, you are assuming you won't need that depth later. No stud is immune from injury.

EG, Gronk got me to the playoffs last season, but after injury my team wasn't able to suceed. Too thin at TE in a TE mandatory league.

 

The thing is, like the knee jerk reactions you have seen here. You are likely to experience the conspiracy/collusion vibe from others. Especially if it accomplished what you intended.

So just like it is advised not to discuss salary with coworkers.

So to, it may be adivsed, not to do a lopsided trade for the reason you have stated here.

Life is too short to deal with sxit.

 

Ultimately it us up to you to offer it. and the other party to accept the offer (there are no caveats, this isn't monopoly).

[chroniciguana 13]

Without going all Law Review on this one, the OP's intent was to manipulate, to his advantage, the outcome of a game other than his own. You can argue dozens of reasons why this is or isn't proper. It's likely the OP saw this as a potential opportunity, but ultimately figured he'd need to take a shower and burn his clothes afterwards. I'm sure there are leagues out there (and I'm in one of them) where this kind of thing is considered just part of the game, where trophies and parades are awarded for delivering a good strategic screwing. In other leagues, a posse would be formed and the OP probably wouldn't want to open his front door with the wife and kids present.

 

In the context of a buttoned-up, veto-happy little girl league where every trade is met with knee-jerk cries of "collusion," this likely ain't the best idea. But if you wrote that check knowing you were tossing in with folks who could give lessons to the Cosa Nostra, go for it. Otherwise, I see this as a gray area that should probably be avoided unless you're willing to pay someone to answer the door for you.

[TD Ryan2 314]

meh... not collusion to me.

 

Collusion has to be 2 (or more) teams conspiring to spit the pot by cooperating together (or cooperatively get one team to win it all).

 

IMO, if you've built a team thru draft and waiver wire and at the end of the year, you see a way to maximize your assets (even if that means giving them away), I'm not against it.

Some guy has 4 great WRs and can only start 2? So he leaves those guys on the bench? They are his assets to do as he pleases with. And if that means trading them to a team to help his own playoff chances, then so be it.

[GreenTD 56]

Minor difference.... the above statement is only collusion if both parties are in on it. If some one made you a trade offer that you thought it was to your advantage, would you turn it down and say .. no no nooooo,,, you should ask for more..... no my friend... you will accept it in a heart beat.....

 

 

now.... it is shady and bad karma... and you know what they say about karma....

This.

[AnaheimRams 28]

Sweet... we got "collusion" and the "cancel out theory" all in one thread.

[Giants Fan 85]

Not collusion. Just smart.