collusion by commissioner?

[lesjroza 70]

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

 

Was it obvious he needed a K for the week?

 

That would change the picture considerably for me personally..............I mean if he had to make a drop to pick up a K and then he got any benefit out of doing so................much ado about nothing

[seafoam1 1,879]

Thing is, the original trade was a fair trade. Slippery slope you all are on now moving forward. oops..

[jgcrawfish 232]

Thing is, the original trade was a fair trade. Slippery slope you all are on now moving forward. oops..

the assets were fair, the intention clearly wasn't. you don't trade for a player then drop him, and you certainly don't do so with your team named "FU Murphy, lets go Fish" and work the trade with the team called "Fish" playing against Murphy. I don't care what was exchanged, it's clearly two teams colluding.

[DankNuggs 305]

I was in a 16 teamer last year where there was ridiculous tanking and collusion... But it was the commissioners buddy doing the tanking. The commissioner took it upon himself to redo the trade to make it more 'fair' (it still wasn't fair)... What was worse was the fact the commission then did a trade with his buddy the tanker that was very lopsided.... I quit the league.. Which was unfortunate because the people really had no clue of the rules

 

There was a rule: point per CARRY... Which when you input it into a VBD analysis made the top 25-30 RBs more valuable than any other player. No one understood this and they were drafting off of supermarket magazine cheat sheets... I drafted RBs with my first 5 picks. Unfortuntately injuries and bad playoff luck derailed my championship hopes.. BUt there was just massive +EV potential being in this league.

 

Also mention this was the most expensive buy in for a friends league i'd ever been in ($300)... Winner got 3k, runner up 1k... So it was a combo of big money, and people having very little FF knowledge.

[Brutal Brutus 182]

 

 

Also mention this was the most expensive buy in for a friends league i'd ever been in ($300)... Winner got 3k, runner up 1k... So it was a combo of big money, and people having very little FF knowledge.

I have found the more fantasy info I know, the less money I want to be involved. I don't get how some people don't go crazy on Sunday watching these games or being in leagues with idiots. The more I study and try and figure out what should happen, the more frustrating it is watching things go the opposite way, which is only compounded with shady poorly commished leagues. I do pretty well in my leagues, but I'd loose all enjoyment if I played in high dollar leagues.

[pabstbluribbin 1]

Kind of a strange scenario. My only question is in this league has the commish historically pushed through other trades in a short period of time? To me you have to also consider precedence. If this hasn't happened before, regardless of who benefits from what, your commish abused his power to push something through without giving the league a chance to vote. I don't really think this is collusion, really more abuse of power by your commish. There is a solution here, in a league I just joined last year, EVERY league member is a commish to equalize the power and it works pretty well.

[seafoam1 1,879]

the assets were fair, the intention clearly wasn't. you don't trade for a player then drop him, and you certainly don't do so with your team named "FU Murphy, lets go Fish" and work the trade with the team called "Fish" playing against Murphy. I don't care what was exchanged, it's clearly two teams colluding.

All I see here is two individual teams getting better.

Team A: Gives up next to nothing to benefit itself by making the matchup for a competitor a bit tougher and in turn not hurting itself at all

Team B: Gets next to nothing but still gains a bit to it's roster.

 

This is not collusion. It's a trade to benefit both teams individually. They are not sharing a championship by doing a trade like this.

 

We see things like this all the time in sports. Teams giving up better players for high salary guys that end up getting cut for one reason or another.

 

This is so minor to have a veto that it will destroy that league. Actually, maybe it just needs to be destroyed. Especially if you don't trust the commish.

[jgcrawfish 232]

All I see here is two individual teams getting better.

Team A: Gives up next to nothing to benefit itself by making the matchup for a competitor a bit tougher and in turn not hurting itself at all

Team B: Gets next to nothing but still gains a bit to it's roster.

 

This is not collusion. It's a trade to benefit both teams individually. They are not sharing a championship by doing a trade like this.

 

We see things like this all the time in sports. Teams giving up better players for high salary guys that end up getting cut for one reason or another.

 

This is so minor to have a veto that it will destroy that league. Actually, maybe it just needs to be destroyed. Especially if you don't trust the commish.

Nope. You are seeing only the transaction, and not the events surrounding it. Again, I have no problem with this trade in general.

 

Collusion: "secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others"

• Removing the ability to veto the trade
• Commissioner clearly favoring one team over another (if only by the team name alone)
• Threatening to boot another owner who questions it
• Trading something for nothing.

You overlook all of those things and more. As a commish, your job is to protect the fairness and integrity of the league. You are required to wear two hats, one as the the owner of your team and the other as the commish...and the thought processes that take place under each hat HAVE to be separate from each other. Let's call the Commish "Ted". Ted the player made a BS offer where he gave something and got back nothing. Again, it's his team to manage, so fine. But Ted the commish pulled all the underhanded parts of it. There's nothing right about this situation, except the OP justifiably questioning it.

[seafoam1 1,879]

Nope. You are seeing only the transaction, and not the events surrounding it. Again, I have no problem with this trade in general.

 

Collusion: "secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others"

• Removing the ability to veto the trade
• Commissioner clearly favoring one team over another (if only by the team name alone)
• Threatening to boot another owner who questions it
• Trading something for nothing.

You overlook all of those things and more. As a commish, your job is to protect the fairness and integrity of the league. You are required to wear two hats, one as the the owner of your team and the other as the commish...and the thought processes that take place under each hat HAVE to be separate from each other. Let's call the Commish "Ted". Ted the player made a BS offer where he gave something and got back nothing. Again, it's his team to manage, so fine. But Ted the commish pulled all the underhanded parts of it. There's nothing right about this situation, except the OP justifiably questioning it.

You make a very good case for it being a crap league because it seems they won't communicate and come together to discuss things like this so they can all be at ease moving forward.

But was this done in secret? Maybe I missed that part. Does this league not post all transactions to all teams?

 

I have been in a fairly high stakes league for over 10 years and never once has a trade been questioned. We have 3 co-commissioners and a lot of open interaction.

 

We have incentives that are based upon order of finish in the standings each year that it effects a teams % of shares in our league's investment fund as well as the yearly payouts. And for the last place team, they have to supply all food and drink for the following year's draft. Having something at stake for each team means no collusion.

 

No-one tanks ever.

 

Even if it is not a money league, the league needs to use creativity to keep teams involved throughout the year.. It only takes a little bit of thought.

[robzm19 6]

I got a break now I will say my peace and this issue is done! First off the only thing I will apologize for is pushing the trades through(I told you my reasoning done) Im sorry guys.. In fairness we have had 5% participation on Vetoes and Upholds the past 3 years and didnt see this issue over 2 bench players coming from it...There is no collusion never is! I root for everyone and damn sure Im against everyone no one is left out. I can do whatever I want with players on my team on my bench how I want just like any of you can. Does it benefit Fishy Fish yep does it benefit me possible chance. Ill take that chance in a heated divisional race. Please dont question my integrity as its unecessary. Regarding the Alshon for Buck Allen trade with Jason Erickson I offered him WInston he countered back with Buck for Alshon and another player I was good with Buck( Woodhead who I love will get injured again its proven!!) I undid the trade and now its Kupp for Ivory and please free to veto. Roberto no ill will If you want to stay Im not voting you out your call. One love have a great day! FU MURPHY!! Back to the field trip

 

 

commisioner reasoning. I'm leaving this league. after I win.

[seafoam1 1,879]

weird.

[robzm19 6]

Was it obvious he needed a K for the week?

 

That would change the picture considerably for me personally..............I mean if he had to make a drop to pick up a K and then he got any benefit out of doing so................much ado about nothing

 

kicker on a bye. won't be used. he has a good kicker

[robzm19 6]

Kind of a strange scenario. My only question is in this league has the commish historically pushed through other trades in a short period of time? To me you have to also consider precedence. If this hasn't happened before, regardless of who benefits from what, your commish abused his power to push something through without giving the league a chance to vote. I don't really think this is collusion, really more abuse of power by your commish. There is a solution here, in a league I just joined last year, EVERY league member is a commish to equalize the power and it works pretty well.

no. I actually made a few trades. had to wait the 2 days. this is precedent.

[robzm19 6]

thanks for all the insight and comments.

 

much appreciated.

[robzm19 6]

last post. karma is a . playing the commissioner. his starting qb deshaun watson.

[neil2222 1]

last post. karma is a ######. playing the commissioner. his starting qb deshaun watson.

The fantasy gods have spoken. It was unarguably collusion.

[tanatastic 2,061]

Ivory for kittle is a fair trade, moving on.

[bucknbull 4]

definitely collusion. Go punch him in the face, or do nothing. Not much you can do, except not play in the league next year. I have a bad commish too and am just not going to play again next year (even though I will probably win the league.)

[seafoam1 1,879]

Ivory for kittle is a fair trade, moving on.

How do people not understand this?

[Quickolas1 80]

Thing is, the original trade was a fair trade. Slippery slope you all are on now moving forward. oops..

Nah, the slippery slope is the intent and planting players on other teams to win specific matchups. Ivory and Kittle themselves don't matter.

[krizay 0]

Yes that was a fair trade. IF IT WASN'T A COLLUDING TRADE!

 

The trade itself does not matter 1 iota. Integrity is what's important here. Clearly the commish does not like "Murph"

 

So the real question is... Was this an isolated incident towards Murph because Murph done something "TO THE LEAGUE" that prompted the commish to do this? Did Murph knock on his door and punch him in the face in front of his wife and kids?

 

If it were me, I likely would be out of the league next year. If the commish can throw integrity out of the window for a dislike for a guy then i wouldn't want any part of his league. Not only did he give a player a way just to help the guy he hates get beat but he pushes his own trade through in 2 hours. (atleast we are led to believe he pushed his own trade through in 2 hours. Could it have been another commish?) I mean he set the rules on how trades are to be handled...

 

 

There are only 2 outcomes that could be made for the commish defense from my perspecive.

 

1. as i said the Murph guy wronged the league cheating himself in the past and commish is trying to make it right. (in his own stupid way)

 

2. The commish and the owner with no Rb have a good history together (whether friends or past trades and want to keep the lines open) and he was going to drop Ivory anyway so why not offer him to your buddy who may need a RB. To which i don't have a problem with this especially considering what 2 players were involved.

 

The commishes team name to me rules out #2. Which all but tells me i would not be in his league next year.

[Ray_T 591]

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

I wouldnt stay.

 

if you dont think you can trust the commish to be fair you shouldnt be there.

 

there are exceptions to this rule, (ie. you are in a work league and if you quit there is potentially ramifications in your personal/professional life)

 

but I cannot think of a reason why I would want to be involved in a league like this.

 

If they vote you out, they have done you a favour.

[seafoam1 1,879]

To me I don't care what the teams do with the players if it's a fair deal. Calling this collusion is missing the point of that this practice is not a sustainable way for each team to win overall. If there is some system that is being exposed on how 2 teams are making it work, like trading the same players back and forth to help each other out somehow (which I can't think of how that helps both teams), then okay. Or if they are both going in on making one good team, then I get it. But that would need to be brought to light.

 

For this one, I just don't see it. Fair trade.

[TheUsualSuspect 207]

I got a break now I will say my peace and this issue is done! First off the only thing I will apologize for is pushing the trades through(I told you my reasoning done) Im sorry guys.. In fairness we have had 5% participation on Vetoes and Upholds the past 3 years and didnt see this issue over 2 ###### bench players coming from it...There is no collusion never is! I root for everyone and damn sure Im against everyone no one is left out. I can do whatever I want with players on my team on my bench how I want just like any of you can. Does it benefit Fishy Fish yep does it benefit me possible chance. Ill take that chance in a heated divisional race. Please dont question my integrity as its unecessary. Regarding the Alshon for Buck Allen trade with Jason Erickson I offered him WInston he countered back with Buck for Alshon and another player I was good with Buck( Woodhead who I love will get injured again its proven!!) I undid the trade and now its Kupp for Ivory and please free to veto. Roberto no ill will If you want to stay Im not voting you out your call. One love have a great day! FU MURPHY!! Back to the field trip

commisioner reasoning. I'm leaving this league. after I win.

That's a tough read.

 

With the move of low-profile players and pushing it thru in 2 hours, it seems as if he wanted no other owners to notice what was truly going on. The OP did catch it, and absolutely SHOULD call out the commish's integrity on this move. Email the entire league, inviting them to your very own league next season to ensure this type of thing doesn't happen again.

[seafoam1 1,879]

That's a tough read.

 

With the move of low-profile players and pushing it thru in 2 hours, it seems as if he wanted no other owners to notice what was truly going on. The OP did catch it, and absolutely SHOULD call out the commish's integrity on this move. Email the entire league, inviting them to your very own league next season to ensure this type of thing doesn't happen again.

If there is not a protocol to announce trades to everyone (not necessarily for approval) then that's an easy rule change.

If there is and it wasn't followed. Then the commish should refund money to anyone who want's out because of that dealing.

[Ray_T 591]

To me I don't care what the teams do with the players if it's a fair deal. Calling this collusion is missing the point of that this practice is not a sustainable way for each team to win overall. If there is some system that is being exposed on how 2 teams are making it work, like trading the same players back and forth to help each other out somehow (which I can't think of how that helps both teams), then okay. Or if they are both going in on making one good team, then I get it. But that would need to be brought to light.

 

For this one, I just don't see it. Fair trade.

I think you are missing the point.

 

the fact that the dude traded for a player he didnt want and then dropped shortly thereafter suggests exactly that.... collusion.

 

cuz if he didnt want the player he dealt away and he didnt want the player he acquired, why not put him on the waiver wire?

 

this was done to make sure that individual team got that individual player. There is no other explanation.

 

at this point I dont care much about the fairness of the trade, it's the fact that there should be no actual motovation to do it (other than to help that team)

 

if that's not collusion I dont know what is.

 

I suppose because the first place team made his own team weaker, the rest of the league likely does not care, but the team s fighting for the last playoff spot appear to have been done a disservice. Especially if the player was dropped instead of traded and they were higher on the waiver priority and would have got the player in question.

 

even if there is no waiver wait period, maybe it means that someone else would have ended up with that player.

 

either way, I dont like it. and maybe it's not the sort of thing you make a big deal out of, but I wouldnt play in that league next year. I'd find another league.

[seafoam1 1,879]

Last week in my league I was holding 2 defenses and both were on bye. I reached out to someone that has 3 defenses and I ended up trading with him for Philly DST so I had someone to play other than the crap on the WW. I offered him the Rams who he didn't even want to play but told me sure he would make the trade, He told me, "I only picked up Philly to block another team from getting them the prior week because that other team needed a defense that week".

 

So he blocked a team and didn't use the defense he picked up, and then traded that defense for another defense he didn't want to play as he already is a defense hoarder and has 2 other good defenses (MIN and BALT), and I got a great defense to play rather than the WW dregs for that week.

 

This was no collusion even though it helped me get 25.4 points instead having to pick the Browns, or the Raiders, or the Cardinals. Now he didn't drop the Rams but he might if he needs to free that spot up for a position player.

 

Why over engineer the rules by allowing subjected input at every turn. Just tune up the rules if needed. Unless you actually catch someone cheating, then let it be, let it be, ohh let it be, let it be, whisper words of wisdom..... you know the rest.

[brotherbock 349]

Last week in my league I was holding 2 defenses and both were on bye. I reached out to someone that has 3 defenses and I ended up trading with him for Philly DST so I had someone to play other than the crap on the WW. I offered him the Rams who he didn't even want to play but told me sure he would make the trade, He told me, "I only picked up Philly to block another team from getting them the prior week because that other team needed a defense that week".

 

So he blocked a team and didn't use the defense he picked up, and then traded that defense for another defense he didn't want to play as he already is a defense hoarder and has 2 other good defenses (MIN and BALT), and I got a great defense to play rather than the WW dregs for that week.

 

This was no collusion even though it helped me get 25.4 points instead having to pick the Browns, or the Raiders, or the Cardinals. Now he didn't drop the Rams but he might if he needs to free that spot up for a position player.

 

Why over engineer the rules by allowing subjected input at every turn. Just tune up the rules if needed. Unless you actually catch someone cheating, then let it be, let it be, ohh let it be, let it be, whisper words of wisdom..... you know the rest.

 

That actually would be seen as collusion by a lot of people.

 

Here's MLB's definition: Players shall not act in concert with other Players and Clubs shall not act in concert with other Clubs.

'Concert' there meaning acting jointly for one purpose. In a non-collusion trade, each team acts for a separate purpose--to improve their own team. Two teams acting 'in concert' means they act for one purpose--most of the time in FF, it's to improve only one team. In MLB, teams have been accused of collusion in the past when they got together to limit player contracts--all the teams acting not for their individual purposes, but for one purpose.

 

Collusion often implies a 'secret' agreement--in the case of OP's league, this holds. The trade is there for all to see, as is the drop, but pushing it through without the standard time period clearly indicates the desire to get it done without telling people that you're doing it (at least before you do it).

 

Conspiring together to get a single outcome--that's the key. In a sports or FF league, the teams are all rivals, opponents. That is what makes two teams working for the benefit of only one of them 'against the rules'.

 

So yeah, a 'buddy trade' is an example of collusion--I give you this player who will help you and get nothing in return that I think will help me. Your team securely in the playoffs tanking a matchup so your buddy can get into the playoffs? Also collusion. The expectation among the other players is that you are going to treat every other team like an adversary, not arbitrarily treat one like a friend.

 

None of that to accuse you of anything 'immoral'. Maybe the folks in your league don't have a problem with buddy trades. But technically speaking that's what people mean when they talk about collusion. The expectation is that trades are made only when both teams think they will benefit.

[seafoam1 1,879]

 

That actually would be seen as collusion by a lot of people.

 

Here's MLB's definition: Players shall not act in concert with other Players and Clubs shall not act in concert with other Clubs.

'Concert' there meaning acting jointly for one purpose. In a non-collusion trade, each team acts for a separate purpose--to improve their own team. Two teams acting 'in concert' means they act for one purpose--most of the time in FF, it's to improve only one team. In MLB, teams have been accused of collusion in the past when they got together to limit player contracts--all the teams acting not for their individual purposes, but for one purpose.

 

Collusion often implies a 'secret' agreement--in the case of OP's league, this holds. The trade is there for all to see, as is the drop, but pushing it through without the standard time period clearly indicates the desire to get it done without telling people that you're doing it (at least before you do it).

 

Conspiring together to get a single outcome--that's the key. In a sports or FF league, the teams are all rivals, opponents. That is what makes two teams working for the benefit of only one of them 'against the rules'.

 

So yeah, a 'buddy trade' is an example of collusion--I give you this player who will help you and get nothing in return that I think will help me. Your team securely in the playoffs tanking a matchup so your buddy can get into the playoffs? Also collusion. The expectation among the other players is that you are going to treat every other team like an adversary, not arbitrarily treat one like a friend.

 

None of that to accuse you of anything 'immoral'. Maybe the folks in your league don't have a problem with buddy trades. But technically speaking that's what people mean when they talk about collusion. The expectation is that trades are made only when both teams think they will benefit.

I get your point but it wasn't really a buddy trade as we in effect, are all buddies. I termed the trade as giving him a better DST in our rankings and he was simply, "ok, it doesn't matter to me." That being said, he wouldn't have taken the Cardinals for that I'm pretty sure. He just thought "ok, I may be able to use them down the road maybe not." I feel the same way in this league as I also like to use more strategy than most people around defenses throughout the year.

 

We put a ton of money into our league, and stock investment share % based on yearly standings finish is a big deal for us (good way to keep all teams involved to the end by the way). And we probably have more complex strategies than a bunch of leagues around our format and rules and all I am saying is we just look at fairness of trade. When you have to get down to the judgement of intention in simple straightforward equal value trades, then your league can end up in turmoil. If there is a pattern that can be called out and defined with reason, then go after it.

 

When I offered my trade, I was just thinking, I need a defense. The other player was like, "sure, you gave a little better than equal value", I'll do it. Didn't affect him. He actually first asked for an RB or a QB but realized I wasn't going to give that up. If I was going to be playing him that week, it would have been a hell no.

 

Oh, and I am in first place and he is just outside of the playoff picture in 5th with lots of time left in the season.

[Durins Bane 5]

This trade looks greasy and I think it should be vetoed, or at least discussed among the league's owners.

 

I think it is important to remember that the goal of this silliness is to have fun. If an owner is willing to cheat(and I'm not saying anyone is in this instance) to make a few extra dollars then I feel sorry for them.

 

That being said, I believe any "big money" league should only be among people that you know and trust who have the same "fun first" philosophy.

 

I have no problem picking up a player or making a trade to c@@kblock a rival but certain decorum should be used.

[brotherbock 349]

I get your point but it wasn't really a buddy trade as we in effect, are all buddies. I termed the trade as giving him a better DST in our rankings and he was simply, "ok, it doesn't matter to me." That being said, he wouldn't have taken the Cardinals for that I'm pretty sure. He just thought "ok, I may be able to use them down the road maybe not." I feel the same way in this league as I also like to use more strategy than most people around defenses throughout the year.

 

We put a ton of money into our league, and stock investment share % based on yearly standings finish is a big deal for us (good way to keep all teams involved to the end by the way). And we probably have more complex strategies than a bunch of leagues around our format and rules and all I am saying is we just look at fairness of trade. When you have to get down to the judgement of intention in simple straightforward equal value trades, then your league can end up in turmoil. If there is a pattern that can be called out and defined with reason, then go after it.

 

When I offered my trade, I was just thinking, I need a defense. The other player was like, "sure, you gave a little better than equal value", I'll do it. Didn't affect him. He actually first asked for an RB or a QB but realized I wasn't going to give that up. If I was going to be playing him that week, it would have been a hell no.

 

Oh, and I am in first place and he is just outside of the playoff picture in 5th with lots of time left in the season.

 

Gotta run, but just quickly. By 'Buddy Trade', I just meant a trade in which one does something just to 'be a nice guy'--it doesn't actually help his team. That you're all buddies doesn't matter for the definition. No implication that you're not all friends. But the implication is that, in competition, you're supposed to be 'opponents'. And, if it's a competition, you're not supposed to help your opponents if it doesn't help you. That's the idea.

 

The point of FF, for most people, isn't "let's all see if we can put together teams we're happy with, as a group." If so, you wouldn't end up in matchups, or declaring winners and losers. The point is to compete--to win and lose to each other. So if that's the point, one guy helping another win when that action doesn't help him win is unfair to the others.

 

Again, the scale of the unfairness will change. And if the other owner in your case did actually discriminate in who he wanted in return, then it is not collusion. He accepted something he thought might help him in the end. That's fine. The case with the OP, the one owner accepted a player and then immediately dropped him. Clearly no thought to benefit to his team. It was two supposed opponents working together to benefit only one of them. Clear collusion.

 

It's not always going to anger people, or be earth-shattering. But that is the definition--you're expected to not do anything in coordination with another team to help anyone if it doesn't also help you.

[Ray_T 591]

Last week in my league I was holding 2 defenses and both were on bye. I reached out to someone that has 3 defenses and I ended up trading with him for Philly DST so I had someone to play other than the crap on the WW. I offered him the Rams who he didn't even want to play but told me sure he would make the trade, He told me, "I only picked up Philly to block another team from getting them the prior week because that other team needed a defense that week".

 

So he blocked a team and didn't use the defense he picked up, and then traded that defense for another defense he didn't want to play as he already is a defense hoarder and has 2 other good defenses (MIN and BALT), and I got a great defense to play rather than the WW dregs for that week.

 

This was no collusion even though it helped me get 25.4 points instead having to pick the Browns, or the Raiders, or the Cardinals. Now he didn't drop the Rams but he might if he needs to free that spot up for a position player.

 

Why over engineer the rules by allowing subjected input at every turn. Just tune up the rules if needed. Unless you actually catch someone cheating, then let it be, let it be, ohh let it be, let it be, whisper words of wisdom..... you know the rest.

yes, but this owner traded for an asset that was kept on the roster and then traded away for another asset.

 

not the same.

 

it's a completely different story if I trade one asset for another and then drop that player (essentially giving them away for free)

[seafoam1 1,879]

yes, but this owner traded for an asset that was kept on the roster and then traded away for another asset.

 

not the same.

 

it's a completely different story if I trade one asset for another and then drop that player (essentially giving them away for free)

You and brother make valid clear points for sure. But what about this question? If team A benefits from trading the player to team B, even though A doesn't "need" the return (only done to abide the rules), because it helps team B to defeat team C so C will be in a worse competitive position against team A, how are there not benefits on both sides?

 

Now most importantly, considering that this is NOT A PLAYER TO LOAN to team B, then I think it is good strategy. If team B were to turn around and trade kept player back to team A for scraps, then that proves suspicion of collusion. Otherwise team A is actually willing to give up some of its team value for a specific outcome. As we all know, back up RBs in FF can prove to be priceless at any moment on Sunday.

 

And to add, this is not a model of weekly practice for any one team, as that would not be sustainable or profitable in the big picture. Therefore, I say let it go and not open arguments on every trade from some team who wants to argue a trade in their league.

[brotherbock 349]

You and brother make valid clear points for sure. But what about this question? If team A benefits from trading the player to team B, even though A doesn't "need" the return (only done to abide the rules), because it helps team B to defeat team C so C will be in a worse competitive position against team A, how are there not benefits on both sides?

 

Now most importantly, considering that this is NOT A PLAYER TO LOAN to team B, then I think it is good strategy. If team B were to turn around and trade kept player back to team A for scraps, then that proves suspicion of collusion. Otherwise team A is actually willing to give up some of its team value for a specific outcome. As we all know, back up RBs in FF can prove to be priceless at any moment on Sunday.

 

And to add, this is not a model of weekly practice for any one team, as that would not be sustainable or profitable in the big picture. Therefore, I say let it go and not open arguments on every trade from some team who wants to argue a trade in their league.

I am drinking wine and gin (separate glasses) and about to eat steak, so that's too much to absorb right now. I'll look at it tomorrow

[seafoam1 1,879]

I am drinking wine and gin (separate glasses) and about to eat steak, so that's too much to absorb right now. I'll look at it tomorrow

Haha. Glad to hear separate glasses. I love a decent gin and tonic. Hendricks all day for me. For reds I'm a sucker for northwest US. Duckhorn Cab or Merlot is one of my go to reds. My girlfriend is more about international wines so I try to steer her into South American labels. Love the soils and the hot, dry weather in the deep south along with the snow melts and sky high vineyards. Ouch. I'm talking myself out of the US northwest.... Nope. Close though.

[brotherbock 349]

Haha. Glad to hear separate glasses. I love a decent gin and tonic. Hendricks all day for me. For reds I'm a sucker for northwest US. Duckhorn Cab or Merlot is one of my go to reds. My girlfriend is more about international wines so I try to steer her into South American labels. Love the soils and the hot, dry weather in the deep south along with the snow melts and sky high vineyards. Ouch. I'm talking myself out of the US northwest.... Nope. Close though.

I've been liking American gins lately, Aviator, and this great explosion of herby booze called The Botanist. But the one I picked up tonight, from Galena, IL, Baum Brothers, really simple and good. Citrusy. Also grabbed an Argentinian malbec. South America and New Zealand for reds is where it's at, def. NW US is the best place to find my favorite white, though--dry rieseling.

[seafoam1 1,879]

I've been liking American gins lately, Aviator, and this great explosion of herby booze called The Botanist. But the one I picked up tonight, from Galena, IL, Baum Brothers, really simple and good. Citrusy. Also grabbed an Argentinian malbec. South America and New Zealand for reds is where it's at, def. NW US is the best place to find my favorite white, though--dry rieseling.

Galena? No kidding? Only was there once. Always thought that would be a cool place to live. Now I hear they have clean gin? Sold. Gonna pick up a bottle if I can find it. ☺ As for New Zealand and Australian reds, no better prices for the quality level they produce.

[IMMensaMind 459]

Ivory for kittle is a fair trade, moving on.

Nope.

 

By definition, trading an asset for another 'asset' that you then immediately drop - all engaged in a trade which circumvents the typical approvals/waivers process - is by definition collusion.

 

It isn't about Kittle and Ivory being equal value. They're not, because you aren't considering context. If Kittle and Ivory were equal value, then the team who acquired Ivory would have started Kittle in that same position.

 

But they obviously couldn't. It wasn't a FLEX spot being filled. It was RB.

 

Obviously - OBVIOUSLY - the commish engaged in the trade not to strength his team, but to weaken someone else's. That, by definition, is collusion. It took 2 team's assets to gang up on one.

 

You cannot simply consider asset value. You have to consider circumstance.

 

This commish sucks, and apparently doesn't care what other teams think of him.

[seafoam1 1,879]

Nope.

 

By definition, trading an asset for another 'asset' that you then immediately drop - all engaged in a trade which circumvents the typical approvals/waivers process - is by definition collusion.

 

It isn't about Kittle and Ivory being equal value. They're not, because you aren't considering context. If Kittle and Ivory were equal value, then the team who acquired Ivory would have started Kittle in that same position.

 

But they obviously couldn't. It wasn't a FLEX spot being filled. It was RB.

 

Obviously - OBVIOUSLY - the commish engaged in the trade not to strength his team, but to weaken someone else's. That, by definition, is collusion. It took 2 team's assets to gang up on one.

 

You cannot simply consider asset value. You have to consider circumstance.

 

This commish sucks, and apparently doesn't care what other teams think of him.

I don't know anything about if he went around outlined process, if he did then the trade should just be voided, not vetoed.

 

If he went through defined process. Then the trade is fine. Team A actually weakened his team through this trade. He no longer has that RB. So he is paying something and possibly benefitting from it. I pick up players all the time that I don't need and then I drop them the following week just to keep them away from my opponents for that week if I am playing them. But I have to outbid the other other team for them. It's especially good during bye weeks. I have the right to pick up and drop and trade who I want. This is not a player LOAN. How do you prove collusion there? What if these guys only discussed trading and not "lets be sneaky"?

[brotherbock 349]

You and brother make valid clear points for sure. But what about this question? If team A benefits from trading the player to team B, even though A doesn't "need" the return (only done to abide the rules), because it helps team B to defeat team C so C will be in a worse competitive position against team A, how are there not benefits on both sides?

 

Now most importantly, considering that this is NOT A PLAYER TO LOAN to team B, then I think it is good strategy. If team B were to turn around and trade kept player back to team A for scraps, then that proves suspicion of collusion. Otherwise team A is actually willing to give up some of its team value for a specific outcome. As we all know, back up RBs in FF can prove to be priceless at any moment on Sunday.

 

And to add, this is not a model of weekly practice for any one team, as that would not be sustainable or profitable in the big picture. Therefore, I say let it go and not open arguments on every trade from some team who wants to argue a trade in their league.

 

Okay, gin and wine are done.

 

You're right that what you've described is tricky, good example. I'm not sure there's widespread agreement about what the 'benefit' to each team has to be in order for a move to not be collusion.

 

Imagine two NFL teams. The Bucs trade a player to the Giants, and get a player the Bucs are going to use in return. The guy they traded to the Giants is only brought in for one week, because he recently got traded away from the Patriots, and they want to pick his brain. The Giants have him tell them about the Pats offense, don't make him active, and cut him the next week. Certainly seems like a 'benefit' to the Giants, right?

 

For FF, I think many people's intuition is that the actual player you are getting has to be one you're considering using. I can imagine Team A having two really good TEs. He is playing Team B, who needs a TE that week but there's only junk on the roster. Team A needs to grab another DEF for that week, but doesn't want to drop a TE, because B might grab the TE. So Team A trades the TE to Team C for a DEF, even though C isn't going to use that TE at all. Just to keep the TE out of the hands of B, who is threatening C's spot in the playoffs, etc. I know people who would be okay with that, or with your example scenario, and I know people who would be upset.

 

My best reply would be that moves like that need to be judged by the league you're in. If those kind of benefits are good enough for people not to get upset, then they're good. Collusion has a definition, but I don't think the commonly agreed upon definition is that specific to cover cases like that.

 

But if one team gets no benefit at all? That's collusion. Whether the one team cares or not.