collusion by commissioner?

[seafoam1 3,521]

 

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.

Ok. In addition, I think the person who started this post mentioned someone involved admitted to not caring. And that is a big part of where leagues need to handle these types of things. Thats the bigger issue in this scenario to me.Because if 2 or 3 teams give up halfway to 3/4 of the way through the season, then they give up on trades, pickups etc. Which changes the dynamics of the whole year in that league.

 

On the main question about collusion, I agree with your last post in that individual leagues need to clearly define the rules so players know what they are getting into as well as knowing the league is willing to get better if problems arise. I would never join a league if the communication is poor and not clearly defined or if some dude can just do what he wants as far as trade ruling. Or if they are unwilling to work and build the league correctly year to year. Things like this happen from time to time in all leagues. But, its how the league as a whole handles the solutioning of this.

 

Last thing on this bit because I find this topic interesting, I could trade a player to some team who wants that player for their team and deals me a player back. It could be my unsaid motivation to have that other team stronger that week and the other team owner is not aware that is my motivation for the trade. He's just thinking, oh, good, fair trade. But Im thinking, I dont want that return player at all. Does collusion take 2 parties? Or just one dude working trades that benefits him in some way that is not always apparent?

 

The Giants did the right thing in your exanple.

[brotherbock 349]

Ok. In addition, I think the person who started this post mentioned someone involved admitted to not caring. And that is a big part of where leagues need to handle these types of things. Thats the bigger issue in this scenario to me.Because if 2 or 3 teams give up halfway to 3/4 of the way through the season, then they give up on trades, pickups etc. Which changes the dynamics of the whole year in that league.

 

On the main question about collusion, I agree with your last post in that individual leagues need to clearly define the rules so players know what they are getting into as well as knowing the league is willing to get better if problems arise. I would never join a league if the communication is poor and not clearly defined or if some dude can just do what he wants as far as trade ruling. Or if they are unwilling to work and build the league correctly year to year. Things like this happen from time to time in all leagues. But, its how the league as a whole handles the solutioning of this.

 

Last thing on this bit because I find this topic interesting, I could trade a player to some team who wants that player for their team and deals me a player back. It could be my unsaid motivation to have that other team stronger that week and the other team owner is not aware that is my motivation for the trade. He's just thinking, oh, good, fair trade. But Im thinking, I dont want that return player at all. Does collusion take 2 parties? Or just one dude working trades that benefits him in some way that is not always apparent?

 

The Giants did the right thing in your exanple.

 

Yeah, uncaring players are a tough one to handle. That's why most leagues have the option of locking team rosters--in Yahoo, there's a setting to automatically lock rosters of non-playoff teams. But if an owner can manage to at least think about being a decent player and following the rules, he could still make reasonable trades even if he's out of it.

 

Collusion by definition is two teams 'working together'. So yeah, the intention of both teams is what makes it collusion. If one of the two teams is dealing fairly (in intention) it's not collusion. It's just one team cleverly using another team (as in your example). That's why deals like the OPs are collusion--it doesn't really matter who the players involved are. Although the players involved are often how collusion is *detected*.

[Ray_T 798]

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"?

this also is not the same.

 

picking a player up to keep from others, and then dropping at the end of the week cannot be collusion because you are acting alone.

 

it's not against the rules to do this. If you are playing an opponent who needs a RB and you pickup the last one, it's a bit of a d!ck move but not against the rules.

 

if you have a friend who is lower in the waiver order who needs a RB but is unlikely to get him, and you grab him and trade him for a player who you immediately drop it is collusion because 2 teams worked together to get the second team the player he wants and therby bypassing the waiver process (which is supposed to be fair)

 

to me, this is a similar situation.

[IMMensaMind 462]

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"?

Proof is in what you've already posted. He 'weakened' his team - and not in a "I got unlucky because the player I acquired didn't turn out to be as good as I thought, and I gave up someone I shouldn't have for him" kind of way. He flat dropped the player - Kittle - he got. Immediately.

 

It means that the purpose of the move was to strengthen another team - a team with whom he colluded - to beat another team.

 

Simple - and the only explanation. Your point about 'weakening' your own team is moot. I would be more than happy to drop an ancillary player I'm not going to start to improve the chances of my primary opponent losing.

[seafoam1 3,521]

Proof is in what you've already posted. He 'weakened' his team - and not in a "I got unlucky because the player I acquired didn't turn out to be as good as I thought, and I gave up someone I shouldn't have for him" kind of way. He flat dropped the player - Kittle - he got. Immediately.

 

It means that the purpose of the move was to strengthen another team - a team with whom he colluded - to beat another team.

 

Simple - and the only explanation. Your point about 'weakening' your own team is moot. I would be more than happy to drop an ancillary player I'm not going to start to improve the chances of my primary opponent losing.

You have to prove its collusion. If I dont tell my trade partner what my intention is, that person is not in collusion with me even if I drop the player I get in return. Therefore it is a single person act to impact another team's chances to win or lose. Just like blocking other teams from getting a decent WW pick up.

 

And why is it a "d!ck move" to block?

Teams can pick up and trade for whoever they want and the player is theirs to drop or trade or whatever.

 

And again, you have to prove that 2 people planned collusion. Usually that comes in the form of a pattern, not a single occurance.

 

And he was willing to weaken his team for the benefit of his teams position in the rankings.

[IMMensaMind 462]

You have to prove its collusion.

Just did. It's self-evident.

 

If I dont tell my trade partner what my intention is, that person is not in collusion with me even if I drop the player I get in return. Therefore it is a single person act to impact another team's chances to win or lose. Just like blocking other teams from getting a decent WW pick up.

And why is it a "d!ck move" to block?

Teams can pick up and trade for whoever they want and the player is theirs to drop or trade or whatever. You have to prove ghat 2 people planned collusion. Usually that comes in the form of a pattern, not a single occurance.

Prosecution rests, counselor. Defense, it appears, is simmering in their own spittle.

[seafoam1 3,521]

Just did. It's self-evident.

 

 

Prosecution rests, counselor. Defense, it appears, is simmering in their own spittle.

Ok. Defense wins. Prosecution doesnt know law. Or even FF rules. And gets overwhelmed by basic logic.

[Ray_T 798]

You have to prove its collusion. If I dont tell my trade partner what my intention is, that person is not in collusion with me even if I drop the player I get in return. Therefore it is a single person act to impact another team's chances to win or lose. Just like blocking other teams from getting a decent WW pick up.

 

And why is it a "d!ck move" to block?

Teams can pick up and trade for whoever they want and the player is theirs to drop or trade or whatever.

 

And again, you have to prove that 2 people planned collusion. Usually that comes in the form of a pattern, not a single occurance.

 

And he was willing to weaken his team for the benefit of his teams position in the rankings.

team A has shown by dropping said player shortly after trading for him that their team could not possibly benefit from the trade, therefore their trade was done strictly to benefit team B.

 

that is collusion. it has to be. Team B was a willing participant because they benefit from the deal, but if Team A gets willingly gets no return, then the deal should not be allowed. Their motovations are not in the spirit of fair play.

[seafoam1 3,521]

team A has shown by dropping said player shortly after trading for him that their team could not possibly benefit from the trade, therefore their trade was done strictly to benefit team B.

 

I think that is wrong though. What if trading with team B helps team A by increasing B's ability to beat another team that is in rival with A in the standings? And what if B doesnt even know that is what A's intention was? How is that collusion?

[seafoam1 3,521]

team A has shown by dropping said player shortly after trading for him that their team could not possibly benefit from the trade, therefore their trade was done strictly to benefit team B.

 

that is collusion. it has to be. Team B was a willing participant because they benefit from the deal, but if Team A gets willingly gets no return, then the deal should not be allowed. Their motovations are not in the spirit of fair play.

Ok, so lets put it this way. So you and I are in the same league. And I want you to beat a another team that is close to me in the standings. I offer a fair trade to

you because you need a fill in RB. You have no idea that I even care if you beat the other team. You accept. Later I drop the player because I can.

 

That means you are in collusion with me on that trade when you dont even know my intentions?

[IMMensaMind 462]

Ok. Defense wins. Prosecution doesnt know law. Or even FF rules. And gets overwhelmed by basic logic.

I know that what I posted was proof. Your version is demanding a confession.

[Ray_T 798]

I think that is wrong though. What if trading with team B helps team A by increasing B's ability to beat another team that is in rival with A in the standings? And what if B doesnt even know that is what A's intention was? How is that collusion?

that does not matter.

 

If A wants B to have a player for free, the only way is to drop him on waivers and let the waiver process work itself out.

 

you dont give or lend players to others.

 

in this case it's give, because essentially team A gave a player to team B for a player that they immediately dropped.

 

the immediate drop is the key because why woulld you trade for someone you dont want or need. this shows that the motovation of team A is not in the spirit of fair play.

 

essentially they are saying I'm willing to drop this player, but I'm afraid you wont get him in the waiver process and by doing this I guarantee you get the player instead of one of my rivals.

 

whenever you make a deal to bypass a process that is put in place to insure fair play that deal should be null and void.

[brotherbock 349]

You have no idea that I even care if you beat the other team.

 

This is the key. We do know those sorts of things in our leagues, don't we? I know what one team winning will do to/for another team.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Ok, so lets put it this way. So you and I are in the same league. And I want you to beat a another team that is close to me in the standings. I offer a fair trade to

you because you need a fill in RB. You have no idea that I even care if you beat the other team. You accept. Later I drop the player because I can.

BZZT. Not "later I drop the player because I can". Reality: "Drop the player immediately because the point of the trade was COLLUSION".

 

Perhaps if the dolt wasn't so arrogant, he'd have kept Kittle and dropped him later. Then, perhaps, he could have gotten away with it.

 

Thanks for playing.

[seafoam1 3,521]

 

This is the key. We do know those sorts of things in our leagues, don't we? I know what one team winning will do to/for another team.

That is a judgement call. There is no factual basis to knowing.

[IMMensaMind 462]

That is a judgement call. There is no factual basis to knowing.

Juries convict on the basis of circumstantial evidence all the time. In this case, the jury - us - rules that this was bullsheet. You're just the one member of the jury that people like me take off to the side and kidney punch so that the rest of the normal wise people on the jury can convict this azzwipe and be home by dinner.

 

[seafoam1 3,521]

BZZT. Not "later I drop the player because I can". Reality: "Drop the player immediately because the point of the trade was COLLUSION".

 

Perhaps if the dolt wasn't so arrogant, he'd have kept Kittle and dropped him later. Then, perhaps, he could have gotten away with it.

 

Thanks for playing.

Everyone thinks they know everything everyone is thinking. It was a fair trade. Not lopsided.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Everyone thinks they know everything everyone is thinking. It was a fair trade. Not lopsided.

Well, people with a least a couple of synapses firing know what this commish was thinking in this particular case, yes.

 

And - if I had seen this transaction in real time - I would have said "hm. He's trying to help another team beat a mutual opponent. He didn't give a crap about Kittle."

 

And then I'd have my thoughts confirmed by the commish's immediate decision to drop the player he acquired.

 

The truth, counselor, is self-evident.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Yeah try it is all, you wouldnt walk away.

I wouldn't really kidney punch you, seafoam. I was being alliterative.

 

For all who who agree with this guy, this is who believes what ypu believe. It seems you all are in the same level of smarts.

 

Ok.

[seafoam1 3,521]

Juries convict on the basis of circumstantial evidence all the time. In this case, the jury - us - rules that this was bullsheet. You're just the one member of the jury that people like me take off to the side and kidney punch so that the rest of the normal wise people on the jury can convict this azzwipe and be home by dinner.

 

Ok man. But remember later what you said on this sight.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Ok man. But remember later what you said on this sight.

 

Whatcha mean?

[brotherbock 349]

That is a judgement call. There is no factual basis to knowing.

 

Yup. Everything is a judgment call. We judge people's intentions all the time--and generally we do it correctly. The human race wouldn't have survived if we weren't able, almost all the time, to correctly judge intentions of others.

 

Look, I am not 100% certain that the external world or anyone other than myself even exists. But we don't need 100% certainty to 'know' things.

[seafoam1 3,521]

 

Yup. Everything is a judgment call. We judge people's intentions all the time--and generally we do it correctly. The human race wouldn't have survived if we weren't able, almost all the time, to correctly judge intentions of others.

 

Look, I am not 100% certain that the external world or anyone other than myself even exists. But we don't need 100% certainty to 'know' things.

So if "we" generally judge intentions correctly, then why are there so many disagreements? Why do juries have often split decisions on the intentions of someone? Why are judges often disagreed with?

 

Doesnt matter really. But if anyone assumed I was in collusion with someone else and I wasn't, well that's their loss when I start a good league.

[brotherbock 349]

So if "we" generally judge intentions correctly, then why are there so many disagreements? Why do juries have often split decisions on the intentions of someone? Why are judges often disagreed with?

 

Doesnt matter really. But if anyone assumed I was in collusion with someone else and I wasn't, well that's their loss when I start a good league.

 

There are times when we disagree about intentions, sure. But think about your whole day, from the moment you wake up until you go to sleep. All the people you interact with throughout the day.

 

How many times are you unsure about what someone's intentions are? Not many at all. Maybe not at all on a given day, with dozens and dozens of interactions.

 

Juries and judges have problems in part because they are attempting to determine intention after the fact. But me watching a trade unfold in front of me is not that. It's also the case that some specific intentions are unclear while, for the same action, the general (or a different) intention is very clear. Guy in my league drops Player X for Player Y (not a trade, just a drop/add). Why? Well, the clear intention is that he values Y over X for this week. It's true that I may not know exactly why he has assigned that value. But I know his general intention. And I might even know more. I look at his team, and quickly determine that he added Y because he needs a WR this week, and dropped X because X is how lowest scoring RB and he needs a WR.

 

That's not difficult to determine. I don't stare at his roster and think "Well...I mean it really looks like that was his intention, but I don't really know." Of course I know.

 

Take the OP's case, but now the Commish kept Kittle. Hmm. Now it's true that his intentions aren't as clear. Why does he value Kittle like that? Does he think Kittle is going to go off in the future? But in the original case, he dropped him right away. His intention in this case is very clear. He sees no value in Kittle. So why did he make the trade? To help only the other team.

 

This is not a complex case of a murder or embezzlement or insider trading. That we don't always know intentions is not evidence that we don't usually know, and that we don't know in this case.

[seafoam1 3,521]

. So why did he make the trade? To help only the other team.

 

 

 

So, if someone traded me a player and i traded an equally valued player back, and he dropped the player I sent him, and no discussion of intent was involved in this trade other than the trade itself which is self explanatory, I would want to know why I was being included as a collusion partner. The drop of the player happens after the trade whether it is 10 seconds after or 2 days. And he owns and deserves to have the right to drop the player per league rules else there should be a rule that states that if you trade for someone, then you cannot drop them within X-amount of time.

 

Problem solved. Collusion confusion avoided.

[bobjay00 22]

I CAN'T BELIEVE I AM EVEN REPLYING TO THIS BUUUTTT...WHAT WAS USED FOR BAIT???

[brotherbock 349]

 

 

So, if someone traded me a player and i traded an equally valued player back, and he dropped the player I sent him, and no discussion of intent was involved in this trade other than the trade itself which is self explanatory, I would want to know why I was being included as a collusion partner. The drop of the player happens after the trade whether it is 10 seconds after or 2 days. And he owns and deserves to have the right to drop the player per league rules else there should be a rule that states that if you trade for someone, then you cannot drop them within X-amount of time.

 

Problem solved. Collusion confusion avoided.

 

You'd be involved because it's absurd to claim that you could also not discern your trade partner's intention. You're either blatantly ignoring it, which is no defense, or you'd be just not admitting that you knew what was going on.

 

It's a red herring to talk about a 'right to drop a player'. There is no such thing outside of the rules. It's not a natural human right, it's not a constitutional right. If you have any right to do anything in a FF league, it's a right that has been granted to you specifically by the rules of the league. And if the rules of the league say that an owner in fact cannot drop a player in a certain situation, then that owner does not have the 'right' to drop that player.

 

If a league has a 'no roster dumping' rule for example, then an owner cannot say "I have a right to drop any player I want whenever I want". No, he doesn't. Similarly, if a case of collusion involves dropping a player as part of that collusion, and collusion is against the rules, then the owner does not have that right. To argue from the assumption of the right would be circular reasoning.

[seafoam1 3,521]

 

You'd be involved because it's absurd to claim that you could also not discern your trade partner's intention. You're either blatantly ignoring it, which is no defense, or you'd be just not admitting that you knew what was going on.

 

It's a red herring to talk about a 'right to drop a player'. There is no such thing outside of the rules. It's not a natural human right, it's not a constitutional right. If you have any right to do anything in a FF league, it's a right that has been granted to you specifically by the rules of the league. And if the rules of the league say that an owner in fact cannot drop a player in a certain situation, then that owner does not have the 'right' to drop that player.

 

If a league has a 'no roster dumping' rule for example, then an owner cannot say "I have a right to drop any player I want whenever I want". No, he doesn't. Similarly, if a case of collusion involves dropping a player as part of that collusion, and collusion is against the rules, then the owner does not have that right. To argue from the assumption of the right would be circular reasoning.

You are missing the key point. Collusion takes 2 parties. It's not up to some owner to start judging what another owner plans to do with the traded player. They are not colluding. It's up to the league to judge if the trade was fair given the players value

in the league but not the intent unless they can actually prove it without saying, "ohhh,.. it's common sense to me, so it must be right".

 

I am judging it one way, and you another, why do you win this approach just because you say it makes sense? I don't think it does.

Hence another argument for salary cap leagues.

 

Set up the league to stop this inane type of personal judgement on trades. And I do mean judgement which is subjective in this case and not ruled by league terms. We are not dealing with highly legislated legal statutes or US high court legalities that have been fought over for 100s of years, and there are a lot of people out there who react and rule upon emotion or greed over anything else. We see this every day on this sight that we log into it.

 

And on this sight they are all FF folks.

[brotherbock 349]

You are missing the key point. Collusion takes 2 parties. It's not up to some owner to start judging what another owner plans to do with the traded player. They are not colluding. It's up to the league to judge if the trade was fair given the players value

in the league but not the intent unless they can actually prove it without saying, "ohhh,.. it's common sense to me, so it must be right".

 

I am judging it one way, and you another, why do you win this approach just because you say it makes sense? I don't think it does.

Hence another argument for salary cap leagues.

 

Set up the league to stop this inane type of personal judgement on trades. And I do mean judgement which is subjective in this case and not ruled by league terms. We are not dealing with highly legislated legal statutes or US high court legalities that have been fought over for 100s of years, and there are a lot of people out there who react and rule upon emotion or greed over anything else. We see this every day on this sight that we log into it.

 

And on this sight they are all FF folks.

 

I completely agree that league rules can be set up in such a way as to help (but not complete) eliminate things like collusion.

 

But you're just wrong when you say that all the rest of the league has to do is judge the value of the players. The entire existence of collusion is evidence that the rest of the league has to keep their eyes open. That's like saying that all poker players should do is look at the values of the cards. BS. They should be keeping an eye on whether anyone has cards up their sleeves.

 

And yeah, if I get into a trade and it's obvious to me that my trade partner is just doing a Buddy Trade to help me, I shouldn't do the trade. It's true that many people, maybe even most people, will blind themselves to such things if they are benefiting. But that's no excuse from responsibility.

 

Your argument amounts to trying to say, in a case like OP's, that you should not be held responsible for buying a monogrammed Rolex from some dude in a back alley for $50. You know that watch is stolen.

 

Or consider this--teams in the NFL and MLB have been held accountable for collusion regarding player salaries before. Consider the following: Owner A emails his friend, owner B, and says "I don't know about you, but I'm not paying these F-ers any more than 20 million!" Owner B never replies, but decides that he too is not paying them more than 20 million.

 

Poof--collusion. And Owner A can say "I had no idea what B was going to do!" Tough. That communication is all it takes. Your entering the trade that, in OPs case, you should have known was shady, is enough.

[seafoam1 3,521]

 

I completely agree that league rules can be set up in such a way as to help (but not complete) eliminate things like collusion.

 

But you're just wrong when you say that all the rest of the league has to do is judge the value of the players. The entire existence of collusion is evidence that the rest of the league has to keep their eyes open. That's like saying that all poker players should do is look at the values of the cards. BS. They should be keeping an eye on whether anyone has cards up their sleeves.

 

And yeah, if I get into a trade and it's obvious to me that my trade partner is just doing a Buddy Trade to help me, I shouldn't do the trade. It's true that many people, maybe even most people, will blind themselves to such things if they are benefiting. But that's no excuse from responsibility.

 

Your argument amounts to trying to say, in a case like OP's, that you should not be held responsible for buying a monogrammed Rolex from some dude in a back alley for $50. You know that watch is stolen.

 

Or consider this--teams in the NFL and MLB have been held accountable for collusion regarding player salaries before. Consider the following: Owner A emails his friend, owner B, and says "I don't know about you, but I'm not paying these F-ers any more than 20 million!" Owner B never replies, but decides that he too is not paying them more than 20 million.

 

Poof--collusion. And Owner A can say "I had no idea what B was going to do!" Tough. That communication is all it takes. Your entering the trade that, in OPs case, you should have known was shady, is enough.

If poker players see another player pull a card out of their sleeve, then that other player is caught. There are no thought only intentions in this case. There is evidence.

If someone was buying a real rolex for cheap, then yes, but if they pay for the full value of the rolex, then how do they know that the store sold them stolen goods?

If an NFL owner receives an email about not wanting to pay a player a bunch of money, then that can be used to be woven into some bigger case if it is relevant. -- I have often times at draft auctions said things like, "you have to go for that player at this price." when just trying to get other owners to bid up a player. But as a side note, even if I do that and know I don't need the player I don't lie about my opinions of the player.

 

And tough, not everyone sees the same way you do, and that doesn't flat out mean the way you see things is right.

 

Hence, error on the side of caution in a single instance like this that has not been a trend for the parties involved, and change the rules to lessen confusion moving forward.

[brotherbock 349]

If poker players see another player pull a card out of their sleeve, then that other player is caught. There are no thought only intentions in this case. There is evidence.

If someone was buying a real rolex for cheap, then yes, but if they pay for the full value of the rolex, then how do they know that the store sold them stolen goods?

If an NFL owner receives an email about not wanting to pay a player a bunch of money, then that can be used to be woven into some bigger case if it is relevant. -- I have often times at draft auctions said things like, "you have to go for that player at this price." when just trying to get other owners to bid up a player. But as a side note, even if I do that and know I don't need the player I don't lie about my opinions of the player.

 

And tough, not everyone sees the same way you do, and that doesn't flat out mean the way you see things is right.

 

Hence, error on the side of caution in a single instance like this that has not been a trend for the parties involved, and change the rules to lessen confusion moving forward.

 

As I said above, the human ability to know intentions is the evidence in a FF collusion case. If one team not in desperate need of WR help trades Tom Brady in return for Jarred Abrecadabra, we can know that it's a case of collusion. It's just that simple.

 

"And tough, not everyone sees the same way you do, and that doesn't flat out mean the way you see things is right. "

 

 

No, I'm saying that my arguments are what indicate that I'm right

 

Look, I totally agree that there will be times when intentions are very hard to know, and that will include times in FF when people were not trying to collude, and times when they were. And we can construct thought experiments to tweak the OP's situation, such that, in some similar case, it would not have been obvious. But those facts do not in any way demonstrate that in OP's actual case it was and is not clear that it was collusion. It's clear that the one team had no intention of helping their own team, only in helping another team.

[robzm19 6]

op here. just a few points.

 

1) person who said they don't care was commissioner in his post explaining why he did what he did. he also said kittle value was rising due to garapolo. I questioned whether he was going to drop him. of course he proceeded to drop him.

 

2) in this league ivory huge asset over kittle. there are at plenty of serviceable te on ww. zero rb. with the bye week, 5 touches by ivory could and may be the difference with many teams only having one playable rb.

 

3)ivory owner claimed he didn't know. but he was the one so mad about me calling out the situation. ended up trading cup for ivory.

 

4) haven't heard from the commissioner for a few days, had a few questions for him. his new team name team collusion.

 

5) team that was gifted ivory plays team one game ahead of commisioner.( so I guess he does benefit so not collusion?)

 

6) I never said he was colluding originally. I simply questioned the trade and quick approval. they went on attack and I stated the whole reason for veto was to help avoid collusion.

[Ray_T 798]

op here. just a few points.

 

1) person who said they don't care was commissioner in his post explaining why he did what he did. he also said kittle value was rising due to garapolo. I questioned whether he was going to drop him. of course he proceeded to drop him.

 

2) in this league ivory huge asset over kittle. there are at plenty of serviceable te on ww. zero rb. with the bye week, 5 touches by ivory could and may be the difference with many teams only having one playable rb.

 

3)ivory owner claimed he didn't know. but he was the one so mad about me calling out the situation. ended up trading cup for ivory.

 

4) haven't heard from the commissioner for a few days, had a few questions for him. his new team name team collusion.

 

5) team that was gifted ivory plays team one game ahead of commisioner.( so I guess he does benefit so not collusion?)

 

6) I never said he was colluding originally. I simply questioned the trade and quick approval. they went on attack and I stated the whole reason for veto was to help avoid collusion.

just get out.

 

dont play with these jerks next year.

[robzm19 6]

yea...I pretty much decided that when commisioner gave his response and everyone in the league went silent.

 

I was just shedding some light;New info for the good debate going on in this thread.

[robzm19 6]

fournette out. brings a whole new meaning to this trade. I didn't like it because of possible injury. but this is why I didn't like it.

 

team a gives team b a rb for nothing.

[seafoam1 3,521]

 

Whatcha mean?

Oh nothin man. I just disagree with a few of you guys here.

[wiffleball 4,797]

NO COLLUSION!

 

FAKE NEWS!

[seafoam1 3,521]

NO COLLUSION!

 

FAKE NEWS!

I'm with ya man.

[brotherbock 349]

NO COLLUSION!

 

FAKE NEWS!

 

YES COLLUSION!

 

REAL NEWS!

[RepoPatrol 14]

The obvious thing to do is to pick up kittle. he will be pretty good ROS.

 

i am commish in a league and traded away Jordan Reed for Luck a few weeks back. Literally hours after the transaction news broke that he was done for season. Should my transaction2016 Total Outlay Export-Import Bank of the United States = $1.5 Billion Dollars, with receipts for fund at $1.7 Billion USDs luck