Married couple make trade (1 Viewer)

[T J]

I think what people are mostly struggling with is the fact that those that think it is a case of collusion have even admitted that it isn't even a trade that would normally be questioned/overturned....usually the second part (questioned/overturned) needs to happen before people start throwing around the "C" word.....so it is sounding like people like TJ are claiming there is "collusion" on a fair trade which doesn't seem to make much sense....the magnitude of the players involved, the sleeping arrangements of the two owners, and the records involved are being used to make a mountain out of a mole hill.....again the way I feel about it is don't hate the playa....hate the game.....the wife here drafted somebody late (Newton)...probably 14th round or so...who is producing at a 1st or 2nd round level....with Rodgers in tow at QB she is able to deal from a position of strength and now trade that 1st or 2nd round performing player (Newton) for another 1st or 2nd round player at a different position (Foster)to improve her starting lineup, since Newton is rotting on her bench.....what some owners in her league should have done, was recognize this and offered her something similiar to what her husband did and try and improve their own QB position instead of hating on the husband for trying to improve his.....husband is probably gambling that Newton continues his torrid pace while Foster may continue to lose carries and could have the hammy flare up again....such a gamble could pay off for him and help him get back in it....

Best post of the thread. If the trade itself isn't patently unfair (i.e. you'd lay 100:1 odds to anyone with cash that the rest of season points one side would put up as a result will exceed the other's by a large margin), you don't even talk about collusion, etc. People are just looking for bogeymen where there's nothing to see. Those in the league are just scared that her team improved for sure (cashing in on a stud rotting on the bench) and to a lesser degree, his team might end up improving, too. If I'm 0-5 in a redraft league, I'm shooting for the moon on upside players to try to stay alive. It's absolutely plausible that both owners believe their starting teams are improved by this trade. That's all anyone really needs to know here. -Byron

Disagree.

 

[BobbyLayne]

I'll eat my hat if Cam finishes as a top QB

You're going to want to cut it into fairly small pieces, I'd say no more then 1/4"-1/2" squares.Place the pieces in a crock pot with two cartons of 32 oz organic vegetable broth. Cook for 10-12 hours, season liberally. Fresh rosemary gives the cardboard in the bill a savory flavor. I do recommend removing any metal snaps and the metal cinch as that may be difficult to pass (but velcro will soften up just fine).

 

[Stinkin Ref]

I think what people are mostly struggling with is the fact that those that think it is a case of collusion have even admitted that it isn't even a trade that would normally be questioned/overturned....usually the second part (questioned/overturned) needs to happen before people start throwing around the "C" word.....so it is sounding like people like TJ are claiming there is "collusion" on a fair trade which doesn't seem to make much sense....the magnitude of the players involved, the sleeping arrangements of the two owners, and the records involved are being used to make a mountain out of a mole hill.....

again the way I feel about it is don't hate the playa....hate the game.....

the wife here drafted somebody late (Newton)...probably 14th round or so...who is producing at a 1st or 2nd round level....with Rodgers in tow at QB she is able to deal from a position of strength and now trade that 1st or 2nd round performing player (Newton) for another 1st or 2nd round player at a different position (Foster)to improve her starting lineup, since Newton is rotting on her bench.....

what some owners in her league should have done, was recognize this and offered her something similiar to what her husband did and try and improve their own QB position instead of hating on the husband for trying to improve his.....husband is probably gambling that Newton continues his torrid pace while Foster may continue to lose carries and could have the hammy flare up again....

such a gamble could pay off for him and help him get back in it....

And see, what I think happened is this....

Husband says to wife: "I'm 0-5 and toast in this league. You're doing ok but you could use a better RB. Let's make a trade that's not so overtly lopsided that it could be overturned but basically let's put all our eggs in one basket with your team. If Rodgers goes down, I gave you Fitzpatrick also who's a viable backup. We'll throw Ingram in so it looks at least a little bit more fair".

If the husband happens to go on a win streak, so much the better, but I do not believe it to be the husband's intention when the trade was made that he thinks he's put himself in a position to be more competitive. Textbook collusion and well played collusion at that, but collusion nonetheless. That's my case your honor.

interested in what your definition of collusion is because normally it includes a word similar to the word "lopsided".....usually one person comes out considerably better and one considerably worse....because the thought is that one player is giving up, so to speak...that did not happen in this case....they both got players of value in return....and in addition, your honor......the wife should probably receive a slight benefit (better end of the deal) in some way....given the fact that she used a very high draft pick to acquire (Rodgers) and followed that up with a brilliant pick later (Newton) that has drastically outperformed his draft spot....the return on Newton needs to be equivalent to his current value.....which (Foster) provides....although some could argue that depending on the make up of the rosters that a straight Newton-Foster deal does not benefit the Newton owner....however in this case it does since the Newton owner has the aforementioned player (Rodgers)...allowing her to maybe settle for a potentially less valuable player then Newton.... (Foster).... who has been hurt and is losing carries to a talented young backup....

 

[Reepicheep]

I'll eat my hat if Cam finishes as a top QB

You're going to want to cut it into fairly small pieces, I'd say no more then 1/4"-1/2" squares.Place the pieces in a crock pot with two cartons of 32 oz organic vegetable broth. Cook for 10-12 hours, season liberally. Fresh rosemary gives the cardboard in the bill a savory flavor. I do recommend removing any metal snaps and the metal cinch as that may be difficult to pass (but velcro will soften up just fine).

 

[T J]

I think what people are mostly struggling with is the fact that those that think it is a case of collusion have even admitted that it isn't even a trade that would normally be questioned/overturned....usually the second part (questioned/overturned) needs to happen before people start throwing around the "C" word.....so it is sounding like people like TJ are claiming there is "collusion" on a fair trade which doesn't seem to make much sense....the magnitude of the players involved, the sleeping arrangements of the two owners, and the records involved are being used to make a mountain out of a mole hill.....

again the way I feel about it is don't hate the playa....hate the game.....

the wife here drafted somebody late (Newton)...probably 14th round or so...who is producing at a 1st or 2nd round level....with Rodgers in tow at QB she is able to deal from a position of strength and now trade that 1st or 2nd round performing player (Newton) for another 1st or 2nd round player at a different position (Foster)to improve her starting lineup, since Newton is rotting on her bench.....

what some owners in her league should have done, was recognize this and offered her something similiar to what her husband did and try and improve their own QB position instead of hating on the husband for trying to improve his.....husband is probably gambling that Newton continues his torrid pace while Foster may continue to lose carries and could have the hammy flare up again....

such a gamble could pay off for him and help him get back in it....

And see, what I think happened is this....

Husband says to wife: "I'm 0-5 and toast in this league. You're doing ok but you could use a better RB. Let's make a trade that's not so overtly lopsided that it could be overturned but basically let's put all our eggs in one basket with your team. If Rodgers goes down, I gave you Fitzpatrick also who's a viable backup. We'll throw Ingram in so it looks at least a little bit more fair".

If the husband happens to go on a win streak, so much the better, but I do not believe it to be the husband's intention when the trade was made that he thinks he's put himself in a position to be more competitive. Textbook collusion and well played collusion at that, but collusion nonetheless. That's my case your honor.

interested in what your definition of collusion is because normally it includes a word similar to the word "lopsided".....usually one person comes out considerably better and one considerably worse....because the thought is that one player is giving up, so to speak...that did not happen in this case....they both got players of value in return....and in addition, your honor......the wife should probably receive a slight benefit (better end of the deal) in some way....given the fact that she used a very high draft pick to acquire (Rodgers) and followed that up with a brilliant pick later (Newton) that has drastically outperformed his draft spot....the return on Newton needs to be equivalent to his current value.....which (Foster) provides....although some could argue that depending on the make up of the rosters that a straight Newton-Foster deal does not benefit the Newton owner....however in this case it does since the Newton owner has the aforementioned player (Rodgers)...allowing her to maybe settle for a potentially less valuable player then Newton.... (Foster).... who has been hurt and is losing carries to a talented young backup....

I'm really glad you asked that. I do think this probably one the biggest disconnects throughout this thread.Collusion in fantasy football has nothing to do with the players in a trade. It's about intent. When two or more people conspire to achieve something not specifically and exclusively in their own singular best interests, then they've colluded.

Another example - Owner #1 plays the matchup game for his defenses each week. Owner #2 sees this and wants to try to minimize Owner #1's options. So he gets on the phone with Owner #3 and says "hey, pick up this defense so Owner #1 can't get them and I'll grab this other defense". Those two owners colluded against Owner #1 in that scenario.

So you can have a trade that on face, appears fair, but still very much be collusion. That's what I am saying happened here. If I thought the husband was really trying to improve his own team with the trade, I would have never responded in this thread at all. But being 0-5 and his 3-2 wife getting Foster in the deal just smacked instantly to me that he was not trying to improve his team, but rather trying to help hers. So while the names all look well and good, I believe the intent was to collude.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

I think what people are mostly struggling with is the fact that those that think it is a case of collusion have even admitted that it isn't even a trade that would normally be questioned/overturned....usually the second part (questioned/overturned) needs to happen before people start throwing around the "C" word.....so it is sounding like people like TJ are claiming there is "collusion" on a fair trade which doesn't seem to make much sense....the magnitude of the players involved, the sleeping arrangements of the two owners, and the records involved are being used to make a mountain out of a mole hill.....

again the way I feel about it is don't hate the playa....hate the game.....

the wife here drafted somebody late (Newton)...probably 14th round or so...who is producing at a 1st or 2nd round level....with Rodgers in tow at QB she is able to deal from a position of strength and now trade that 1st or 2nd round performing player (Newton) for another 1st or 2nd round player at a different position (Foster)to improve her starting lineup, since Newton is rotting on her bench.....

what some owners in her league should have done, was recognize this and offered her something similiar to what her husband did and try and improve their own QB position instead of hating on the husband for trying to improve his.....husband is probably gambling that Newton continues his torrid pace while Foster may continue to lose carries and could have the hammy flare up again....

such a gamble could pay off for him and help him get back in it....

And see, what I think happened is this....

Husband says to wife: "I'm 0-5 and toast in this league. You're doing ok but you could use a better RB. Let's make a trade that's not so overtly lopsided that it could be overturned but basically let's put all our eggs in one basket with your team. If Rodgers goes down, I gave you Fitzpatrick also who's a viable backup. We'll throw Ingram in so it looks at least a little bit more fair".

If the husband happens to go on a win streak, so much the better, but I do not believe it to be the husband's intention when the trade was made that he thinks he's put himself in a position to be more competitive. Textbook collusion and well played collusion at that, but collusion nonetheless. That's my case your honor.

interested in what your definition of collusion is because normally it includes a word similar to the word "lopsided".....usually one person comes out considerably better and one considerably worse....because the thought is that one player is giving up, so to speak...that did not happen in this case....they both got players of value in return....and in addition, your honor......the wife should probably receive a slight benefit (better end of the deal) in some way....given the fact that she used a very high draft pick to acquire (Rodgers) and followed that up with a brilliant pick later (Newton) that has drastically outperformed his draft spot....the return on Newton needs to be equivalent to his current value.....which (Foster) provides....although some could argue that depending on the make up of the rosters that a straight Newton-Foster deal does not benefit the Newton owner....however in this case it does since the Newton owner has the aforementioned player (Rodgers)...allowing her to maybe settle for a potentially less valuable player then Newton.... (Foster).... who has been hurt and is losing carries to a talented young backup....

I'm really glad you asked that. I do think this probably one the biggest disconnects throughout this thread.Collusion in fantasy football has nothing to do with the players in a trade. It's about intent. When two or more people conspire to achieve something not specifically and exclusively in their own singular best interests, then they've colluded.

Another example - Owner #1 plays the matchup game for his defenses each week. Owner #2 sees this and wants to try to minimize Owner #1's options. So he gets on the phone with Owner #3 and says "hey, pick up this defense so Owner #1 can't get them and I'll grab this other defense". Those two owners colluded against Owner #1 in that scenario.

So you can have a trade that on face, appears fair, but still very much be collusion. That's what I am saying happened here. If I thought the husband was really trying to improve his own team with the trade, I would have never responded in this thread at all. But being 0-5 and his 3-2 wife getting Foster in the deal just smacked instantly to me that he was not trying to improve his team, but rather trying to help hers. So while the names all look well and good, I believe the intent was to collude.

I think most would agree that he did improve his team at QB....especially in a 4 pt passing/6 pt rushing league.... if the stance you are going to fall back on is that the drop off from Foster to Ingram is far to big to have the increase from Fitzpatrick to Newton overcome it then I think that is fine but also debatable.....

a HUGE factor that we also don't know is the rest of the rosters.....we don't know what other RB's the husband had on his roster....all we know it that he started Grant and Ingram that week.....he very easily could have had another "stud" RB on his roster that was on a bye week that week that made the loss of Foster less painful for his starting lineup in the long run for the rest of the season....not sure what exact week it was the trade went down and he plugged in Grant/Ingram but if it was week week 5 he could have also had Hillis/Felix/Jackson/(Rice unlikely)....or last week....somebody like Matthews/Lynch/Beanie/...etc...

so while it has been pretty much agreed by all (even those claiming collusion at some level) that the trade was fair....it is definately unfair to claim collusion without knowing all of the facts, including the makeup of the rest of the rosters which to the husband may have made Foster more expendable....

 

[T J]

I think what people are mostly struggling with is the fact that those that think it is a case of collusion have even admitted that it isn't even a trade that would normally be questioned/overturned....usually the second part (questioned/overturned) needs to happen before people start throwing around the "C" word.....so it is sounding like people like TJ are claiming there is "collusion" on a fair trade which doesn't seem to make much sense....the magnitude of the players involved, the sleeping arrangements of the two owners, and the records involved are being used to make a mountain out of a mole hill.....

again the way I feel about it is don't hate the playa....hate the game.....

the wife here drafted somebody late (Newton)...probably 14th round or so...who is producing at a 1st or 2nd round level....with Rodgers in tow at QB she is able to deal from a position of strength and now trade that 1st or 2nd round performing player (Newton) for another 1st or 2nd round player at a different position (Foster)to improve her starting lineup, since Newton is rotting on her bench.....

what some owners in her league should have done, was recognize this and offered her something similiar to what her husband did and try and improve their own QB position instead of hating on the husband for trying to improve his.....husband is probably gambling that Newton continues his torrid pace while Foster may continue to lose carries and could have the hammy flare up again....

such a gamble could pay off for him and help him get back in it....

And see, what I think happened is this....

Husband says to wife: "I'm 0-5 and toast in this league. You're doing ok but you could use a better RB. Let's make a trade that's not so overtly lopsided that it could be overturned but basically let's put all our eggs in one basket with your team. If Rodgers goes down, I gave you Fitzpatrick also who's a viable backup. We'll throw Ingram in so it looks at least a little bit more fair".

If the husband happens to go on a win streak, so much the better, but I do not believe it to be the husband's intention when the trade was made that he thinks he's put himself in a position to be more competitive. Textbook collusion and well played collusion at that, but collusion nonetheless. That's my case your honor.

interested in what your definition of collusion is because normally it includes a word similar to the word "lopsided".....usually one person comes out considerably better and one considerably worse....because the thought is that one player is giving up, so to speak...that did not happen in this case....they both got players of value in return....and in addition, your honor......the wife should probably receive a slight benefit (better end of the deal) in some way....given the fact that she used a very high draft pick to acquire (Rodgers) and followed that up with a brilliant pick later (Newton) that has drastically outperformed his draft spot....the return on Newton needs to be equivalent to his current value.....which (Foster) provides....although some could argue that depending on the make up of the rosters that a straight Newton-Foster deal does not benefit the Newton owner....however in this case it does since the Newton owner has the aforementioned player (Rodgers)...allowing her to maybe settle for a potentially less valuable player then Newton.... (Foster).... who has been hurt and is losing carries to a talented young backup....

I'm really glad you asked that. I do think this probably one the biggest disconnects throughout this thread.Collusion in fantasy football has nothing to do with the players in a trade. It's about intent. When two or more people conspire to achieve something not specifically and exclusively in their own singular best interests, then they've colluded.

Another example - Owner #1 plays the matchup game for his defenses each week. Owner #2 sees this and wants to try to minimize Owner #1's options. So he gets on the phone with Owner #3 and says "hey, pick up this defense so Owner #1 can't get them and I'll grab this other defense". Those two owners colluded against Owner #1 in that scenario.

So you can have a trade that on face, appears fair, but still very much be collusion. That's what I am saying happened here. If I thought the husband was really trying to improve his own team with the trade, I would have never responded in this thread at all. But being 0-5 and his 3-2 wife getting Foster in the deal just smacked instantly to me that he was not trying to improve his team, but rather trying to help hers. So while the names all look well and good, I believe the intent was to collude.

I think most would agree that he did improve his team at QB....especially in a 4 pt passing/6 pt rushing league.... if the stance you are going to fall back on is that the drop off from Foster to Ingram is far to big to have the increase from Fitzpatrick to Newton overcome it then I think that is fine but also debatable.....

a HUGE factor that we also don't know is the rest of the rosters.....we don't know what other RB's the husband had on his roster....all we know it that he started Grant and Ingram that week.....he very easily could have had another "stud" RB on his roster that was on a bye week that week that made the loss of Foster less painful for his starting lineup in the long run for the rest of the season....not sure what exact week it was the trade went down and he plugged in Grant/Ingram but if it was week week 5 he could have also had Hillis/Felix/Jackson/(Rice unlikely)....or last week....somebody like Matthews/Lynch/Beanie/...etc...

so while it has been pretty much agreed by all (even those claiming collusion at some level) that the trade was fair....it is definately unfair to claim collusion without knowing all of the facts, including the makeup of the rest of the rosters which to the husband may have made Foster more expendable....

Well, it's already been stated that the husband started Ingram and Grant at RB this past week. That was pretty telling.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

I think what people are mostly struggling with is the fact that those that think it is a case of collusion have even admitted that it isn't even a trade that would normally be questioned/overturned....usually the second part (questioned/overturned) needs to happen before people start throwing around the "C" word.....so it is sounding like people like TJ are claiming there is "collusion" on a fair trade which doesn't seem to make much sense....the magnitude of the players involved, the sleeping arrangements of the two owners, and the records involved are being used to make a mountain out of a mole hill.....

again the way I feel about it is don't hate the playa....hate the game.....

the wife here drafted somebody late (Newton)...probably 14th round or so...who is producing at a 1st or 2nd round level....with Rodgers in tow at QB she is able to deal from a position of strength and now trade that 1st or 2nd round performing player (Newton) for another 1st or 2nd round player at a different position (Foster)to improve her starting lineup, since Newton is rotting on her bench.....

what some owners in her league should have done, was recognize this and offered her something similiar to what her husband did and try and improve their own QB position instead of hating on the husband for trying to improve his.....husband is probably gambling that Newton continues his torrid pace while Foster may continue to lose carries and could have the hammy flare up again....

such a gamble could pay off for him and help him get back in it....

And see, what I think happened is this....

Husband says to wife: "I'm 0-5 and toast in this league. You're doing ok but you could use a better RB. Let's make a trade that's not so overtly lopsided that it could be overturned but basically let's put all our eggs in one basket with your team. If Rodgers goes down, I gave you Fitzpatrick also who's a viable backup. We'll throw Ingram in so it looks at least a little bit more fair".

If the husband happens to go on a win streak, so much the better, but I do not believe it to be the husband's intention when the trade was made that he thinks he's put himself in a position to be more competitive. Textbook collusion and well played collusion at that, but collusion nonetheless. That's my case your honor.

interested in what your definition of collusion is because normally it includes a word similar to the word "lopsided".....usually one person comes out considerably better and one considerably worse....because the thought is that one player is giving up, so to speak...that did not happen in this case....they both got players of value in return....and in addition, your honor......the wife should probably receive a slight benefit (better end of the deal) in some way....given the fact that she used a very high draft pick to acquire (Rodgers) and followed that up with a brilliant pick later (Newton) that has drastically outperformed his draft spot....the return on Newton needs to be equivalent to his current value.....which (Foster) provides....although some could argue that depending on the make up of the rosters that a straight Newton-Foster deal does not benefit the Newton owner....however in this case it does since the Newton owner has the aforementioned player (Rodgers)...allowing her to maybe settle for a potentially less valuable player then Newton.... (Foster).... who has been hurt and is losing carries to a talented young backup....

I'm really glad you asked that. I do think this probably one the biggest disconnects throughout this thread.Collusion in fantasy football has nothing to do with the players in a trade. It's about intent. When two or more people conspire to achieve something not specifically and exclusively in their own singular best interests, then they've colluded.

Another example - Owner #1 plays the matchup game for his defenses each week. Owner #2 sees this and wants to try to minimize Owner #1's options. So he gets on the phone with Owner #3 and says "hey, pick up this defense so Owner #1 can't get them and I'll grab this other defense". Those two owners colluded against Owner #1 in that scenario.

So you can have a trade that on face, appears fair, but still very much be collusion. That's what I am saying happened here. If I thought the husband was really trying to improve his own team with the trade, I would have never responded in this thread at all. But being 0-5 and his 3-2 wife getting Foster in the deal just smacked instantly to me that he was not trying to improve his team, but rather trying to help hers. So while the names all look well and good, I believe the intent was to collude.

I think most would agree that he did improve his team at QB....especially in a 4 pt passing/6 pt rushing league.... if the stance you are going to fall back on is that the drop off from Foster to Ingram is far to big to have the increase from Fitzpatrick to Newton overcome it then I think that is fine but also debatable.....

a HUGE factor that we also don't know is the rest of the rosters.....we don't know what other RB's the husband had on his roster....all we know it that he started Grant and Ingram that week.....he very easily could have had another "stud" RB on his roster that was on a bye week that week that made the loss of Foster less painful for his starting lineup in the long run for the rest of the season....not sure what exact week it was the trade went down and he plugged in Grant/Ingram but if it was week week 5 he could have also had Hillis/Felix/Jackson/(Rice unlikely)....or last week....somebody like Matthews/Lynch/Beanie/...etc...

so while it has been pretty much agreed by all (even those claiming collusion at some level) that the trade was fair....it is definately unfair to claim collusion without knowing all of the facts, including the makeup of the rest of the rosters which to the husband may have made Foster more expendable....

Well, it's already been stated that the husband started Ingram and Grant at RB this past week. That was pretty telling.

I mentioned that...but we don't know who else he had...he maybe could have also sat a guy that may have had a bad matchup or was dinged....in addition to those on a bye week....and while not producing like it neccessarily....Grant/Ingram both technically starters on two very potent offenses.....

 

[footballnerd]

Well, it's already been stated that the husband started Ingram and Grant at RB this past week. That was pretty telling.

Can't believe this thread is going 3 pages, but since it has, please do tell, what is the rest of his roster? Did he have someone on bye?

 

[D'OHtis]

I'll eat my hat if Cam finishes as a top QB

You're going to want to cut it into fairly small pieces, I'd say no more then 1/4"-1/2" squares.Place the pieces in a crock pot with two cartons of 32 oz organic vegetable broth. Cook for 10-12 hours, season liberally. Fresh rosemary gives the cardboard in the bill a savory flavor. I do recommend removing any metal snaps and the metal cinch as that may be difficult to pass (but velcro will soften up just fine).

 

[Stinkin Ref]

Well, it's already been stated that the husband started Ingram and Grant at RB this past week. That was pretty telling.

Can't believe this thread is going 3 pages, but since it has, please do tell, what is the rest of his roster? Did he have someone on bye?

Wrigley would have to answer this....you may be falling into the same trap that I did thinking this was TJ's thread....

 

[T J]

Well, it's already been stated that the husband started Ingram and Grant at RB this past week. That was pretty telling.

Can't believe this thread is going 3 pages, but since it has, please do tell, what is the rest of his roster? Did he have someone on bye?

Wrigley would have to answer this....you may be falling into the same trap that I did thinking this was TJ's thread....

Ya, thanks. That's one for Wrigley. His league.I'm just an innocent bystander to all this.

 

[footballnerd]

Well, it's already been stated that the husband started Ingram and Grant at RB this past week. That was pretty telling.

Can't believe this thread is going 3 pages, but since it has, please do tell, what is the rest of his roster? Did he have someone on bye?

Wrigley would have to answer this....you may be falling into the same trap that I did thinking this was TJ's thread....

why the hell is he trolling it so hard then?

 

[Stinkin Ref]

Well, it's already been stated that the husband started Ingram and Grant at RB this past week. That was pretty telling.

Can't believe this thread is going 3 pages, but since it has, please do tell, what is the rest of his roster? Did he have someone on bye?

Wrigley would have to answer this....you may be falling into the same trap that I did thinking this was TJ's thread....

why the hell is he trolling it so hard then?

probably for the same reason my dumb ### keeps coming back in....after awhile crunching numbers and stats gets a little boring during the year and a little good debate/discussion about things like this that come up in some leagues can be a little change of pace....

 

[T J]

Well, it's already been stated that the husband started Ingram and Grant at RB this past week. That was pretty telling.

Can't believe this thread is going 3 pages, but since it has, please do tell, what is the rest of his roster? Did he have someone on bye?

Wrigley would have to answer this....you may be falling into the same trap that I did thinking this was TJ's thread....

why the hell is he trolling it so hard then?

probably for the same reason my dumb ### keeps coming back in....after awhile crunching numbers and stats gets a little boring during the year and a little good debate/discussion about things like this that come up in some leagues can be a little change of pace....

Pretty much. I could honestly not care less about Wrigley's league (sorry), but having quality discussion about meaningless stuff..... priceless.

 

[footballnerd]

Well, it's already been stated that the husband started Ingram and Grant at RB this past week. That was pretty telling.

Can't believe this thread is going 3 pages, but since it has, please do tell, what is the rest of his roster? Did he have someone on bye?

Wrigley would have to answer this....you may be falling into the same trap that I did thinking this was TJ's thread....

why the hell is he trolling it so hard then?

probably for the same reason my dumb ### keeps coming back in....after awhile crunching numbers and stats gets a little boring during the year and a little good debate/discussion about things like this that come up in some leagues can be a little change of pace....

Pretty much. I could honestly not care less about Wrigley's league (sorry), but having quality discussion about meaningless stuff..... priceless.

well I'm guilty of getting dragged into discussions too, good times.

 

[Wrigley]

Well, it's already been stated that the husband started Ingram and Grant at RB this past week. That was pretty telling.

Can't believe this thread is going 3 pages, but since it has, please do tell, what is the rest of his roster? Did he have someone on bye?

Wrigley would have to answer this....you may be falling into the same trap that I did thinking this was TJ's thread....

Ya, thanks. That's one for Wrigley. His league.I'm just an innocent bystander to all this.

His roster(post trade)Play 2RB, 2WR, 1FLXNewton, FreemanIngram, Grant, Addai, Barber, HardestyFitzgerald, D Jackson, Holmes, Cruz, Ju. JonesKickersD'sFitz was his only player on bye in week 6

 

[kegger]

"Collusion" in fantasy football has always been one person giving up good

for bad in a lopsided trade that does not benefit both parties, so in this one

that does not hold up, this trade would pass in any league, so no collusion.

 

[T J]

"Collusion" in fantasy football has always been one person giving up good for bad in a lopsided trade that does not benefit both parties......

That is entirely inaccurate. Collusion is, and always has been, two or more parties conspiring together towards something. It does NOT have to be in the form of lopsided trade to be collusion. It CAN be a lopsided trade, but there are certainy other forms. The husband/wife in question in this thread for instance. If my scenario is what happened, despite the relative values of the players, that is absolutely collusion. What else would you call it?

 

[barista]

This is like some Stephen Bochco dramedy. I need to know who the couple is... what they do... who their friends are. Is the babysitter cute and is that what's causing the tension? Their breakfast banquette conversation would be about what the neighbors are doing with their lawn and how the hell Graham can be the #1 receiver on NO as a TE.

I mean this is shark pool stuff? If they weren't married this trade wouldn't be a problem. The question is whether you want a married couple managing two teams in a money league... two really good friends can be bad enough.

12:08am HE rolls over.

"Honey, you awake?"

SHE

"Yeah..."

HE

"I've been thinking... Newton and Rogers."

SHE

"What about them"

HE

"Do you need them... both?"

SHE

"It's after midnight..."

 

[kegger]

"Collusion" in fantasy football has always been one person giving up good for bad in a lopsided trade that does not benefit both parties......

That is entirely inaccurate. Collusion is, and always has been, two or more parties conspiring together towards something. It does NOT have to be in the form of lopsided trade to be collusion. It CAN be a lopsided trade, but there are certainy other forms. The husband/wife in question in this thread for instance. If my scenario is what happened, despite the relative values of the players, that is absolutely collusion. What else would you call it?

Sorry, Disagree..There is nothing wrong with the trade, so no collusion.. (you "believe" there is does not make it so)If it's a trade that would "Not get Vetoed" then there is no reason to bring in collusion, that's it..

 

[verratti]

have similar thing going on in my league and everyone is so up in arms I'm thinking about sending everyone their $100 back and cancelling season...

Wife (0-5) trades Gore, Stevie Johnson, Bradford (prior to ankle sprain)

to

Husband (4-1) who sent Mendenhall, Percy Harvin, Painter to wife...

I don't think they outright cheated, but I do think she is apathetic...

everyone got all upset. I talked to them both and approved (don't think they're cheating)... now hubby says he'll set his lineup and leave it alone for rest of year in protest... people are saying it's not fair because they lost to him earlier... when he was actively setting lineup...

same league on Saturday had AJ Green traded for Bengals D (the owner of the company got Green and employee got the Bengals).

This is supposed to be fun!

Is it ever ok to just throw in the towel, give everyone money back and say "I'm done"? because that's what I'm about to do...

-Bill

 

[Carolina Hustler]

"Collusion" in fantasy football has always been one person giving up good

for bad in a lopsided trade that does not benefit both parties......

That is entirely inaccurate. Collusion is, and always has been, two or more parties conspiring together towards something. It does NOT have to be in the form of lopsided trade to be collusion.

It CAN be a lopsided trade, but there are certainy other forms. The husband/wife in question in this thread for instance. If my scenario is what happened, despite the relative values of the players, that is absolutely collusion. What else would you call it?

col·lu·sion [kuh-loo-zhuhn] noun1. a secret agreement, especially for fraudulent or treacherous purposes; conspiracy: Some of his employees were acting in collusion to rob him.

2. Law. a secret understanding between two or more persons to gain something illegally, to defraud another of his or her rights, or to appear as adversaries though in agreement: collusion of husband and wife to obtain a divorce.

 

[Bronco Nation]

have similar thing going on in my league and everyone is so up in arms I'm thinking about sending everyone their $100 back and cancelling season...Wife (0-5) trades Gore, Stevie Johnson, Bradford (prior to ankle sprain)toHusband (4-1) who sent Mendenhall, Percy Harvin, Painter to wife...I don't think they outright cheated, but I do think she is apathetic...everyone got all upset. I talked to them both and approved (don't think they're cheating)... now hubby says he'll set his lineup and leave it alone for rest of year in protest... people are saying it's not fair because they lost to him earlier... when he was actively setting lineup...same league on Saturday had AJ Green traded for Bengals D (the owner of the company got Green and employee got the Bengals).This is supposed to be fun! Is it ever ok to just throw in the towel, give everyone money back and say "I'm done"? because that's what I'm about to do... -Bill

Both of those trades are perfectly fine. Tell people to stop trying to manage teams they didn't pay for. Also remind them they can't predict the future and past points don't carry over with the trade. They're also likely to be proven wrong over time in their 'expert' analysis. -Byron

 

[Warrior]

"Collusion" in fantasy football has always been one person giving up good for bad in a lopsided trade that does not benefit both parties......

That is entirely inaccurate. Collusion is, and always has been, two or more parties conspiring together towards something. It does NOT have to be in the form of lopsided trade to be collusion. It CAN be a lopsided trade, but there are certainy other forms. The husband/wife in question in this thread for instance. If my scenario is what happened, despite the relative values of the players, that is absolutely collusion. What else would you call it?

Sorry, Disagree..There is nothing wrong with the trade, so no collusion.. (you "believe" there is does not make it so)If it's a trade that would "Not get Vetoed" then there is no reason to bring in collusion, that's it..

Sorry, Disagree..Just because you "believe" there's no collusion doesn't make it so. I think it's obvious. They colluded. Period.

 

[Underachievers]

"Collusion" in fantasy football has always been one person giving up good for bad in a lopsided trade that does not benefit both parties, so in this onethat does not hold up, this trade would pass in any league, so no collusion.

What? That is a pretty narrow definition of collusion. Collusion is by no means restricted to the value of players being traded. Not sure where you could have came up with that one.

 

[kegger]

"Collusion" in fantasy football has always been one person giving up good for bad in a lopsided trade that does not benefit both parties......

That is entirely inaccurate. Collusion is, and always has been, two or more parties conspiring together towards something. It does NOT have to be in the form of lopsided trade to be collusion. It CAN be a lopsided trade, but there are certainy other forms. The husband/wife in question in this thread for instance. If my scenario is what happened, despite the relative values of the players, that is absolutely collusion. What else would you call it?

Sorry, Disagree..There is nothing wrong with the trade, so no collusion.. (you "believe" there is does not make it so)If it's a trade that would "Not get Vetoed" then there is no reason to bring in collusion, that's it..

Sorry, Disagree..Just because you "believe" there's no collusion doesn't make it so. I think it's obvious. They colluded. Period.

I don't believe they did or did not. (I can't prove either, nor can anyone else)I look at the trade as one no one would bother vetoing in any other scenario.(so to me if you wouldn't veto you don't throw the Collusion card out there)You can't assume because he is 0-5 that if he makes an trade it is Collusion,You can't assume because "he knows" who he is trading with it's Collusion.If you do assume anything your calling them guilty regardless of any trades.I look at the trade, to me it is a trade that could be made in any league, so I'dnot even go to the Collusion card.. (I see no reason to LOOK for Collusion)I always look at the validity of the trade, if it's not veto worthy I don't look atother things and try to "guess" that it "might" be Collusion, just not right inmy book to assume someone has done something wrong if the trade is fine.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

"Collusion" in fantasy football has always been one person giving up good for bad in a lopsided trade that does not benefit both parties......

That is entirely inaccurate. Collusion is, and always has been, two or more parties conspiring together towards something. It does NOT have to be in the form of lopsided trade to be collusion. It CAN be a lopsided trade, but there are certainy other forms. The husband/wife in question in this thread for instance. If my scenario is what happened, despite the relative values of the players, that is absolutely collusion. What else would you call it?

Sorry, Disagree..There is nothing wrong with the trade, so no collusion.. (you "believe" there is does not make it so)If it's a trade that would "Not get Vetoed" then there is no reason to bring in collusion, that's it..

Sorry, Disagree..Just because you "believe" there's no collusion doesn't make it so. I think it's obvious. They colluded. Period.

Just because you "think it's obvious", doesn't mean "They colluded.Period."It's a fairly even trade, and even if it wasn't even, it's not lopsided.So, in my opinion, everyone concluding that they colluded is basing their OPINION on the record, and the fact that they are married. It is perfectly reasonable that someone with an 0-5 record would still be allowed to make trades. And if it isn't reasonable for a husband and wife to make trades based on the idea that they might collude, then they should have either not been allowed to own separate teams, or been told they couldn't trade ahead of time.Answer each question separately:1) On trade value alone, is this trade a veto-able trade. Would this have been an eyebrow raising move if these 2 weren't related and both had 2-2 records?2) Is it ok for a 0-5 team to make trades, or should they be banned from trades the rest of the season once they've lost 5 games?3) If a husband and wife have both been allowed into a league, owning separate teams, and had never been told they couldn't be trade partners, should they be allowed to make trades that everyone else would be allowed to make? Some of you suspect collusion, that doesn't mean it happened. It could have happened, but nothing we've been privy to in the forum proves it.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I don't believe they did or did not. (I can't prove either, nor can anyone else)I look at the trade as one no one would bother vetoing in any other scenario.(so to me if you wouldn't veto you don't throw the Collusion card out there)You can't assume because he is 0-5 that if he makes an trade it is Collusion,You can't assume because "he knows" who he is trading with it's Collusion.If you do assume anything your calling them guilty regardless of any trades.I look at the trade, to me it is a trade that could be made in any league, so I'dnot even go to the Collusion card.. (I see no reason to LOOK for Collusion)I always look at the validity of the trade, if it's not veto worthy I don't look atother things and try to "guess" that it "might" be Collusion, just not right inmy book to assume someone has done something wrong if the trade is fine.

 

[kegger]

"Collusion" in fantasy football has always been one person giving up good for bad in a lopsided trade that does not benefit both parties......

That is entirely inaccurate. Collusion is, and always has been, two or more parties conspiring together towards something. It does NOT have to be in the form of lopsided trade to be collusion. It CAN be a lopsided trade, but there are certainy other forms. The husband/wife in question in this thread for instance. If my scenario is what happened, despite the relative values of the players, that is absolutely collusion. What else would you call it?

Sorry, Disagree..There is nothing wrong with the trade, so no collusion.. (you "believe" there is does not make it so)If it's a trade that would "Not get Vetoed" then there is no reason to bring in collusion, that's it..

Sorry, Disagree..Just because you "believe" there's no collusion doesn't make it so. I think it's obvious. They colluded. Period.

Just because you "think it's obvious", doesn't mean "They colluded.Period."It's a fairly even trade, and even if it wasn't even, it's not lopsided.So, in my opinion, everyone concluding that they colluded is basing their OPINION on the record, and the fact that they are married. It is perfectly reasonable that someone with an 0-5 record would still be allowed to make trades. And if it isn't reasonable for a husband and wife to make trades based on the idea that they might collude, then they should have either not been allowed to own separate teams, or been told they couldn't trade ahead of time.Answer each question separately:1) On trade value alone, is this trade a veto-able trade. Would this have been an eyebrow raising move if these 2 weren't related and both had 2-2 records?2) Is it ok for a 0-5 team to make trades, or should they be banned from trades the rest of the season once they've lost 5 games?3) If a husband and wife have both been allowed into a league, owning separate teams, and had never been told they couldn't be trade partners, be allowed to make trades that everyone else would be allowed to make?Some of you suspect collusion, that doesn't mean it happened. It could have happened, but nothing we've been privy to in the forum proves it.

Nice post by you as well, I've already stated my case, (not a veto-able trade)And yah I can't see how you could say that an 0-5 team can't make trades. Sure they can..(otherwise your saying they have to just give up, they may even have to make it drastic)Also anyone that was allowed in a league should be able to trade with anyone in that league..(otherwise leagues with good friends and or roomates can't trade either, most have friends)

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Nice post by you as well, I've already stated my case, (not a veto-able trade)And yah I can't see how you could say that an 0-5 team can't make trades. Sure they can..(otherwise your saying they have to just give up, they may even have to make it drastic)Also anyone that was allowed in a league should be able to trade with anyone in that league..(otherwise leagues with good friends and or roomates can't trade either, most have friends)

You have 8 total posts. I haven't searched back past what I could see in your profile, but 4 of the 5 posts I could see where in this topic.So, which are you?The husband? Or the wife?

 

[kegger]

No I am not either of the participants, I just belong to the football guys website. (pay me yearly dues)

Just recently signed up on the forums a day or 2 ago, just getting around to posting.

I'm in 3 leagues, have been the commish of one for 20years.

So I take things that are to be "decisions" pretty heavily is all.

Thanks,

Keg

 

[Bri]

probably not a good idea to play in leagues with both husband and wife, or at least make a rule they can't trade with each other just to avoid any uncertainity

husband and wife is such a complex relationship that you can't really predict how they'll behave or why they'll behave as such. The internet did kill so many beautiful wonderful fabulous local leagues with all their comradery and banter. It's really a shame we didn't notice amidst all this great technology.It's not the same if buddy A trades with buddy B over a beer at a bar as opposed to sending an email to some guy across the country that you've never met.As long as a trade is reasonable, extra shenanigans are just plain fun. I've seen trades that involved dates or beers or lawn mowing or...who cares if the base of it is reasonable. That extra stuff is just fun.It doesn't even stop there.That beer could be some off brand or whatever. The lawn mowing I mentioned is still one of my favorite stories, but it's one of those had to be there things. The player traded for got hurt that sunday with a season ending injury. My buddy threw rocks all over his lawn. When his friend came to mow, it was like bullets from WWII or somesuch with fragments flying everywhere and even some sparks from under the mower. His response was to turn the mower so the chute faced the house and the other friend (they swear) dove to the ground as if the house was being mowed down by a firing squad of M-16s. You don't get that sorta fun with internet leagues. It's not the same

 

[Touchdown Syndrome]

I might be wrong, but it seems like the biggest problem with the trade is that Wrigley doesn't think Newton will finish the year as an elite Qb....evidently someone doesn't share that opinion.

 

[T J]

"Collusion" in fantasy football has always been one person giving up good

for bad in a lopsided trade that does not benefit both parties......

That is entirely inaccurate. Collusion is, and always has been, two or more parties conspiring together towards something. It does NOT have to be in the form of lopsided trade to be collusion.

It CAN be a lopsided trade, but there are certainy other forms. The husband/wife in question in this thread for instance. If my scenario is what happened, despite the relative values of the players, that is absolutely collusion. What else would you call it?

col·lu·sion [kuh-loo-zhuhn] noun1. a secret agreement, especially for fraudulent or treacherous purposes; conspiracy: Some of his employees were acting in collusion to rob him.

2. Law. a secret understanding between two or more persons to gain something illegally, to defraud another of his or her rights, or to appear as adversaries though in agreement: collusion of husband and wife to obtain a divorce.

Pretty much what I said in layman's terms. My opinion only...... THEY COLLUDED.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

[QUOTE='T J]My opinion only...... THEY COLLUDED.
[/QUOTE]Not sure why you'd keep repeating that sentiment after the previous and abundant posts you've made stating the same. You said something earlier in the thread about good debate. This post doesn't qualify.Answer each question separately:1) On trade value alone, is this trade a veto-able trade. Would this have been an eyebrow raising move if these 2 weren't related and both had 2-2 records?2) Is it ok for a 0-5 team to make trades, or should they be banned from trades the rest of the season once they've lost 5 games?3) If a husband and wife have both been allowed into a league, owning separate teams, and had never been told they couldn't be trade partners, should they be allowed to make trades that everyone else would be allowed to make?

 

[habsfan]

We're down to "if a tree falls in the forest..." stuff now guys. In the real world where something practical needs to be done (or not done), the general consensus is that there's not a can of worms worth opening here.

It's one thing to smell a rat and debate it hypothetically on the Internet. It's quite another to compose an email or pick up the phone and call someone (which I've had to do) to put an awkward accusation "out there". There's no way I would do that here.

 

[Pnishthm]

"Collusion" in fantasy football has always been one person giving up good

for bad in a lopsided trade that does not benefit both parties......

That is entirely inaccurate. Collusion is, and always has been, two or more parties conspiring together towards something. It does NOT have to be in the form of lopsided trade to be collusion.

It CAN be a lopsided trade, but there are certainy other forms. The husband/wife in question in this thread for instance. If my scenario is what happened, despite the relative values of the players, that is absolutely collusion. What else would you call it?

col·lu·sion [kuh-loo-zhuhn] noun1. a secret agreement, especially for fraudulent or treacherous purposes; conspiracy: Some of his employees were acting in collusion to rob him.

2. Law. a secret understanding between two or more persons to gain something illegally, to defraud another of his or her rights, or to appear as adversaries though in agreement: collusion of husband and wife to obtain a divorce.

Pretty much what I said in layman's terms. My opinion only...... THEY COLLUDED.

I wonder how long you guys can keep TJ going LOL :X

 

[T J]

[QUOTE='T J]My opinion only...... THEY COLLUDED.

Not sure why you'd keep repeating that sentiment after the previous and abundant posts you've made stating the same. You said something earlier in the thread about good debate. This post doesn't qualify.Answer each question separately:1) On trade value alone, is this trade a veto-able trade. Would this have been an eyebrow raising move if these 2 weren't related and both had 2-2 records?2) Is it ok for a 0-5 team to make trades, or should they be banned from trades the rest of the season once they've lost 5 games?3) If a husband and wife have both been allowed into a league, owning separate teams, and had never been told they couldn't be trade partners, should they be allowed to make trades that everyone else would be allowed to make. [/QUOTE]Oh, I agree that each question, if asked independently as if the other variables did not exist, WHiCH THEY DO, would not lead to a finding necessarily of collusion.But in looking at this specific issue, you cannot separate them. You just can't. The entirety of the three things is the key here.

 

[nkowal]

This thread is a debacle.

 

[Bronco Nation]

You keep pushing this meaningless conclusion as if it has some grand import. They 'colluded' to make a fair trade - BFD. -Byron

 

[Amused to Death]

You keep pushing this meaningless conclusion as if it has some grand import. They 'colluded' to make a fair trade - BFD. -Byron

This is what I've been thinking to myself. All that's been shown in this thread is that a married couple conspired to make a fair trade. Kick 'em out, I says! How dare they trade value for value! They're married for cryin' out loud! (disappointed in myself that I couldn't resist posting again...such a non-issue)

 

[T J]

Ok, ok already.

I'll let it go.

Still seems pretty obvious to me and I've enjoyed (for the most part) the back and forth.

But I still don't think most of you have any real idea what collusion is based on the responses, but no worries.

Have a good one.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

The sum of the parts equals the whole. 3 positives don't make a negative

 

[Underachievers]

Bump

 

[T J]

 

[Mario Kart]

Yeah, that Cam Newton is having a terrible game today.

Is a good trade for both teams.

 

[T J]

Yeah, that Cam Newton is having a terrible game today. Is a good trade for both teams.

Yer right. I know the wife is pleased with it anyway.

 

[Mario Kart]

Yeah, that Cam Newton is having a terrible game today. Is a good trade for both teams.

Yer right. I know the wife is pleased with it anyway.

she drafted well. She is allowed to trade her good draft picks for underachieving players. If Foster gets hurt and she doesn't even make the playoffs, will you come back here with your whistle? Quit pissing in the pool and go cry somewhere else. TIA

 

[T J]

Yeah, that Cam Newton is having a terrible game today. Is a good trade for both teams.

Yer right. I know the wife is pleased with it anyway.

she drafted well. She is allowed to trade her good draft picks for underachieving players. If Foster gets hurt and she doesn't even make the playoffs, will you come back here with your whistle? Quit pissing in the pool and go cry somewhere else. TIA

ok. If you say so boss.