Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Judge Smails

Commissioner Collusion - what say you?

Collusion or not?   

232 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

We had a trade that raised suspicions from the start but allowed it.  Owner A was the commish receiving Michael Thomas.  Checked scores and it turns out he lost by 1 point Monday night.  Benched a healthy Michael Thomas and instead started backup Alexander Mattison in the flex.  What? 8th ranked WR vs 55 ranked RB.  25th overall in flex vs 170 or something.  Thomas scored a lousy 2, but Mattison 0 and owner lost by 1.  After heavy questioning owners admitted side deal was made to not start Thomas that week since they were playing each other.  They think nothing was wrong.  Rest of the league is incensed.  What say you?  Don't do a lot of polls so sorry if not framed correctly.

Edited by Judge Smails

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did nearly the exact same thing in one of my leagues this year.  I'm the commissioner.  I traded for Kenyon Drake (before he got hurt) and played against the guy who traded him to me that weekend.  He was hesitant to trade me someone who might help me beat him, so I said I'd leave Drake on the bench for our matchup.  I didn't think anything of it.  Was that wrong?  We'll see what the poll says!

 

EDIT: I tried to vote "No" and leave the second part empty, but it requires me to vote in both polls.

Edited by Broncobiv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, clearly collusion. Once you admit purposeful intention to help the other team, it's over.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Broncobiv said:

I did nearly the exact same thing in one of my leagues this year.  I'm the commissioner.  I traded for Kenyon Drake (before he got hurt) and played against the guy who traded him to me that weekend.  He was hesitant to trade me someone who might help me beat him, so I said I'd leave Drake on the bench for our matchup.  I didn't think anything of it.  Was that wrong?  We'll see what the poll says!

 

EDIT: I tried to vote "No" and leave the second part empty, but it requires me to vote in both polls.

Thanks.  Edited so hopefully works now.

To me it's the same as "I already have playoffs, bye locked up.  Tell you what - let's do this trade and I'll agree to tank week 13 when we play.  I'll bench Mahomes"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

smells fishy and the optics may not seem great.....but my gut says there is nothing wrong here....the fact that one is the commish means nothing nor does the final score as there was no way to tell ahead of time what was going to happen....

in the "real world" stuff like this happens all the time as conditions of trades in baseball etc.....

if this is what needed to be done in order for the deal to go down.....I see no issues.....owners have the right to do what they need to do in order to help their team in short and long term....a "possible" loss this week may have been worth having Thomas for the rest of the year.....

 

Edited by Stinkin Ref
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This seems not like collusion and instead just a condition on a trade. 

I'm assuming this was out in the open.

Not wanting to face the player he traded is an entirely reasonable thing for a GM to request if he's trading a top guy away. 

I definitely wouldn't do anything as commish. 

I'd probably drop out of the league if the commish intervened. 

But I also fully lean way toward commish vetoing trade stuff as a last resort. 

Edited by Joe Bryant
  • Like 12
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

This seems way like collusion and instead just a condition on a trade. 

I'm assuming this was out in the open.

Not wanting to face the player he traded is an entirely reasonable thing for a GM to request if he's trading a top guy away. 

I definitely wouldn't do anything as commish. 

I'd probably drop out of the league if the commish intervened. 

But I also fully lean way toward commish vetoing trade stuff as a last resort. 

Not out in the open.  Found out after the fact 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Judge Smails said:

Not out in the open.  Found out after the fact 

Like in a secret recording or something? 

Or you just asked them?

I wouldn't expect this would be something they'd announce. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

This seems way like collusion and instead just a condition on a trade. 

I'm assuming this was out in the open.

Not wanting to face the player he traded is an entirely reasonable thing for a GM to request if he's trading a top guy away. 

I definitely wouldn't do anything as commish. 

I'd probably drop out of the league if the commish intervened. 

But I also fully lean way toward commish vetoing trade stuff as a last resort. 

Not in the open.
 

So is there any limit to “conditions” on a trade? I’ll tank when I play you week 13? I won’t start Mahomes?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Stinkin Ref said:

I think you meant "no" way like collusion....?

:bag:

Correct. I'll edit. Thanks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Joe Bryant said:

Like in a secret recording or something? 

Or you just asked them?

I wouldn't expect this would be something they'd announce. 

They denied it.  Tried to hide.  Then after questioning one admitted it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Judge Smails said:

Not out in the open.  Found out after the fact 

they had no responsibility to publicize the details of the agreement....

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Judge Smails said:

 

So is there any limit to “conditions” on a trade? 

Sure. I'd say the conditions need to be reasonable. 

Not wanting to face the guy you just traded away seems entirely reasonable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Stinkin Ref said:

they had no responsibility to publicize the details of the agreement....

I disagree. If you have a condition in a trade agreement that isn't obvious on a website, then you should absolutely share that with the league at the time of the trade and certainly should not hide it from the league. That is very poor form.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Joe Bryant said:

Sure. I'd say the conditions need to be reasonable. 

Not wanting to face the guy you just traded away seems entirely reasonable. 

Seems to me could invite tanking. Teams fielding what they believe to be their most competitive lineups every week is the cornerstone to league integrity. It doesn’t affect just those 2 owners. It affects those vying for playoffs. Team B above would have been eliminated from playoff contention. Because owner A sat Michael Thomas he’s not. Team A has division locked up

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, IHEARTFF said:

I disagree. If you have a condition in a trade agreement that isn't obvious on a website, then you should absolutely share that with the league at the time of the trade and certainly should not hide it from the league. That is very poor form.

I can see that side too.

If I were part of this trade, I'd assume the condition would be obvious if the top 5 guy I traded for wasn't in my starting lineup that week. That's pretty obvious. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Judge Smails said:

Seems to me could invite tanking. Teams fielding what they believe to be their most competitive lineups every week is the cornerstone to league integrity. It doesn’t affect just those 2 owners. It affects those vying for playoffs. Team B above would have been eliminated from playoff contention. Because owner A sat Michael Thomas he’s not. Team A has division locked up

i guess if one took it to extremes it could lead to tanking.

But this situation seems like the opposite of tanking. The player that weakened his team trading away a great player asked for a condition that gave him an advantage in winning the game. That's the opposite of tanking. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Joe Bryant said:

i guess if one took it to extremes it could lead to tanking.

 

7 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

Sure. I'd say the conditions need to be reasonable.

Common sense isn't very common.  As you may be right that this could fit in a 'it's not a big deal let it go", we all know that grey area in fantasy leagues leads to disaster.  Things need to be cut and dry, and what is "reasonable" is the most subjective and dangerous term there is.

I agree, where do you draw the line?  This little "deal" caused another team to potentially miss playoffs because owner A PURPOSELY didn't start his best line up possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Deamon said:

 

Common sense isn't very common.  As you may be right that this could fit in a 'it's not a big deal let it go", we all know that grey area in fantasy leagues leads to disaster.  Things need to be cut and dry, and what is "reasonable" is the most subjective and dangerous term there is.

I agree, where do you draw the line?  This little "deal" caused another team to potentially miss playoffs because owner A PURPOSELY didn't start his best line up possible.

so that he could improve his lineup for the rest of the season......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Stinkin Ref said:

so that he could improve his lineup for the rest of the season......

That's irrelevant.  He purposely didn't try his hardest to win that week.

So you support a "I'll give you a 3rd rounder if you don't start Mahomes this week" ?   He's improving his line up long term by taking a loss that week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Deamon said:

That's irrelevant.  He purposely didn't try his hardest to win that week.

So you support a "I'll give you a 3rd rounder if you don't start Mahomes this week" ?   He's improving his line up long term by taking a loss that week.

Which can be construed as a fair trade piece to get a deal done. I just do not agree with hiding that from the league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Deamon said:

That's irrelevant.  He purposely didn't try his hardest to win that week.

So you support a "I'll give you a 3rd rounder if you don't start Mahomes this week" ?   He's improving his line up long term by taking a loss that week.

in no way shape or form is it irrelevant.....it is the sole reason the agreement was made....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, IHEARTFF said:

Which can be construed as a fair trade piece to get a deal done. I just do not agree with hiding that from the league.

So it's Week 12 and owner A has clinched 1st place.  He faces owner B who gets in if he wins.  Are you honestly telling me that you'd be okay with owner B giving owner A a future draft pick if he sat all of his starters that week?

@Stinkin Ref would you be okay with the above scenario?

Edited by Deamon
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, IHEARTFF said:

Which can be construed as a fair trade piece to get a deal done. I just do not agree with hiding that from the league.

I can see that.

Again though, if I did this deal, I'd assume me not starting the top 5 WR I just traded for this week was making it clear something was up. That's pretty out in the open assuming it's a league where owners care. Which I'm assuming @Judge Smails 's league is a good one where people care. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Deamon said:

So it's Week 12 and owner A has clinched 1st place.  He faces owner B who gets in if he wins.  Are you honestly telling me that you'd be okay with owner B giving owner A a future draft pick if he sat all of his starters that week?

@Stinkin Ref would you be okay with the above scenario?

I think that's where common sense comes into play. Sitting the one player you traded away so you don't have to face him is entirely reasonable. I'd say every GM who's ever traded away a top player has felt this. NFL teams often talk about not wanting to trade to a division opponent. 

Sitting every one of your starters is a very different thing in my opinion. 

Edited by Joe Bryant
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Deamon said:

So it's Week 12 and owner A has clinched 1st place.  He faces owner B who gets in if he wins.  Are you honestly telling me that you'd be okay with owner B giving owner A a future draft pick if he sat all of his starters that week?

@Stinkin Ref would you be okay with the above scenario?

every situation is different and as much as you want to say the two scenarios are the same at their core.....they just aren't .....as Joe mentioned above....the "conditions" need to be reasonable and judged separately......I would have a different answer to your scenario, but that doesn't mean the one presented in the initial post is the same... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't look at it as Team A is helping Team B win. Team A is making a concession in order to get the deal done.  What if Thomas was instead on a bye?  There'd be no issue trading B a player that he could use against him for a player that couldn't be used by A against B.  I've often waited to buy a player on his bye in order to acquire them... 

Not admitting it at the time of trade was bad judgment on their part. 

Edited by wlwiles
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope. Team A made a concession to get the deal done. Good on him.

If someone was trading Melvin Gordon for a stud like a healthy Austin Ekeler, I could see the case. You lose all credibility making a deal like that.

Edited by millertyme1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this was a redraft league, then as a commissioner, I say no. It's not collusion.

Trading future picks and such gets a little messy, but my goodness, a trade is a trade in redraft. Some trades work out to awesome for certain teams and some teams end up being totally screwed from that trade that looked lopsided 2-3 weeks ago.  Side conditions be damned. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's how I see it: They should have waited a week to do the trade. But really, what would have been the difference? 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, candian fantasy guy said:

If this was a redraft league, then as a commissioner, I say no. It's not collusion.

Trading future picks and such gets a little messy, but my goodness, a trade is a trade in redraft. Some trades work out to awesome for certain teams and some teams end up being totally screwed from that trade that looked lopsided 2-3 weeks ago.  Side conditions be damned. 

 

1 minute ago, millertyme1 said:

Nope. 

If someone was trading Melvin Gordon for a stud like Austin Ekeler, I could see the case. You lose all credibility making a deal like that.

this thread isnt discussing if the trade was fair...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you can be upset that they didn't announce everything.....you can be upset they tried to hide it....you can be upset that 'as it turned out" it makes it seem even crappier....etc....but bottom line they didn't do anything wrong here....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Stinkin Ref said:

every situation is different and as much as you want to say the two scenarios are the same at their core.....they just aren't .....as Joe mentioned above....the "conditions" need to be reasonable and judged separately......I would have a different answer to your scenario, but that doesn't mean the one presented in the initial post is the same... 

Every situation is different, but a blanket rule is needed in fantasy.  The scenarios at the core are the same... one team purposely didnt start his best line up, in order to improve in the future.  Any way you want to spin that, purposely not trying your hardest to win that week is not okay.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Stinkin Ref said:

you can be upset that they didn't announce everything.....you can be upset they tried to hide it....you can be upset that 'as it turned out" it makes it seem even crappier....etc....but bottom line they didn't do anything wrong here....

bottom line is they made a deal which caused one team to not try his hardest to win.  And this affected the league.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Deamon said:

Every situation is different, but a blanket rule is needed in fantasy.  The scenarios at the core are the same... one team purposely didnt start his best line up, in order to improve in the future.  Any way you want to spin that, purposely not trying your hardest to win that week is not okay.

YOU may think that way.....but owner A would disagree because he has a different agenda than YOU do.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Deamon said:

bottom line is they made a deal which caused one team to not try his hardest to win.  And this affected the league.

Circumstances affect the league weekly though. One guy's kid was sick and he missed setting his lineup on Sunday morning .... league affected. one of my leaguemates missed the auction due to an outbreak of Covid at the plant of which he manages .... league affected. 

 

I don't agree with your premise. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

I think that's where common sense comes into play. Sitting the one player you traded away so you don't have to face him is entirely reasonable. I'd say every GM who's ever traded away a top player has felt this. NFL teams do it all the time not wanting to trade to a division opponent. 

Sitting every one of your starters is a very different thing in my opinion. 

I agree they're very different.  But I could give you an example that might not be AS different.  And one that's very close.  Where is the line drawn?

I think as bad as it sounds, leagues need to eliminate ANY and ALL grey area in fantasy.  You're admitting there's a grey area and this is bad for fantasy leagues in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Stinkin Ref said:

YOU may think that way.....but owner A would disagree because he has a different agenda than YOU do.....

Exactly.  So him sitting all his starters in week 12 when he has nothing to lose, in order to gain in the future, he would also say is okay because he has a different agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, candian fantasy guy said:

Circumstances affect the league weekly though. One guy's kid was sick and he missed setting his lineup on Sunday morning .... league affected. one of my leaguemates missed the auction due to an outbreak of Covid at the plant of which he manages .... league affected. 

 

I don't agree with your premise. 

Purposely and knowingly making a handshake deal to not try your hardest to beat your opponent that week is controllable.  Covid outbreak and kid being sick is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Deamon said:

Every situation is different, but a blanket rule is needed in fantasy.  The scenarios at the core are the same... one team purposely didnt start his best line up, in order to improve in the future.  Any way you want to spin that, purposely not trying your hardest to win that week is not okay.

I don't think it's quite that clear in this situation.  I strongly considered benching Thomas in a league last week because for week 10 I thought my best lineup didn't include him  The acquiring team may have been looking at him as a long term improvement but not the best choice right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Deamon said:

Exactly.  So him sitting all his starters in week 12 when he has nothing to lose, in order to gain in the future, he would also say is okay because he has a different agenda.

you can keep trying to say these are the same as much as you want.....but they aren't

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tom Hagen said:

I don't think it's quite that clear in this situation.  I strongly considered benching Thomas in a league last week because for week 10 I thought my best lineup didn't include him  The acquiring team may have been looking at him as a long term improvement but not the best choice right now.

The team that acquired him OPENLY admitted that he benched him ONLY because the other owner asked him to as part of the trade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Stinkin Ref said:

you can keep trying to say these are the same as much as you want.....but they aren't

They are the same.  He's helping his team long term by not trying to win that week and helping another owner out. 

You can keep trying to make the premises different, but they're not.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Deamon said:

Purposely and knowingly making a handshake deal to not try your hardest to beat your opponent that week is controllable.  Covid outbreak and kid being sick is not.

this is where you keep getting caught up.....to owner A....a "possible" loss (not guaranteed) that week was worth the long term benefit......and that is his decision to make....nobody else's....

you are telling him he has to "do everything possible to win that week".....but he is not allowed to do everything possible to win down the road.....

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Stinkin Ref said:

this is where you keep getting caught up.....to owner A....a "possible" loss (not guaranteed) that week was worth the long term benefit......and that is his decision to make....nobody else's....

you are telling him he has to "do everything possible to win that week".....but he is not allowed to do everything possible to win down the road.....

And benching Mahomes week 12 is also only a "possible" (not guaranteed) loss that is worth the long term benefit.  Is that only his decision to make?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Stinkin Ref said:

this is where you keep getting caught up.....to owner A....a "possible" loss (not guaranteed) that week was worth the long term benefit......and that is his decision to make....nobody else's....

you are telling him he has to "do everything possible to win that week".....but he is not allowed to do everything possible to win down the road.....

 

Absolutely this -  sometimes you have to risk losing the battle (this individual week) in order to win the war (league championship with Thomas in the long term lineup)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Stinkin Ref said:

this is where you keep getting caught up.....to owner A....a "possible" loss (not guaranteed) that week was worth the long term benefit......and that is his decision to make....nobody else's....

you are telling him he has to "do everything possible to win that week".....but he is not allowed to do everything possible to win down the road.....

Exactly. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.