another "Is this collusion" thread (1 Viewer)

[two_dollars]

THIS week 2 players are trading.

Team A is sending Forte, Dunn, Carney, and Cassel

Team B is sending Rodgers, Jacobs, and Ward

THEN they agreed in week 10 to continue the trade:

Team B is sending Rodgers because he wants Warner for the next few weeks, when he will then trade Warner to Team A for Rodgers, who team A originally wanted. He will also send Carney back to Team A because he has Tynes and needs Carney to cover Crosby's (Team B's current kicker) BYE week.

Is this a shady or fair? It seems like they are borrowing each other's players.

 

[by_the_sea_wannabe]

that would be collusion yes.

 

[Buffaloes]

THIS week 2 players are trading.

Team A is sending Forte, Dunn, Carney, and Cassel

Team B is sending Rodgers, Jacobs, and Ward

THEN they agreed in week 10 to continue the trade:

Team B is sending Rodgers because he wants Warner for the next few weeks, when he will then trade Warner to Team A for Rodgers, who team A originally wanted. He will also send Carney back to Team A because he has Tynes and needs Carney to cover Crosby's (Team B's current kicker) BYE week.

Is this a shady or fair? It seems like they are borrowing each other's players.

I agree...Seems like collusion to me.

 

[LionsFan78]

There is no "might be" or "seems" about this. That is 'Player Lending' and it is a textbook example of collusion.

 

[Christo]

THIS week 2 players are trading.

Team A is sending Forte, Dunn, Carney, and Cassel

Team B is sending Rodgers, Jacobs, and Ward

THEN they agreed in week 10 to continue the trade:

Team B is sending Rodgers because he wants Warner for the next few weeks, when he will then trade Warner to Team A for Rodgers, who team A originally wanted. He will also send Carney back to Team A because he has Tynes and needs Carney to cover Crosby's (Team B's current kicker) BYE week.

Is this a shady or fair? It seems like they are borrowing each other's players.

You're being too kind.

 

[dbc925]

We have a rule in our league that prevents this. You cannot trade to get back a player that you traded within the last four weeks. Pretty straight-forward, and nobody wants to "lend" out a player for a month.

 

[two_dollars]

I agree guys, thanks for the responses. I showed this to Team B and he replied that the trade will not go through like this anymore. We'll see what changes they make, hopefully they keep it clean!

 

[poopdawg]

YAYYYY!!!!

Finally, a collusion thread started that involves true collusion.

Yes, this is player lending and should be vetoed.

 

[two_dollars]

apparently they just agreed to do it differently, but they don't see how that's collusion.. I don't understand them..

 

[Moniker]

YAYYYY!!!!Finally, a collusion thread started that involves true collusion. Yes, this is player lending and should be vetoed.

 

[by_the_sea_wannabe]

can we pin this thread, as an example?

 

[khenn]

THIS week 2 players are trading.

Team A is sending Forte, Dunn, Carney, and Cassel

Team B is sending Rodgers, Jacobs, and Ward

THEN they agreed in week 10 to continue the trade:

Team B is sending Rodgers because he wants Warner for the next few weeks, when he will then trade Warner to Team A for Rodgers, who team A originally wanted. He will also send Carney back to Team A because he has Tynes and needs Carney to cover Crosby's (Team B's current kicker) BYE week.

Here's why this is not Collusion. First of all, Collusion would have to involve one team getting a clear advantage. Borrowing players may be considered cheating but unless it gives a team a clear advantage it is *NOT* collusion. If Team A were getting Warner to start in week 9 to cover his bye week and then promptly trading him back, I would agree that would be collusion. To say that having Carney (or any kicker) for a week would give someone an unfair advantage is ridiculous. Team A doesn't want to trade Warner until week 10. Team B needs a quarterback in week 9 so offers to cover the cost of having to pick up a kicker from waivers by offering to additionally trade a kicker for Team B to start in week 8. They then agree to trade Rodgers for Warner and the kicker. Team A already had Warner so no collusion. Team B actually has a disadvantage with Rodgers in week 9 @ Tennessee, so also no collusion (no unfair advantage). If team B were gaining some advantage by having Rodgers in week 9 and then again gaining an advantage by swapping for Warner in week 10, I could see the call for collusion but this is simply a two part trade that includes a kicker swap.

I think it's fair to call this cheating the system to avoid paying transaction fees, but it certainly is not Collusion.

 

[two_dollars]

THIS week 2 players are trading.

Team A is sending Forte, Dunn, Carney, and Cassel

Team B is sending Rodgers, Jacobs, and Ward

THEN they agreed in week 10 to continue the trade:

Team B is sending Rodgers because he wants Warner for the next few weeks, when he will then trade Warner to Team A for Rodgers, who team A originally wanted. He will also send Carney back to Team A because he has Tynes and needs Carney to cover Crosby's (Team B's current kicker) BYE week.

Here's why this is not Collusion. First of all, Collusion would have to involve one team getting a clear advantage. Borrowing players may be considered cheating but unless it gives a team a clear advantage it is *NOT* collusion. If Team A were getting Warner to start in week 9 to cover his bye week and then promptly trading him back, I would agree that would be collusion. To say that having Carney (or any kicker) for a week would give someone an unfair advantage is ridiculous. Team A doesn't want to trade Warner until week 10. Team B needs a quarterback in week 9 so offers to cover the cost of having to pick up a kicker from waivers by offering to additionally trade a kicker for Team B to start in week 8. They then agree to trade Rodgers for Warner and the kicker. Team A already had Warner so no collusion. Team B actually has a disadvantage with Rodgers in week 9 @ Tennessee, so also no collusion (no unfair advantage). If team B were gaining some advantage by having Rodgers in week 9 and then again gaining an advantage by swapping for Warner in week 10, I could see the call for collusion but this is simply a two part trade that includes a kicker swap.

I think it's fair to call this cheating the system to avoid paying transaction fees, but it certainly is not Collusion.

People, say hello to TEAM B!!!! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[Buffaloes]

THIS week 2 players are trading.

Team A is sending Forte, Dunn, Carney, and Cassel

Team B is sending Rodgers, Jacobs, and Ward

THEN they agreed in week 10 to continue the trade:

Team B is sending Rodgers because he wants Warner for the next few weeks, when he will then trade Warner to Team A for Rodgers, who team A originally wanted. He will also send Carney back to Team A because he has Tynes and needs Carney to cover Crosby's (Team B's current kicker) BYE week.

Here's why this is not Collusion. First of all, Collusion would have to involve one team getting a clear advantage. Borrowing players may be considered cheating but unless it gives a team a clear advantage it is *NOT* collusion. If Team A were getting Warner to start in week 9 to cover his bye week and then promptly trading him back, I would agree that would be collusion. To say that having Carney (or any kicker) for a week would give someone an unfair advantage is ridiculous. Team A doesn't want to trade Warner until week 10. Team B needs a quarterback in week 9 so offers to cover the cost of having to pick up a kicker from waivers by offering to additionally trade a kicker for Team B to start in week 8. They then agree to trade Rodgers for Warner and the kicker. Team A already had Warner so no collusion. Team B actually has a disadvantage with Rodgers in week 9 @ Tennessee, so also no collusion (no unfair advantage). If team B were gaining some advantage by having Rodgers in week 9 and then again gaining an advantage by swapping for Warner in week 10, I could see the call for collusion but this is simply a two part trade that includes a kicker swap.

I think it's fair to call this cheating the system to avoid paying transaction fees, but it certainly is not Collusion.

People, say hello to TEAM B!!!! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

All of a sudden this post makes sense.

 

[Bayhawks]

THIS week 2 players are trading.

Team A is sending Forte, Dunn, Carney, and Cassel

Team B is sending Rodgers, Jacobs, and Ward

THEN they agreed in week 10 to continue the trade:

Team B is sending Rodgers because he wants Warner for the next few weeks, when he will then trade Warner to Team A for Rodgers, who team A originally wanted. He will also send Carney back to Team A because he has Tynes and needs Carney to cover Crosby's (Team B's current kicker) BYE week.

Here's why this is not Collusion. First of all, Collusion would have to involve one team getting a clear advantage. Borrowing players may be considered cheating but unless it gives a team a clear advantage it is *NOT* collusion. If Team A were getting Warner to start in week 9 to cover his bye week and then promptly trading him back, I would agree that would be collusion. To say that having Carney (or any kicker) for a week would give someone an unfair advantage is ridiculous. Team A doesn't want to trade Warner until week 10. Team B needs a quarterback in week 9 so offers to cover the cost of having to pick up a kicker from waivers by offering to additionally trade a kicker for Team B to start in week 8. They then agree to trade Rodgers for Warner and the kicker. Team A already had Warner so no collusion. Team B actually has a disadvantage with Rodgers in week 9 @ Tennessee, so also no collusion (no unfair advantage). If team B were gaining some advantage by having Rodgers in week 9 and then again gaining an advantage by swapping for Warner in week 10, I could see the call for collusion but this is simply a two part trade that includes a kicker swap.

I think it's fair to call this cheating the system to avoid paying transaction fees, but it certainly is not Collusion.

Here's why it is collusion. Collusion doesn't have to involve one team getting a clear advantage. Collusion involves two (or more teams) working together (that's the "co" in collusion) to get around the rules of your league. By "lending" each other players, you are getting around the rules of your league, therefore it is collusion.

 

[khenn]

People, say hello to TEAM B!!!! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Regardless of who I am, it doesn't change the facts. The facts are that neither team is gaining an unfair advantage over an opposing team through this trade and therefore not collusion as the title of your post suggests? Again, perhaps it was a player swap but to say that it would give me a benefit in week 8 with Carney or him a benefit in week 9 with Rodgers @ Tennessee is simply ######ed. You came crying here to these boards about and then had to make it personal so obviously you had a problem with the trade, we acknowledged that, and adjusted it to what you considered fair ( the trade went Rodgers, Jacobs, and Ward for Cassell, Forte, and Dunn with nothing changing hands in week 10)Team A and I never tried to hide what we were doing or conspire to beat other teams and the trade wasn't rigged to give one team an unfair advantage over another so you can't call it Collusion. End of story.

 

[The Football Freak]

People, say hello to TEAM B!!!! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Regardless of who I am, it doesn't change the facts. The facts are that neither team is gaining an unfair advantage over an opposing team through this trade and therefore not collusion as the title of your post suggests? Again, perhaps it was a player swap but to say that it would give me a benefit in week 8 with Carney or him a benefit in week 9 with Rodgers @ Tennessee is simply ######ed. You came crying here to these boards about and then had to make it personal so obviously you had a problem with the trade, we acknowledged that, and adjusted it to what you considered fair ( the trade went Rodgers, Jacobs, and Ward for Cassell, Forte, and Dunn with nothing changing hands in week 10)Team A and I never tried to hide what we were doing or conspire to beat other teams and the trade wasn't rigged to give one team an unfair advantage over another so you can't call it Collusion. End of story.

It is collusion.

 

[apalmer]

THIS week 2 players are trading.

Team A is sending Forte, Dunn, Carney, and Cassel

Team B is sending Rodgers, Jacobs, and Ward

THEN they agreed in week 10 to continue the trade:

Team B is sending Rodgers because he wants Warner for the next few weeks, when he will then trade Warner to Team A for Rodgers, who team A originally wanted. He will also send Carney back to Team A because he has Tynes and needs Carney to cover Crosby's (Team B's current kicker) BYE week.

Here's why this is not Collusion. First of all, Collusion would have to involve one team getting a clear advantage. Borrowing players may be considered cheating but unless it gives a team a clear advantage it is *NOT* collusion. If Team A were getting Warner to start in week 9 to cover his bye week and then promptly trading him back, I would agree that would be collusion. To say that having Carney (or any kicker) for a week would give someone an unfair advantage is ridiculous. Team A doesn't want to trade Warner until week 10. Team B needs a quarterback in week 9 so offers to cover the cost of having to pick up a kicker from waivers by offering to additionally trade a kicker for Team B to start in week 8. They then agree to trade Rodgers for Warner and the kicker. Team A already had Warner so no collusion. Team B actually has a disadvantage with Rodgers in week 9 @ Tennessee, so also no collusion (no unfair advantage). If team B were gaining some advantage by having Rodgers in week 9 and then again gaining an advantage by swapping for Warner in week 10, I could see the call for collusion but this is simply a two part trade that includes a kicker swap.

I think it's fair to call this cheating the system to avoid paying transaction fees, but it certainly is not Collusion.

Here's why it is collusion. Collusion doesn't have to involve one team getting a clear advantage. Collusion involves two (or more teams) working together (that's the "co" in collusion) to get around the rules of your league. By "lending" each other players, you are getting around the rules of your league, therefore it is collusion.

All trades are completed because a team thinks it is going to get an advantage. That is NOT the test of collusion. And why would it be "cheating" if it wasn't collusion?

 

[khenn]

Here's why it is collusion. Collusion doesn't have to involve one team getting a clear advantage. Collusion involves two (or more teams) working together (that's the "co" in collusion) to get around the rules of your league. By "lending" each other players, you are getting around the rules of your league, therefore it is collusion.

You are wrong, sir.Collusion is by definition is an agreement, usually secretive, which occurs between two or more persons to deceive, mislead, defraud, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically involving fraud or gaining an unfair advantage. It can involve "wage fixing, kickbacks, or misrepresenting the independence of the relationship between the colluding parties.1) Our league has no official rule against "player swapping"2) We didn't make this trade secret since we discussed it with two_dollars who came crying foul here.3) Neither player gained any sort of advantage from this that would give either team an unfair advantage in any of the weeks involvedBy the very definition, it is not collusion.

 

[lgamble82]

Here's why it is collusion. Collusion doesn't have to involve one team getting a clear advantage. Collusion involves two (or more teams) working together (that's the "co" in collusion) to get around the rules of your league. By "lending" each other players, you are getting around the rules of your league, therefore it is collusion.

You are wrong, sir.Collusion is by definition is an agreement, usually secretive, which occurs between two or more persons to deceive, mislead, defraud, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically involving fraud or gaining an unfair advantage. It can involve "wage fixing, kickbacks, or misrepresenting the independence of the relationship between the colluding parties.1) Our league has no official rule against "player swapping"2) We didn't make this trade secret since we discussed it with two_dollars who came crying foul here.3) Neither player gained any sort of advantage from this that would give either team an unfair advantage in any of the weeks involvedBy the very definition, it is not collusion.

How do you sleep at night?

 

[khenn]

It is collusion.

I tend not to believe people who can't back up their statements. Care to elaborate?

 

[GregR_2]

THIS week 2 players are trading.Team A is sending Forte, Dunn, Carney, and CasselTeam B is sending Rodgers, Jacobs, and WardTHEN they agreed in week 10 to continue the trade:Team B is sending Rodgers because he wants Warner for the next few weeks, when he will then trade Warner to Team A for Rodgers, who team A originally wanted. He will also send Carney back to Team A because he has Tynes and needs Carney to cover Crosby's (Team B's current kicker) BYE week.Is this a shady or fair? It seems like they are borrowing each other's players.

To avoid this situation entirely, I go with a rule that disallows any trades that cannot be completed in a single transaction, with the exception of draft picks involved in a trade that are contingent on player performance or some similar factor.So any agreements to do future transactions that hinge on ones done now would not be allowed.

 

[khenn]

How do you sleep at night?

How do my sleeping habits have any impact whatsoever to the question of whether or not this trade that never happened would have been a case of collusion if it had? I'd say stick to the topic and stop making accusations about my character based on something you clearly don't understand.

 

[lgamble82]

It is collusion.

I tend not to believe people who can't back up their statements. Care to elaborate?

Would you let someone own two teams in your league. One guy, with two teams. Whenever Team A is playing a better team, transfer the best players to him, and let Team B play the easier team with the scrubs... and when it comes to playoffs, give all of the great players to one team? I mean, obviously it would be ok, as long as he told everyone in the league that was his plan from the start right? I mean its cool as long as it isn't a secret

2: We didn't make this trade secret.

I mean, as long as you are screwing people out in the open, it makes it right... I see you point now... carry on

 

[two_dollars]

It is collusion, end of story.. neither you or (Team A) see it, but it is.. you are lending him rodgers in place of warner just to get the trade done so you have a bigger advantage over a rival due to a matchup, when that is done, you will give him the player he wanted. You are COLLUDING against that rival!

 

[Ice Cream Man]

You are wrong, sir.Collusion is by definition is an agreement, usually secretive, which occurs between two or more persons to deceive, mislead, defraud, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically involving fraud or gaining an unfair advantage. It can involve "wage fixing, kickbacks, or misrepresenting the independence of the relationship between the colluding parties.

Actually, the courts have ruled that any sort of agreement to manipulate prices -- whether to the benefit or harm to consumers -- constitutes price fixing/collusion. There's no threshold to prove "both benefit"... only to prove that they are cooperating.

 

[lgamble82]

How do you sleep at night?

How do my sleeping habits have any impact whatsoever to the question of whether or not this trade that never happened would have been a case of collusion if it had? I'd say stick to the topic and stop making accusations about my character based on something you clearly don't understand.

Nevermind, i know how you sleep....

How can i screw my friends over this week... so they wont invite me next year to play in their league

 

[GregR_2]

It is collusion.

I tend not to believe people who can't back up their statements. Care to elaborate?

What you're doing is you are pooling your players and roster space for use by 2 teams. In principle it isn't any different than if another team and I get together and we agree he'll draft good backup QBs and WRs and defenses that avoid either team's starter byes, and I'll do the same with RBs, TEs, and PKs, and then we'll share the back players back and forth as needed to cover our byes, giving each of us a few more roster spots we can use on our sleepers.I hope that is pretty obviously not what a sports or games of individual competition are about. That's the same as you're doing, you just are doing it for fewer weeks and with less players. The level of cooperation you're showing goes beyond what most people believe the spirit of sports is. If that still didn't get through, here's another for instance for you. Your kid's baseball team is in a tournament. One team loans its second best pitcher, who won't be pitching right away and will have plenty of time to rest, to the team your kid plays to pitch for them. Would you feel like your kid was getting a fair shake in the tournament, or would you feel those two teams were acting way beyond the spirit of individual competition you expect in games and sports like this?

 

[scratcher]

Wow, some people take FF wayyy too seriously.

 

[ukshane]

You do have an "unfair advantage" because you are sharing rosters.

Would you and your buddy rather play stud against other people with 2 individually dealt 5 card hands or one deck of 10 cards from which you can choose the best possible 5 card hands?

 

[apalmer]

Here's why it is collusion. Collusion doesn't have to involve one team getting a clear advantage. Collusion involves two (or more teams) working together (that's the "co" in collusion) to get around the rules of your league. By "lending" each other players, you are getting around the rules of your league, therefore it is collusion.

You are wrong, sir.Collusion is by definition is an agreement, usually secretive, which occurs between two or more persons to deceive, mislead, defraud, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically involving fraud or gaining an unfair advantage. It can involve "wage fixing, kickbacks, or misrepresenting the independence of the relationship between the colluding parties.

1) Our league has no official rule against "player swapping"

2) We didn't make this trade secret since we discussed it with two_dollars who came crying foul here.

3) Neither player gained any sort of advantage from this that would give either team an unfair advantage in any of the weeks involved

By the very definition, it is not collusion.

Wrong. Note the bolded words. "usually" secretive doesn't mean "always" secretive. the fact that it isn't secretive doesn't disqualify it from collusion. "Or" gaining an unfair advantage does not mean "and" gaining an unfair advantage. If it's fraudulent, it can be collusive without being secretive or "gaining an unfair advantage". "Fraudulent" means underhanded or cheating. You've already acknowledged it was cheating, so ergo, it is fraudulent and therefore collusive. BTW, you're also incorrect that it doesn't create an unfair advantage. You question how much of an advantage a kicker or Rodgers against Tennessee migh be, but it doesn't matter if it is a single point advantage, it is an advantage.

 

[The Football Freak]

It is collusion.

I tend not to believe people who can't back up their statements. Care to elaborate?

I tend not to needlessly back up statements when it is so patently obvious. I have been playing this game for over 10 years with some very stiff competition, and our rules have MANY clauses because of people trying to pull stuff like this. It is collusion. I'm not saying you are shady or are trying to be purposefully deceptive, but it is just too plainly obvious to really have to explain myself.

 

[Moniker]

It is collusion.

I tend not to believe people who can't back up their statements. Care to elaborate?

Actually, you have already proven that you tend to not believe anyone who tells you the truth that this is collusion, whether or not they back up their statements.It is collusion.

 

[lgamble82]

Can I borrow Kurt Warner next? I need him for the playoffs.

I'll take him for week 15 & 17 and give him back for week 16

 

[gman74]

can we pin this thread, as an example?

Can we move these threads to the FFA forum where they belong

 

[AnonymousBob]

khenn,

Just because you keep saying we're all wrong and it isn't collusion doesn't mean you and Team A are both in the clear.

It IS collusion. You're the only person saying what you guys did was okay. And if you read the normal collusion threads in the Shark Pool, most posters defend any and all trade, no matter how one sided it may be. Yet nobody is taking your side in this one.

 

[Anthony Borbely]

As far as I'm concerned, this kind of collusion is WORSE than a stud being traded for a scrub. This goes against the spirit of fair competition and sportsmanship, and there does not need to be a perfectly crafted rule in legalese to know that. I honestly do not know a single person who would think this deal is not collusion.

 

[Jail]

THIS week 2 players are trading.

Team A is sending Forte, Dunn, Carney, and Cassel

Team B is sending Rodgers, Jacobs, and Ward

THEN they agreed in week 10 to continue the trade:

Team B is sending Rodgers because he wants Warner for the next few weeks, when he will then trade Warner to Team A for Rodgers, who team A originally wanted. He will also send Carney back to Team A because he has Tynes and needs Carney to cover Crosby's (Team B's current kicker) BYE week.

Here's why this is not Collusion. First of all, Collusion would have to involve one team getting a clear advantage. Borrowing players may be considered cheating but unless it gives a team a clear advantage it is *NOT* collusion. If Team A were getting Warner to start in week 9 to cover his bye week and then promptly trading him back, I would agree that would be collusion. To say that having Carney (or any kicker) for a week would give someone an unfair advantage is ridiculous. Team A doesn't want to trade Warner until week 10. Team B needs a quarterback in week 9 so offers to cover the cost of having to pick up a kicker from waivers by offering to additionally trade a kicker for Team B to start in week 8. They then agree to trade Rodgers for Warner and the kicker. Team A already had Warner so no collusion. Team B actually has a disadvantage with Rodgers in week 9 @ Tennessee, so also no collusion (no unfair advantage). If team B were gaining some advantage by having Rodgers in week 9 and then again gaining an advantage by swapping for Warner in week 10, I could see the call for collusion but this is simply a two part trade that includes a kicker swap.

I think it's fair to call this cheating the system to avoid paying transaction fees, but it certainly is not Collusion.

Here's why it is collusion. Collusion doesn't have to involve one team getting a clear advantage. Collusion involves two (or more teams) working together (that's the "co" in collusion) to get around the rules of your league. By "lending" each other players, you are getting around the rules of your league, therefore it is collusion.

You're not gaining an advantage by keeping Warner for just a little bit longer? Then why do it? He is essentially loaning Warner to you for a couple games. He's not gaining an advantage by getting Rodgers for a game? Then why do it? You are essentially loaning Rodgers to him for a week.

If you were his opponent on week 9 would you loan him Rodgers for that week?

It is clearly collusion and I think only you & team A would see it another way.

 

[hellz_fireflies]

Have the entire league vote on it.

And make a mid-season rule on this, since not many leagues (if any) do this!

 

[two_dollars]

I think I convinced him of how it is. He is colluding against the team he's holding Warner for. He is giving up a "lesser" QB in Rodgers to get the trade done for the use of Forte vs his opponent in week 10, on the condition he sends completes the Warner/Rodgers trade.

I think he now sees the collusion in it.

 

[Ruffrodys05]

Plain and simple, this is collusion by lending players between two teams within specific time frames.

To think this is not collusion is dilusional.

We have a rule in my league which forbids lending of players. Maybe you should consider adding this type of rule into your league rules also.

 

[PoolShark]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't agree that this is "collusion" either. I guess it depends on your definition of collusion as it relates to fantasy football. If you want to say it's "shady," ok, I might buy that. Sharing players, ok I'll buy that too.

Realisticly, they could have went through with the first trade today, and the 2nd a few weeks from now, and everyone would have said "it's fine...all trades should be allowed." Unless I'm misreading something, I don't think either portion of the deal is heavily lopsided one way or another.

That said, the league I run has rules in place that prevent this type of deal: trading back players, trades that also include future deals that are agreed upon now but don't take place until later, etc. I don't agree that this type of thing should take place, but I think everyone is going a little overboard with the cries of "Collusion! Collusion!"

Someone posted earlier that the "secretive" part wasn't essential, but I disagree. If this had been worked out & agreed upon in secret, it probably would have went through & no one would have cared. They're up front about the deal, and they're called "cheaters," etc. That's kind of excessive for simply trying to cover a couple byes within the trade they're putting together, IMO. If you don't want trades like this to be legal, set rules that prevent it.

 

[Chachi]

Team B is as honorable as the McCain campaigns tactics.

 

[Black]

THIS week 2 players are trading.Team A is sending Forte, Dunn, Carney, and CasselTeam B is sending Rodgers, Jacobs, and WardTHEN they agreed in week 10 to continue the trade:Team B is sending Rodgers because he wants Warner for the next few weeks, when he will then trade Warner to Team A for Rodgers, who team A originally wanted. He will also send Carney back to Team A because he has Tynes and needs Carney to cover Crosby's (Team B's current kicker) BYE week.Is this a shady or fair? It seems like they are borrowing each other's players.

If they are outright admitting to borrowing players (like, I'll trade you this guy for my bye week), that's not only collusion, but in Texas we call it Bull####.

 

[apalmer]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't agree that this is "collusion" either. I guess it depends on your definition of collusion as it relates to fantasy football. If you want to say it's "shady," ok, I might buy that. Sharing players, ok I'll buy that too.

Realisticly, they could have went through with the first trade today, and the 2nd a few weeks from now, and everyone would have said "it's fine...all trades should be allowed." Unless I'm misreading something, I don't think either portion of the deal is heavily lopsided one way or another.

That said, the league I run has rules in place that prevent this type of deal: trading back players, trades that also include future deals that are agreed upon now but don't take place until later, etc. I don't agree that this type of thing should take place, but I think everyone is going a little overboard with the cries of "Collusion! Collusion!"

Someone posted earlier that the "secretive" part wasn't essential, but I disagree. If this had been worked out & agreed upon in secret, it probably would have went through & no one would have cared. They're up front about the deal, and they're called "cheaters," etc. That's kind of excessive for simply trying to cover a couple byes within the trade they're putting together, IMO. If you don't want trades like this to be legal, set rules that prevent it.

sharing players = collusion. You can't say it's sharing players but not collusion.

 

[khenn]

Until two_dollar pointed out that I was gaining a clear advantage in having Forte in week 9, I hadn't heard an argument that made this a clear case of Collusion. Regardless of what you think, the attacks on my integrity are unfair since we acknowledged that one of the players in our league had a beef and we DIDN'T MAKE THIS TRADE.

While I can see how this could be construed as collusion now, I still don't think it is since our intent was never to "gang up" or unfairly stack up our teams to beat another team in the league. Collusion does imply intent. Even two_dollar will agree that both Team A and I play by the rules and tend to be fair about things. I could make the argument that Warner and Rodgers are pretty much a wash, but I can't make the argument that Forte and Jacobs are so therefore I will concede this argument.

And for the guy who accused me of having the ethics of John McCain, I have only this to say:

Obama 2008!

 

[the UFFRM]

khenn is a kholluder and should be khicked out of your league.

 

[Wrigley]

I'm playing Portis over him

 

[PatsFanCT]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't agree that this is "collusion" either. I guess it depends on your definition of collusion as it relates to fantasy football. If you want to say it's "shady," ok, I might buy that. Sharing players, ok I'll buy that too. Realisticly, they could have went through with the first trade today, and the 2nd a few weeks from now, and everyone would have said "it's fine...all trades should be allowed." Unless I'm misreading something, I don't think either portion of the deal is heavily lopsided one way or another.That said, the league I run has rules in place that prevent this type of deal: trading back players, trades that also include future deals that are agreed upon now but don't take place until later, etc. I don't agree that this type of thing should take place, but I think everyone is going a little overboard with the cries of "Collusion! Collusion!" Someone posted earlier that the "secretive" part wasn't essential, but I disagree. If this had been worked out & agreed upon in secret, it probably would have went through & no one would have cared. They're up front about the deal, and they're called "cheaters," etc. That's kind of excessive for simply trying to cover a couple byes within the trade they're putting together, IMO. If you don't want trades like this to be legal, set rules that prevent it.

People, say hello to TEAM A!!!! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[PoolShark]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't agree that this is "collusion" either. I guess it depends on your definition of collusion as it relates to fantasy football. If you want to say it's "shady," ok, I might buy that. Sharing players, ok I'll buy that too. Realisticly, they could have went through with the first trade today, and the 2nd a few weeks from now, and everyone would have said "it's fine...all trades should be allowed." Unless I'm misreading something, I don't think either portion of the deal is heavily lopsided one way or another.That said, the league I run has rules in place that prevent this type of deal: trading back players, trades that also include future deals that are agreed upon now but don't take place until later, etc. I don't agree that this type of thing should take place, but I think everyone is going a little overboard with the cries of "Collusion! Collusion!" Someone posted earlier that the "secretive" part wasn't essential, but I disagree. If this had been worked out & agreed upon in secret, it probably would have went through & no one would have cared. They're up front about the deal, and they're called "cheaters," etc. That's kind of excessive for simply trying to cover a couple byes within the trade they're putting together, IMO. If you don't want trades like this to be legal, set rules that prevent it.

People, say hello to TEAM A!!!! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Not so much, but nice try.