Collusion? (1 Viewer)

[smlevin]

That's a great way for him to drop down from 20 leagues this year to 10 next year. I've been in Unlucky's Leagues both last year & this season & trust Unlucky completely. But it really doesn't matter that I trust him. I've discovered that we have completely different views on acceptable league management from this thread.

Thankfully I'm not in the league that Holmes was traded for a servicable #2 & #3 WR & a backup RB in RBBC. Even so, I'm now dreading that it could happen in one of the leagues I'm in, as there are multiple family members involved.

I don't believe there are 2 or 3 #####ing whining owners in this case. I have heard from multiple owners in his leagues not even involved in this situation that now have their eyes wide open as to what could happen. I understand Unlucky not reversing his original decision on this trade, as it would set a terrible precedent on future deals. I just hope that he looks at other similar trades more closely before announcing a decision.

I completely agree with you that Unlucky's METHOD of evaluating which trades to nix is poor, but how else is he supposed to run multiple leagues?I trust his analysis of the situation - though I think it is further from a close call than he makes it to be. It was an inequitable trade, FOR SURE. Nooon can doubt that. But, he has said explicitly in the rules that he will not nix an UNFAIR trade - only collusive ones. This trade stunk- I would have analyzed it as collusive. In the context of THIS PARTICULAR trade, I believe Unlucky made a bad call on the collusive nature of the trade (taking e-mails from each party is an ineffective way of judging collusion).

I should have stated the rule better: "I will allow ANY and ALL trades, no matter how inequitable or how one-sided they seem to be to you, or how unbalanced the league appears to become, UNLESS I am thoroughly convinced there is collusion involved. It is not my, or your, job to second guess another owner's strategy.

 

[Pick]

I don't see why we can't view the emails unless there is some damning evidence contained therein supporting stupidity and/or collusion.Very suspicious.

 

[mcd]

I don't see why we can't view the emails unless there is some damning evidence contained therein supporting stupidity and/or collusion.Very suspicious

Well...I agree with Unlucky that it is in poor form to send private emails to a list. That said, when me & my brother joined his league last season I emailed Unlucky to discuss the collusion rule & if he had a problem with 2 family members in the same league. I mentioned that we rarely if ever made a trade with each other & wanted to know if he would have a problem with us in a league together, noting that I did understand extreme examination of any trade we would make. His reply was it was fine & that he had never really had a problem in his leagues with trade situations & didn't forsee any, something along those lines. I don't remember the exact wording but I came away from the conversation feeling that Unlucky would not allow any funny stuff to happen. Personally, I don't feel that you can EVER prove collusion, but if 2 family members make an unreasonably lopsided trade, it should be enough evidence. I've always felt if I was going to make a really stupid trade, it wouldn't be with my brother. Hell, he's the last person I want to beat me.

 

[smlevin]

Personally, I don't feel that you can EVER prove collusion, but if 2 family members make an unreasonably lopsided trade, it should be enough evidence. I've always felt if I was going to make a really stupid trade, it wouldn't be with my brother. Hell, he's the last person I want to beat me.

I am, again, in 100 percent agreement here on most points. The only point I dispute is whether trades between family members should be held to a higher standard. (they should not)What I agree with is that Unlucky needs to seriously re-evaluate what "appears" to be collusive to him. The trade at issue here smells funny enough that I would have looked at it a lot deeper than simply gettimg positions from the two parties involved in the supposed collusion.He should also seriously re-evaluate what the line is between "inequitable" and "so one-sided that the trade should be nix'd"If he wants to have a hands-off attitude regarding vetos based on collusion, that is fine - but, I would replace it with a checks and balance system where a trade can be nix'd by the rest of the league if he receives, say, 3/4 of the "non-trading" owners objecting to the trade.

 

[Scrapper]

Points-wise, the Priest owner is getting two guys that will likely make up for any deficit, while providing injury insurance. The guy getting Priest may be putting all of his eggs in that one basket, but he is also getting the homerun hitter.

:rotflmao: By our point system, Priest is the #1 guy in the league, and none of the other players are even CLOSE. The guy with Priest has Ricky Williams, Coles, Toomer, and plenty of other good players- his eggs are not all in one basket because he didn't have to give any of his good eggs up to get Priest- that's the point.I see what Unlucky is saying, and there's not much else I can do at this pointbut disagree with him. The only thing I would like addressed is this: one of the owners involved in the trade has publicly stated that he has E-mailed Unlucky (more than once) asking the trade be overturned. Why is Unlucky choosing to ignore this? It seems more of a point of pride than of fairness at this point that this trade is being allowed to stand.

 

[Pick]

Honestly, I sympathize with Unlucky and other commishes who have to deal with this. However, I think a commish can set himself up for problems if he doesn't allow for a 75% vote in the affirmative to pass all trades.To me, the bottom line for a commish is to protect the integrity of the league.THE REASONS FOR A TRADE BEING LOPSIDED ARE IRRELEVANT. It doesn't matter if a trade is lopsided because of collusion, stupidity, differing opinions, or whatever. If 75% of the league believes the trade shouldn't go through, then there should be no argument. This is another way to keep the playing field level instead of lettin it tip one way because of the stupidity and/or scheming of a few owners.

 

[Unlucky]

Scrapper - he said that he would be OK with me reversing the trade to keep people happy. But the other team hasn't said that he's OK with reversing the trade. So obviously, the guy taking a lot of heat for giving up Priest is willing to get Priest back. I wish there was a mathematical formula for determining trade fairness. The problem is that doesn't exist. It makes it especially difficult when trading one great player for 2 or 3 mediocre to good players. To me, collusion is when you purposely make a bad trade. It's not when you make an uneven trade. All trades are uneven. Most help both owners, but someone is going to benefit more. Based on all the information that I have (which is more than any of you have since I've been in contact with the owners involved) I determined that it was just a bad trade made in desperation. I've emailed the league and only 3 owners seem to be concerned - the 3 with the best records. Does this mean they are just upset because another team got stronger, or that the other owners don't care since they aren't as competitive anyway?Finally, I will likely have to add a trade vetoing clause in the future. I'll probably require 8 out 10 owners to oppose the trade to overturn it. It's too late for that now, but I'll be sure to think this over more for next year so that we can avoid a situation like this.

 

[Scrapper]

Thank you for getting back to me on that. I am not surprised that the team who got Priest is not willing to give him back up, so I guess that's that. Not everyone is willing to do something for the betterment of the league, I guess.Sorry if I was a huge pain in your ### about this. While I do think the league has been compromised, I know you put thought into this and did what you think is fair. Between here and E-mail, I count five owners (counting me) who have commented against this trade, but I guess I was surprised it wasn't more. And I can honestly say I would have been upset about this no matter what my record was, but I do see your point there also.

 

[joffer]

wow...that was a long read.

 

[bagger]

I don't see why we can't view the emails unless there is some damning evidence contained therein supporting stupidity and/or collusion.Very suspicious.

it's none of your business pick.

 

[mcd]

it's none of your business pick.

Geez Sandbagger, if your not in any of Unluckys leagues it would be none of yours either. That didn't stop you from filling up 5 pages with your opinions. Jmo

 

[bagger]

Geez Sandbagger, if your not in any of Unluckys leagues it would be none of yours either. That didn't stop you from filling up 5 pages with your opinions. Jmo

i'm not asking to see confidential e-mails.as scrapper posted this in a public forum, it became my business.

 

[Pick]

Finally, I will likely have to add a trade vetoing clause in the future. I'll probably require 8 out 10 owners to oppose the trade to overturn it. It's too late for that now, but I'll be sure to think this over more for next year so that we can avoid a situation like this.

Cha-ching.

 

[Pick]

I don't see why we can't view the emails unless there is some damning evidence contained therein supporting stupidity and/or collusion.Very suspicious.

it's none of your business pick.

Gimme a break, Whineyboy! We're having a public discussion about a trade. Knowing the reasoning of the owners involved in the trade is a key point, although for me, it's just curiosity as I'd nix the trade for integrity reasons alone."Oh no! Someone is going to see my reasoning on a trade I made."Is knowing this info damning to one owner or something? Comon, we're not askin for the Watergate papers here.

 

[ExtraPoint]

The fact that the owners are related and looking at the deal there is plenty of valid evidence to be suspicious.However there is also plenty of valid evidence that the trade is legit.1. The owner's individual responses to the commish. We might be able to see them here but we dont have to. Unlucky has done nothing to disbelieve the fact that he didnt receive convincing responses.2. The revalation that these owners are in a number of leagues controlled by Unlucky. In other words these owners have a reputation that extends well beyond this trade and even this league. A solid reputation is very strong evidence against collusion. Likewise a tarnished reputation by said owners affects more than just this trade and league.3. The Uncle's statement. The Uncle is in this league also and doesnt like the trade. He did his own investigation. Family members usually have a good idea on other family member's trustworthiness.Bottum line: Gotta trust Unlucky's gut on this one. He has a LOT more knowledge on it than the rest of us do. He also has a crucial reputation of his own to protect. He's not in a position where he can afford to make a lot of bad decisions. With at least a little bit of evidence pointing both ways this is not an easy decision. Gotta believe it was well handled. Worse case scenario is that there is collusion. If so, it will likely be repeated by the owners in question and eventually they will be caught and brought to justice. In either case, a good example will be made. Adding that even if this was a collusive trade, the odds of the cheater winning the league because of it are still slim. The season is still young and one player doesnt win a championship by himself.

 

[refacer]

Not to beat a dead horse though that may be fun. Just a quick update on the week results the guy who got priest lost BIG. the other won his game. Shows maybe it really was made bigger then what it was.

 

[bigfishboy]

Not to beat a dead horse though that may be fun. Just a quick update on the week results the guy who got priest lost BIG. the other won his game. Shows maybe it really was made bigger then what it was.

Refacer,First of all your nephews made a liar out of you because they did not retract the deal. Maybe they aren't the upstanding young men you thought they were.And you conveniently left off any results of this last weekend that might help the readers draw their own conclusions.Sorry for the poor formats, but the receiver of Holmes would have done much worse if he did not have Holmes. He would have likely started RW2 in his place and would have had 15.6 points less:Brady, Tom NEP QB* 4.48 Holmes, Priest KCC RB 20.00 Williams, Ricky MIA RB 12.50 Coles, Laveranues WAS WR 6.00 Price, Peerless ATL WR 0.80 Toomer, Amani NYG WR 4.00 Sharpe, Shannon DEN TE 11.50 Edinger, Paul CHI PK 7.00 Patriots, New England NEP DT 24.77 The giver of Holmes would have done even better if he would have kept Holmes as Boldin, Driver and Williams weren't that good. On his bench he has Bradford, Santana Moss and Muhammed if he would have started Holmes and any two of them he would have scored at least 8.8 points more:Garcia, Jeff SFO QB 13.12 Staley, Duce PHI RB 15.40 Williams, Ricky IND RB* 4.40 Boldin, Anquan ARI WR 9.50 Driver, Donald GBP WR* 5.90 Mason, Derrick TEN WR 35.70 Gonzalez, Tony KCC TE 18.10 Carney, John NOS PK* 8.00 Rams, St. Louis STL DT 32.73 To me it comes down to RW2 + Driver + Boldin vs Holmes, This week Holmes outscored all three by 0.2 points. Thus, the team with Holmes gets the same amount of points, 20, from ONE starting slot instead of 3. The bottom line is still this is a very lopsided trade between two family members in a league were most everyone else does not know one another. Through the eyes of most everyone else this stinks of collusion.:edit to add Santana in front of Moss to minimize confusion.

 

[refacer]

Refacer,First of all your nephews made a liar out of you because they did not retract the deal. Maybe they aren't the upstanding young men you thought they were.And you conveniently left off any results of this last weekend that might help the readers draw their own conclusions.Sorry for the poor formats, but the receiver of Holmes would have done much worse if he did not have Holmes. He would have likely started RW2 in his place and would have had 15.6 points less:Brady, Tom NEP QB* 4.48 Holmes, Priest KCC RB 20.00 Williams, Ricky MIA RB 12.50 Coles, Laveranues WAS WR 6.00 Price, Peerless ATL WR 0.80 Toomer, Amani NYG WR 4.00 Sharpe, Shannon DEN TE 11.50 Edinger, Paul CHI PK 7.00 Patriots, New England NEP DT 24.77 The giver of Holmes would have done even better if he would have kept Holmes as Boldin, Driver and Williams weren't that good. On his bench he has Bradford, Santana Moss and Muhammed if he would have started Holmes and any two of them he would have scored at least 8.8 points more:Garcia, Jeff SFO QB 13.12 Staley, Duce PHI RB 15.40 Williams, Ricky IND RB* 4.40 Boldin, Anquan ARI WR 9.50 Driver, Donald GBP WR* 5.90 Mason, Derrick TEN WR 35.70 Gonzalez, Tony KCC TE 18.10 Carney, John NOS PK* 8.00 Rams, St. Louis STL DT 32.73 To me it comes down to RW2 + Driver + Boldin vs Holmes, This week Holmes outscored all three by 0.2 points. Thus, the team with Holmes gets the same amount of points, 20, from ONE starting slot instead of 3. The bottom line is still this is a very lopsided trade between two family members in a league were most everyone else does not know one another. Through the eyes of most everyone else this stinks of collusion.:edit to add Santana in front of Moss to minimize confusion.

ok one last time. no one made a fool of me FH did email Mike and told him to stop the trade, if you received Mikes answer he was satisfied with their response and let the trade stand. So where was I fooled?

 

[MillerLitePounder]

I quit reading this for a while and just checked in. It is really long so I read the last page. I was one of the original complainers and I do not have a good record in this league. 2-4. This is a real tough one for unlucky and it suprised me how split the oppinions are. It is agreed by most on here that it is a very lopsided trade. That said is it collusion? Collusion is near impossible to prove. As in any case you would have to look at the evidence. 1. extremely lopsided 2. owners are related These seem to be the main points. I am in this league and several others with my brother. We talk fantasy football year around and constantly. After several years of this it is almost impossible to trade with each other due to simularities in our logic after long discussions. Unlucky has stated that these guys are in several leagues. If you are playing with your cousin for one year and he is a bone head ok but, after the first year would you not educate him at least a little. I find it hard to belive that one Cousin is so far behind the other on knowlege of a game that they play together so much. If you are a terrible poker player and you play constantly with a good poker player you will soon learn something, wont you. I truly believe that Unlucky is trying to do what he feels is right, I however think he is missing the evidence that is pointing to the guilty. I still believe it is the wrong decision and it compromises not only this league but all of his leagues.

 

[refacer]

I quit reading this for a while and just checked in. It is really long so I read the last page. I was one of the original complainers and I do not have a good record in this league. 2-4. This is a real tough one for unlucky and it suprised me how split the oppinions are. It is agreed by most on here that it is a very lopsided trade. That said is it collusion? Collusion is near impossible to prove. As in any case you would have to look at the evidence. 1. extremely lopsided 2. owners are related These seem to be the main points. I am in this league and several others with my brother. We talk fantasy football year around and constantly. After several years of this it is almost impossible to trade with each other due to simularities in our logic after long discussions. Unlucky has stated that these guys are in several leagues. If you are playing with your cousin for one year and he is a bone head ok but, after the first year would you not educate him at least a little. I find it hard to belive that one Cousin is so far behind the other on knowlege of a game that they play together so much. If you are a terrible poker player and you play constantly with a good poker player you will soon learn something, wont you. I truly believe that Unlucky is trying to do what he feels is right, I however think he is missing the evidence that is pointing to the guilty. I still believe it is the wrong decision and it compromises not only this league but all of his leagues.

collusion? bigfishboy himself said it was a 3 for 1 trade and the point diffrence was .20 thats seems like a fair trade,if he starts them all and he wins.

 

[bigfishboy]

ok one last time. no one made a fool of me FH did email Mike and told him to stop the trade, if you received Mikes answer he was satisfied with their response and let the trade stand. So where was I fooled?

refacer, there is a big difference between:Quote (refacer):

yeah he emailed Mike and told him just to reverse the trade

and this:Quote (Unlucky):

Scrapper - he said that he would be OK with me reversing the trade to keep people happy. But the other team hasn't said that he's OK with reversing the trade.

The rest of the league thought the two owners were doing the honorable thing and reversing the trade, as you led us to believe. But apparently, one (giver of Priest) was OK with it and the other (receiver of Priest) was silent on the matter. So either they didn't tell you the truth or you didn't tell us the truth.

 

[bigfishboy]

collusion? bigfishboy himself said it was a 3 for 1 trade and the point diffrence was .20 thats seems like a fair trade,if he starts them all and he wins.

But you dont play Priest Holmes against RW2, Boldin and Driver. You play Priest and two other players against them. The Priest owner wins in a landslide! It isn't even close. He could start the worst scrubs on his team and win hands down.That is why the rest of the league is pissed.

 

[MillerLitePounder]

Refacer........1 week dude cmon . and if i read it right its .2 points 1 player verses 3. I will take my 1 guy outscoring 3 of yours as uneven. Besides the argument isnt who out scored who what week its that the evidance suggests collusion and thats the point.

 

[pinkham13]

That league will be defunct next year.

 

[refacer]

or you didn't tell us the truth.

Thats right I was in on it all along HEY WHERE'S MY CUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Garrett]

Sorry for digging up a dead horse....I am in the process of evaluating our trade rules for next season and this was a great thread detailing both sides of the collusion issue. I was curious if any of you know what ended up happening in this league? Did the team receiving Holmes end up dominating the league? I am having a tough time trying to create some type of balance between protecting league integrity and allowing owners to manage their team as they wish. I am curious to see how Unlucky modifies his trade rules for next year.

 

[Unlucky]

Sorry for digging up a dead horse....I am in the process of evaluating our trade rules for next season and this was a great thread detailing both sides of the collusion issue. I was curious if any of you know what ended up happening in this league? Did the team receiving Holmes end up dominating the league? I am having a tough time trying to great some type of balance between protecting league integrity and allowing owners to manage their team as they wish. I am curious to see how Unlucky modifies his trade rules for next year.

The team that traded for Holmes wasn't even close to making the playoffs.

 

[Portis 26]

And Boldin hasn't turned out too bad, has he?I hope those posters who cried collusion so vehemently are feeling a little foolish now.

 

[mcd]

And Boldin hasn't turned out too bad, has he?I hope those posters who cried collusion so vehemently are feeling a little foolish now.

I'm sure you won't find anyone arguing thay point now. To put it into more obvious terms, the guy traded the #1 overall player (Holmes) for the #49 (Boldin) & #190 (Driver). Rankings from one of Unlucky's standard scoring leagues. I gave up on looking for Ricky Williams II ranking after I passed #200.Personally, I couldn't care less that the guy didn't even sniff the playoffs, it was then & is now a terrible trade.

 

[biglare66]

I'm not sure how I missed this thread all year long... but a few observations.1. Sandbagger really did not add anything constructive to the conversation.2. It was a bad trade, regardless of outcome.3. Trades that CLEARLY upset the competitive balance of the league are a danger to the league, EVEN IF THEY ARE NOT COLLUSIVE. Perhaps a rule stating the commish "may put a trade to vote, if he/she determines it upsets the competitive balance of the league". How did the guy who gave up Priest Holmes do in the post-season?

 

[Memphis Mutiny]

I'm not sure how I missed this thread all year long... but a few observations.1. Sandbagger really did not add anything constructive to the conversation.2. It was a bad trade, regardless of outcome.3. Trades that CLEARLY upset the competitive balance of the league are a danger to the league, EVEN IF THEY ARE NOT COLLUSIVE. Perhaps a rule stating the commish "may put a trade to vote, if he/she determines it upsets the competitive balance of the league". How did the guy who gave up Priest Holmes do in the post-season?

At 1-4 after week 5, and trading away the Priest, I doubt seriously he made the playoffs.Is it me, or is Sandbagger's sig line the most annoying ever? Horrible trade that wouldn't have had a chance in a credible redraft league. In a dynasty, things are different. The guy getting Boldin back in week 6 could make an argument that he thinks the guy is for real and will be a force for years to come. At that time, we didn't think Driver was in for such a downfall so it stood to reason that he could be touted as a top 10 WR for the forseeable future. And we all know how many people think Holmes is one game away from retirement. Anyway, I could see it in a dynasty, but no way in a redraft this year.

 

[Grilled Cheesehead]

Sorry for digging up a dead horse....I am in the process of evaluating our trade rules for next season and this was a great thread detailing both sides of the collusion issue. I was curious if any of you know what ended up happening in this league? Did the team receiving Holmes end up dominating the league? I am having a tough time trying to great some type of balance between protecting league integrity and allowing owners to manage their team as they wish. I am curious to see how Unlucky modifies his trade rules for next year.

The team that traded for Holmes wasn't even close to making the playoffs.

Everyone was talking about how dominant the team getting Holmes would be. Look at his roster now, and it looks like garbage. Sometimes we don't know as much as we think we do. I agree with every post Unlucky made in this thread, and I've never been in one of his leagues.

 

[salmonstud]

To the Commish,Collusion is reality! Owners to do get together and decide to stack a team and split the winnings when $$$ is involved. I commish 2 leagues. I believe that an owner should be allowed to make a trade that doesn't seem very smart, but when it's quite blatant, something has to be done. To take the power out of my hands (the commish) I have the rule that if an owner not participating in the trade or if I feel a proposed trade between 2 owners smells of foul play...then a league wide vote is issued. All owners not involved in the trade vote on the transaction. The owners proposing the trade make their case to the other owners, then the league votes. If a majority feels that the trade stinks of foul play, then it is not allowed. This rule applies to all trades I make (the commish) as well. I have had no problems since instuting this rule. Maybe you should consider it. A back that breaks E.Smith's single season TD record for Boldin....yeah right!-SS

 

[GECKO]

I wonder if this league will survive? The league seem to be split between the owners who support, reject and just don't care. Since it is a money league I would believe most players won't risk their $50 again IMHO.

 

[mcd]

The Greek Leagues are closing down basically because Unlucky has been hired on run the Football Guys Leagues. The trade was a joke, but having played in Unlucky's leagues over the past 2 seasons, I would still vouch for his credibility as a commish. The leagues were run extremely professionally & I'm sorry to see them go.

 

[biglare66]

In a dynasty, things are different. The guy getting Boldin back in week 6 could make an argument that he thinks the guy is for real and will be a force for years to come. At that time, we didn't think Driver was in for such a downfall so it stood to reason that he could be touted as a top 10 WR for the forseeable future. And we all know how many people think Holmes is one game away from retirement. Anyway, I could see it in a dynasty, but no way in a redraft this year.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought someone said early in the thread that this was a redraft league, not a dynasty or keeper variety. Some of the responses in this thread should make it obvious that FBG is not always the best place for a commish to get advice on how to run a decent league.If there were a future for this league, under the current rules it probably wouldn't make it another year anyway.

 

[TinHat]

Cheesy move