This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Why did you assume my money leagues have trade voting? Neither do. Someone could well trade Priest Holmes for Joe Nedney in my leagues, if they cared to.I agree with that no trade is truly even, but the real question is "how much unevenness are we willing to let go?" Even though the line between fair trade and collusion is fuzzy, the line must still be drawn, IMHO.FYI, what happens in our leagues is that all the teams are fairly wary of each other, and trades are difficult to negotiate. They happen, but not enough to rely on trading as a true team-building tool.
Shmuck: "I will give you Priest Holmes for Antowain Smith"Sandbagger: "Well, I realize that Priest Holmes is the top scoring RB to date and Smith is mired in RBBC, but past performance isn't indicative of future performance, so heck yeah I'll trade you!"What a bright statement that is!quote from Sandbagger
Starting requirements are 1 RB and 2 WR with 2 flex positions. These requirements value RB's even more than normal.
Whoah... 1 RB 2 WR 2 flex and you think that favors RBs even more? Umm... no. If you've got several WRs starting, the ones who are having an off week should balance out the ones who are not... giving you a more balanced week from your WR corps, similar to the balance RBs usually have. Let me ask this... is this a 1 pt. per reception league?
Scrapper, I think this is a little unfair to Sandbagger's position. What it seems to me he's saying is that he doesn'y recognize collusion on the face of any and all possible trades.However, I may have that wrong. I'm interested in reading more from Sandbagger (and Unlucky) on this issue.
I just got off the phone with my brother who is in this league. Before this trade went through, my brother offerred Team 1 Manning, Curtis Martin and a decent WR (couldn't remember who) for Priest Holmes. Team 1 owner never responded.Manning/Martin/WR or RW2/Driver/Boldin.....Something smells
No it is not a 1 pt per reception league, and yes being able to start 3 RB does place higher value on RB's. Moreso than the value of being able to start 4 WR's. Under these rules starting RB's are even more in demand and good WR's are still plentiful.This was an auction league and the top 17 RB's were off the charts for price.
No, and I think the league rules do favor RB's-Top Ten players by our scoring system:1. Holmes, Priest KCC RB 109.10 2. Green, Ahman GBP RB 107.60 3. Manning, Peyton IND QB 103.10 4. McNair, Steve TEN QB 102.34 5. Chiefs, Kansas City KCC DT 101.01 6. Lewis, Jamal BAL RB 95.60 7. Plummer, Jake DEN QB 90.06 8. Ramsey, Patrick WAS QB 89.18 9. Moss, Randy MIN WR 88.60 10. Garcia, Jeff SFO QB 87.76Priest is #1, and none of the players traded for him are in the Top 50!
This is the first time I saw this, so I went back to the rules to double check and there it is.It seems there is a way overrule trades and this is probably a good time to invoke that option.
There - it is defined well for you - lopsided/stupid trades are not collusive. My suspicion is that if this trade were being made in about 5 weeks, with one team being 7-3 and the other being 3-7 and eliminated from the playoffs, you'd have a better argument for Unlucky, but at the 6 week mark, it is hard to call this collusive by your team's rules.BUT, since team 2 got a benefit (however you may see it as a slight benefit) from Boldin/Driver + RW2 for the single player of Priest, this is not collusive by your team rules - team 2 received a benefit. Especially if this is a 1pt/rec. league. The Driver/Bolding pairing could be worth nearly as much as Priest. While one team CLEARLY benefitted way more than another, one side benefitting a lot and/or disrupting the balance of the league are not reasons to justify nixing a trade in the league you have decided to join.On the voting, apparently your rules state that only a veto may be overturned - the President's decision to rubber stamp a bill submitted by the House can't be overturned once the legislation has reached his desk.You are going to have to deal with this situation.
Not collusive by the league rules, but it still may be collusive. I don't know how you could prove it though. Obviously neither of the guys would admit it even if they were in cahoots. The fact that he turned down the trade for Peyton/CuMart/Horn could be a place to start. Maybe you should tap their phone lines and catch them talking to each other about it. That would certainly prove it...
I understand everybody is upset here, including me, but let's try to work this out before we trash the entire league, ok? Hopefully we'll hear from more owners in the league, and Unlucky will consider at least having us vote on this.And I will say that the trade offer you made that he didn't respond to sure doesn't help things.
I am also in this league and also admitted I am related to the two of them,if you want to call for a vote then do it,but to threaten with collusion of your own is crazy.Let the people speak and lets be done with it.As a member of this league I also not crazy about this deal but email the people who are involved and ask them rather then drag it through footballguys.Also Sandbagger did not start this thread all were asked for their opinion, if people are not satisfied with the opinion then don't ask. And lastly to say you offered Manning, C. Martin and J. Horn to this team for Holmes only is not true you also asked for Vick and derrick mason so if you say something tell the truth. Oh one last thing he is going to email mike to reverse the trade so grow up!!!!!
But Unlucky -- how can you prove the "knowingly and purposefully" part? If I am reading you right, you are content merely with a plausible excuse. So how can you determine what's a stupid trade and what's well-concealed collusion?Also, how do you define "no benefit"? Let's say I pick up Barry Sanders because another owner (Holmes owner) in the league said they heard a rumor that Sanders would return to the NFL soon. I offer to trade Sanders for Priest Holmes. The other guy accepts, positive that Sanders will come back and kick butt.
I never like the argument where owners go "I offered a better trade than the one he took" because in many cases that is one person's opinion over another. I may value player x, y, z much more than you would, etc.But, if this is true and you have a reject trade from him, you could always ask why he took that crap offer and not yours.What this comes down to is a simple was their collusion or not. Nobody can PROVE there is collusion unless Team A or B says so (which they won't) so you have to use basic "is this even remotely fair" sense. Of course this isn't. This is called an "IF" trade. IF RW2 gets the starting nod the rest of the year because EDGE never recovers (unlikely)IF Priest gets hurt for the rest of the year (unlikely)IF Driver becomes a top 5 WR (one good game and WR are a plenty this year)Of course most trades or many trades favor one team over the other but this isn't that. How can a league survive this? What if someone offs Portis for Shipp/Warrick/Emmitt/Staley? Can't turn that trade down if this one stays. What about trading JLewis for Westbrook/Stacy Mack and Dom Davis with a Gaffney thrown in? Again, you really can't veto ANY trade in your league and any smart manager who now does NOT have a shot should and is encourage to team up with another team to make them better!
Do you even know why he hasn't played? Because they want him 100%. Notice him walking around the sidelines and talking? Read any article's where IF Indy had to have the win he would have played?Again, this is an "IF" trade plain and simple and it seems like a much better offer was delt to him but didn't take it (according to a previous post, if untrue, then I am sorry).
How could a collusive owner get away with it in leagues commished by Unlucky and I? Not sure what that's all about.I have league rules set up that prevent collusion. The most obvious collusive trade is renting of players. Essentially trade backs. That's the ultimate collusive trade and in my league once you trade a player away you cannot get him back during that year.If someone was hurt for the season and tried to trade someone that player, I would have an issue with it in a redraft league, but not in a keeper or dynasty.I also have a trade deadline as of week 8.I have a laissez faire attitude in league's I commish, as does Unlucky apparently. In my main league we all know each other and it's a deep keeper league so it behooves nobody to dump players.Really, it comes down to playstyle. If you want to be in a league where every trade is scrutinized and vetoed, then don't join one of Unlucky's leagues. But Unlucky has it in his rules for all to see that's how he's going to handle this.You have no right to complain as you should have read the rules.Thus to everyone in that league who doesn't like it: ####.
'bagger, I have to disagree with you here.There will never be actual evidence of collusion unless the owners decided to 'fess up. But just because there isn't ironclad evidence, I don't think that means that a league can't take reasonable measures to protect the league. The question I always use is, "Could a reasonable fantasy football owner expect such a trade would be of benefit to his team." I don't require that it be a "good", "expert", "shark", or "omniscient" owner. Just a reasonable one.I don't think in this little example cited, that any reasonable person could think that trading Priest Holmes for Antowain Smith (who is still mired in RBBC, by the way, thanks to Mike Cloud) would be likely to improve their team. Even if Antowain wasn't in RBBC, I don't think any reasonable person would think Smith would be an improvement. It strains credulity to think anyone reasonable would believe so strongly enough to make such a roster change. And I think even if someone did think Priest for Smith would benefit them, it is unreasonable to believe that they couldn't have gotten even more than they did.It's great that you're in a league where collusion isn't an issue. I also prefer to play in leagues where we all know each other. I also prefer bragging-rights leagues over money so there is less incentive for people to cheat. But I don't think there's anything wrong with leagues trying to defend themselves from collusion. It's become obvious to me that it does happen a lot more often than I'd have thought.As for the original trade... it's a tough one. I think it starts to strain what's reasonable to think that trade is probable to improve the owner's team. But I don't know if it's far enough past that line to step in and say the trade is so unreasonable as to be collusive. I guess it would depend on what reasoning the owner gave for why he thinks it would improve his team.Since I don't know what was said, I don't think I could make an informed decision. I do think Unlucky is an ethical person, so I would tend to give him the benefit of the doubt the owner at least gave reasonable enough argument that it shouldn't be overturned.
All of the above are reasonable.
It's about a different type of collusion from blatant player-rental. It's about team merging.If Owner A and Owner B decide to merge the strengths of their teams through unbalanced trading, and then agree secretly to split any money won, there seems to be nothing you or Unlucky could (or would?) do about it within the framework of your trading philosophies.
Now in this hypothetical trade of Smith and Holmes, I'd definitely talk to the Smith owner to figure out what the hell he's doing.However, you just never know.Last year early on I traded Warner for Vick straight up. I got multiple e-mails stating how I got ripped off since Vick hadn't done anything yet and Warner only had a couple bad games, and that he would turn it around. I disagreed.It turns out I got the much better end of the deal. What would have happened if I had some of the people in this thread in my league? I wouldn't have been able to make the deal. They would say that a MVP should not be traded for a rookie QB on a mediocre team.Of course now they'll say it would be fine given their 20/20 hindsight.Once the commissioner starts to impose his own perceived value on players overriding owners, you have a situation that is just as bad as collusion, if not worse. You as commissioner are essentially running their teams for them.As for the other owners, you had your chance to build your team through the draft, through free agency, and through trades. If someone gets the better of an unfair trade then you better work that much harder on your team to compete.What all of you don't realize is what a ####ty position Unlucky would be in if he started vetoing "unfair" trades. If the trades he vetoed ended up being fair or unfair on the opposite side (like my Vick/Warner trade) he would be lambasted by people here who were not allowed to make a trade due to other people thinking they were getting ripped off. This would create a much bigger firestorm and more problems for Unlucky's leagues.Boo hoo someone traded some mediocre players for Holmes. Go out and make some deals yourself. Don't cry about how unfair life is. And if $50 is so important to you that a trade like this freaks you out, I'd suggest not gambling money you can't afford to lose.believe that.I am so proud of this post I give myself a :smoo:
Not only collusion, but guppy-baiting. Some people use raiding the rosters of guppies as a team-building tool -- some so much that the draft is merely a formality. Owners like that have a vested interest in maintaining laissez-faire trade rules in their own leagues.I've seen threads on this board along the lines of this:
That is a chance I take over running people's teams for them.There is no guarantee that this team will win, although some of you are acting like it is.
Indeed ... there is no guarantee that a 2-team merger would win any given league. It is still an unfair competitive advantage, though.Say it's a 16-team league ... and 5 owners merge to screw over the remaining 11. In a 16-team league where no one team has many studs, a 5-team conglomerate would be an overwhelming favorite to finish in the money.
I am affraid that this is the problem. And I cant believe this hasn't come up in any of your leagues the last 2 years. GDB my luck being in the wrong place at the wrong time.Anyway, most of the people in your leagues only know the other owners because of the FBG's message board. They do not know them personally or in real life. If I knew this person, and I trusted him (or knew he was prone to stupid decisions) I would shrug this off. But I dont know him, and assume that since he is in this league and on the FBG boards, he is fairly knowledgeable on FF. I dont think you could find anyone else here that would have accepted this trade. I thnk it would be hard to find a guppy to take that trade.I cannot fathom a reason why he would take this trade unless there is collusion.
Maybe this owner felt that with Edge hurt he'd get a legit starting RB for Indy, which should run the ball a good amount with all of their leads, plus he gets two solid WRs, that can be used in the flex position.Now, if someone offered me that for Holmes I'd be laughing so hard I'd have a hard time responding no. But as commissioner you have to let owners manage their own teams in a way they see fit.Just because I wouldn't make that trade doesn't mean someone else shouldn't.Like projections, you can't really judge how good or bad trades are until the season is over.
Now don't get me wrong. If the same two owners make another questionable trade the next week that goes in the same perceived direction, I will most likely look into it and stop it, or at least talk to both and figure out what's going on.But I have to give the owners the benefit of the doubt in a single trade.
have you not been to the assistant coach's forum?that should give you a fairly quick dose of sobering reality as to fantasy football knowledge on these boards.there's a wide range of experience and strategy. there are succesful people in fantasy football who do things i would never dream of doing but it works for them.as such, it's tough to judge, only to say that you wouldn't have done the deal.
I am very affraid of this. Even if this situation is remedied now, no matter what the remedy is, there is going to be a big :( over this league this year.
We have exactly the same rules, except our trade deadline is week 10.Actually, we have no specific rule against trading IR or retired players, but our commish -- as in Unlucky's leagues -- does have veto power. He's never used it in eight years.I must say that our leagues are blessed with excellent, straightforward owners.My leagues that I commish (or play in as owner):No trade backs.Trading deadline of week 8 (or thereabouts).No trading for inactive players.Anything else goes.That's what I look for.Maybe that's just the pirahna leagues that do this, not the shark leagues.
Well, in my keeper league, the FBG message board league I commish, and the Amen-Ra pyramid league, I have not seen a trade get vetoed, or a clamoring to get one vetoed.Rather, you would have the same situation you describe with people leaving due to overrestrictive commishes.
Sandbagger is right...there is no collusion here, for all the many reasons he mentioned.
