Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
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!
Collusion? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Scrapper
- Start date
bagger
Footballguy
As are mine.Seriously to make a pitch about the pyramid leagues (that I don't run but am an owner in) it's a great format and a great group of people, most of which are here on these boards. It's not a money league but the format is intriguing and matches you against the best as you move up the pyramid.Here's the message board where you can get on the waiting list.I'm in my first year there and it's a blast.If you want to get in a good league that incentivizes you to play in it year after year, that's the place.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.
edit: also, if you make some good contributions here in the shark pool you can get invited to the Survivor II draft by the FBGs. after getting booted in week 4, it was one of the best leagues i've been in, amd definitely the toughest draft i've ever been in.
Last edited by a moderator:
bigfishboy
Footballguy
And you know this, I wished I did. Like I said, if this were a league amongst friends and I believed this guy was on the up and up, I would shrug it off.At this point I am not a believer.
Doug B
Footballguy
I meant that even if the OP hadn't aired a gripe here, it's still interesting to talk about the trading rules and styles of different leagues.Unlucky's rules, for those not in his leagues, are ripe for discussion and criticism (either positive or negative). Other people's rules are, too, of course.
Doug B
Footballguy
One thing about friends-only leagues is that no one wants to be the League Jackarse. That's a surprisingly powerful motivation that prevents people from proposing overly-unbalanced trade, let alone accepting one. After proposing a lame trade, everyone else looks askance at the offending owner for a while.
Thankfully, this hasn't been an issue in any of my leagues until today. But I am of the opinion that a majority of league owners should have the right to veto a trade. Why should we be able to vote to overturn a veto, but not to overturn a bad trade? There isn't a lot of consistency in that logic. We all have money in this league, and if something funny is going on that a majority of the league is upset about, why shouldn't we have a say?That being said, if the majority of my league thinks this is no big deal, I will shut up and let this go.
bigfishboy
Footballguy
I agree this has turned into a great big #####ing session. It has got way out of hand. I am not normally like this. But somehow you just keep fanning the fire. I understand that it is only week 6 and anything can happen. But what do you think would happen if I said nothing until the superbowl was over and then I came back and protested. Unlucky and the perpetrators would get a good laugh and that is all.
I think the reason for our difference in opinion is that this is a one year league and yours are mainly keepers or multiple years. It would be much more stupid for someone trade away great talent if they knew they were going to pay for it for several years instead of just one. You also seem to know your leaguemates, It would be a lot more difficult for me to screw over someone I know than someone I dont. Friendship would be at stake.
Quoted from Sandbagger:
Yes I read the rules, just like everyone else did I am sure. And I sure that Unlucky made sure the rules were precisely written to avoid as much of this as possible. If this trade stands I will do the best I can to knock that team off the block, and I will tell my grandchildren all about this.But there is a difference between rules and ethics. Is this against the rules? No. Is it ethical? Not by any stretch. What does that get me? Nothing but a lesson that be aware that some people will stop at nothing to beat you out of a dollar.
bigfishboy
Footballguy
Ditto, I am worn out over this already.
NOOOOOOOOO!!Majority does not win - OVERWHELMING majority does. Imagine it as a change to the US Constitution - you need a 3/4 majority to get an amendment passed to the U.S. constitution, not a simple 1/2 of the states.Take out the commissioner and the two owners involved and all you have are 9 owners bummed about one team getting stronger. If you get 8 of those 9 owners to also say the trade is COLLUSION - not just that they don't like the trade, then you've got something. Otherwise deal with it.Owners not involved should NOT get to VOTE ON A TRADE - only on the commissioner's veto. Lodge objections - yes - try to convince the commish to use his veto - yes - poll the other owners on whether they would think it is collusion - yes.
bagger
Footballguy
OK, now we're getting somewhere. You agree that it's within the rules. I don't get what the problem then is. I truly don't understand how this is unethical if it's within the rules.The issue here is you don't agree with the perceived value of the trade and feel like someone who is strong is only getting stronger. I can appreciate that. I'd feel the same way.You may not like it (as I woudn't), but that's life. It's up to you to go out and wheel and deal to make your team better.
Ok, this is getting out of control with semantics, but I'll play 
Unlucky's rules state that you may overturn a veto by a majority vote of everyone except him and the two owners involved- which would be five votes needed. Since this is not a veto, we don't have to throw out Unlucky's vote, so there are 10 owners not involved in the trade. A majority of that is six. So I could argue that it should only take six votes to overturn a trade, based on the rules as stated. (Not that I am arguing this, I'm just giving an alternate view of how it could be handled and give smlevin something to do ).
Unlucky's rules state that you may overturn a veto by a majority vote of everyone except him and the two owners involved- which would be five votes needed. Since this is not a veto, we don't have to throw out Unlucky's vote, so there are 10 owners not involved in the trade. A majority of that is six. So I could argue that it should only take six votes to overturn a trade, based on the rules as stated. (Not that I am arguing this, I'm just giving an alternate view of how it could be handled and give smlevin something to do ).
bagger
Footballguy
Don't Unlucky's rules state that you can't veto trades? That would take care of your hypothetical.Ok, this is getting out of control with semantics, but I'll play
bigfishboy
Footballguy
I forgot one of the reasons why our opinions are different.You see the lopsided trade and assume that Team 1 is a guppy and just got taken advantage of.I see the lopsided trade and assume that Team 1 and Team 2 have colluded in a deal that makes Team 2 decisively stronger.Who is right? Neither you nor I will ever know.
bigfishboy
Footballguy
That is part of my problem. If I were to make a lowball offer to Team 1 for Priest, he would have laughed. In this situation we are not playing on a level field. It is much more difficult to wheel and deal if you dont have a "good cousin" in the league.
Unlucky
Phenom
To answer your question - I don't want the rest of the owners to be able to overturn a trade just because they think it's unfair and thus hurts their chances of winning. This has been quite difficult on me. I've tried my best to build a very strong reputation as a great commissioner. This has been the most difficult situation since there is so much grey area and it's impossible to absolutely know for sure whether or not the two owners are colluding. I always try to do what is fair without limiting an owner's right to manage his team. I truly feel that the owner giving up Priest made an honest trade. He might have been desperate and a little flustered with his team at 1-4 and Priest not producing the past two weeks. Perhaps the fact that he was dealing with his cousin made him a little more willing to make a trade that he thought was a bit of a gamble. Perhaps he just took the best offer given to him, knowing he didn't have anything to lose at 1-4. I could go on and on. Most points on both sides have been made. I'm going to email the entire league on Friday and then make a decision. I appreciate all the effort and contributions from everyone in this thread.
bigfishboy
Footballguy
I sincerely apologize if this deal was valid. I hope under the circumstances that you can understand where I am coming from.yeah he emailed Mike and told him just to reverse the trade, to much talk of collusion when he was just trying something diffrent to shake up his team.
amphibianbri
Footballguy
I've been a commissioner for 8 years, and after reading page after page about this, I've come to the following conclusions:1. In my league, we have a rule where owners have 48 hours after a trade is consummated to veto it. It takes 6 of the 8 owners not involved to veto the trade along iwth an explanation of why they are vetoing it. We have had 2 trades vetoed in 8 years. 2. Collusion is not the only reason that a trade shuld be vetoed. If the trade is hurting the integrity of the league, it needs to be stopped as well, not solely by the commish, but by active owners as well (see #1).3. I personally would have started a veto vote in my league on this trade due to the integrity of the league issue, but it would have been the responsibility of the other owners to give their two cents as well.4. We talk to each other on a regular basis and express our concerns in a mature fashion. This is becoming so childish!5. I don't know your league rules, but giving total power to one owner in the league is asking for trouble. You need to have more of a balance of powers.Know your owners and rules before the year starts though. That will take care of many problems.As far as the if's and but's were candy and nuts, bottom line is that 3 non top 50 players are being traded for THE MAN. That's just not right. If this stands, trust me, collusion will run wild in and ruin your league.
amphibianbri
Footballguy
But also, being the commish in a group of football guys is a tough job. It's not a fun position to be in. Just take it all in and do the best you can. I still would try to give off some responsibility to a co-commish or other owners as well though. It helps.
amphibianbri
Footballguy
But also, being the commish in a group of football guys is a tough job. It's not a fun position to be in. Just take it all in and do the best you can. I still would try to give off some responsibility to a co-commish or other owners as well though. It helps.
amphibianbri
Footballguy
But also, being the commish in a group of football guys is a tough job. It's not a fun position to be in. Just take it all in and do the best you can. I still would try to give off some responsibility to a co-commish or other owners as well though. It helps.
amphibianbri
Footballguy
But also, being the commish in a group of football guys is a tough job. It's not a fun position to be in. Just take it all in and do the best you can. I still would try to give off some responsibility to a co-commish or other owners as well though. It helps.
bagger
Footballguy
Unlucky,You're in a unique situation in that you commish so many leagues and since so many people here on these boards play in them, if someone has a bad experience, they have the opportunity to voice their issues with hundreds of possible future participants. Most commishes don't have this kind of exposure.
You know where I stand on the issue even though I'm not in any of your leagues. However, it'll be a shame if the trading owners end up reversing their trade because they feel that they were bullied by the other owners of crying foul, and don't want to rock the boat.
I think what's been done here in this thread is total BS for a number of reasons:
This is league business and should be handled in the league. You take care of your own business behind closed doors and to run here into this forum to start #####ing about how unfair this trade is is lame.
Insinuating that Unlucky doesn't run a legit league here in these forums when he's one of the more respected and oldest posters here is bull####.
The constant cries of collusion have obviously made these two owners feel uncomfortable even though this trade was on the up and up, and the outspoken owners have essentially instilled their will on the league by having these two owners reverse their trade (if that's indeed what they do) and circumventing the league rules of effectively vetoing a trade, which by league rules they aren't allowed to veto.
What's gone on in this thread is exactly why commissioners shouldn't veto any trades. Everyone has a different idea of a "fair or collusive trade" and who's an owner to say that they know better than the owners in the deal or the commish who allowed the trade to go through. Once a commish starts doing this, there's too much subjectivity, especially when the commish is playing in the league.
The rules explicitly state unfair trades won't be vetoed. This may be something that Unlucky will want to look at in the future (even though I wouldn't) but for this year he cannot as commish start changing rules midway through the season in a money league. I would be irate if I was in the league and this happened. People paid to be in this league under the stated rules and as such Unlucky has an obligation to enforce those rules, no matter how "unfair" they seem to certain owners. You had your chance to read the rules. You accepted the rules by joining the league (whether you read them or not). Therefore, you have to play by the rules.
If Unlucky reverses his stance and vetoes this trade, he'll effectively be allowing the inmates to run the asylum. Once these outspoken owners see that they can impose their will on rules midseason, this will start a dangerous precedent of #####ing and moaning over the smallest things instead of accepting the commish's decision and moving on.
Unlucky has a bunch of leagues with these same rules and I have not heard of anyone having these kind of problems. This leads me to believe that it's an issue with the complaining owners, not Unlucky, his league rules, or the owners involved in the trade.
bagger
Footballguy
How does this trade ruin the league? It doesn't. Seriously, enough with the melodramatics.If you want to run a league that allows the owners to veto trades, that's your decision. I don't think that makes a good league. It's too easy for owners to veto trades to keep the best teams from getting better. That will frustrate the better owners in your league and they will quit.If you have a good commish, you don't need checks and balances of owners voting.Finally, you may not like the trade, but what if Boldin, Driver, and RW2 blow up the rest of the year (not likely but humor me) and Priest cools off his pace (which is likely). You have then prevented a 1-4 team from bettering his team and possibly costing him to get back into the playoff hunt.That's not right.It is really insulting that people in fantasy football are so closed minded that they cannot fathom someone trying a different strategy to better their team (even if it doesn't work).But then again, I'm not a shark I guess.
Greg R
Footballguy
I've restrained from saying this for 4 pages, but I think it's worth saying, so here it is.A counter-offer period would really have made this an easier situation on the league and Unlucky as a whole. If other teams in the league could have made reasonable offers for Priest, and the Priest owner had the option of switching to a new offer, this big issue probably wouldn't have happened. The guy would have turned to an obviously better deal and the issue would have been resolved. Or, no other team would have been able to field a better deal and the league would find that their opinion of Priest's value was off. Or he'd have refused obviously better deals, which would have been more clearcut evidence of collusion and made it easier on Unlucky to make his decision.I should say, there are some gotchas in getting a counter-offer system to work smoothly, since you don't know how long the review period will last since it can be restarted if someone switches to a new offer. But they aren't that bad once you are aware what they are, and make for a much smoother running league.
bigfishboy
Footballguy
Sandbagger, You are the eternal optimist. This is an assumption you have made. And IF it were true I would agree with you on most
of your thoughts. However, you dont know it is true, and you wouldn't lose anything if your wrong. I, personally, am not willing to take that chance.Because of the nature of the Greek leagues, most owners do not know the other owners. Any trades that happen between owners who do know each other are going to be heavily scrutinized. That is just the way it is and Unlucky is going to have to deal with it. I think he is fortunate that he hasn't had two people try to pull the wool over on a league before, I guess that makes me the eternal pessimist.
Sandbagger,I'd like to address some of your points:
- Unlucky is in a unique situation on these boards, and has a great reputation, that's why some of us blindly trusted him with $50 or more per league. In case you haven't noticed, between this thread and the other one, WAY more people think this trade should be reversed than don't. More people are unhappy about this than are. Many of the people who read and post on this board are current and future players in Unlucky's leagues. You've stated yourself that owners should do their due dilligence before they join a league, and seeing how Unlcuky has handled this should certainly be considered due diligence in the future, don't you think?
Future potential owners should know that if they happen to join one of Unlucky's leagues where people (possibly) collude and make insanely unbalanced trades, he will allow it to stand and they will not have a fair chance at winning the league or protesting the trade. His commissioning style does not protect the integrity of the league. Some people (like me) care a lot about that, some people (like you) seem to think it's fun not to have that. Either way, people should be aware of this before they put their money down.
He has also publicly condoned a post that said, "Ripping someone off is playing the game really well." If that's the kind of owners he's looking for- may he get what he asks for. And I'm sure owners out there who DO want to collude, have noticed a golden opportunity for next year in his leagues, and even moreso, in yours.
- Many people bring collusion questions to this board, and you reply in almost all of their threads. Now you have a problem with this? I value this resource and am happy to be able to ask my fellow fantasy owners if they would be upset at this kind of BS...or not. And for the record, this was going on through E-mail way before it hit the boards, and Unlucky's original stance was FAR from what it turned into shortly after.
- I have no idea how the two owners in question feel, because neither has spoken up. Their silence has made things even harder, honestly. If one of them spoke up and told me to F off for questioning their integrity, I'd be a lot more apt to believe them than by them not even bothering to comment. Their uncle did mention that one of them was going to ask that the trade be reversed, but I have no idea if this is true or not. Unlucky has not acknowledged it, and there had been no mention of it outside of this thread. I would really like some followup on that.
- The rules do explicitly state unfair trades won't be vetoed. But they also give a false sense of security that collusion trades WILL be handled. In this case, I don't feel the league rules were upheld at all as they are written. By the league rules, this trade should have been vetoed if there was even a HINT of collusion, and Unlucky has admitted that it is a possibility in this case, and then a case could be made whether or not to overturn that veto.
- Lastly, if anyone is still reading and wants to know how the story ends, he has allowed this trade to stand.
Unless one of the owners truly does want this thing reversed, which like I said, I have no idea what the deal with that is, the rest of the league is stuck with this, with no recourse. I'm sure that makes you happy Sandbagger, though I have no idea why you seem to take such joy in this.
wakelawyer
Footballguy
Let's bring some sanity back to this thread and look at what really occurred here. We have three offers for Holmes. First, Manning, Martin and Horn for Holmes. Second, Manning, Martin and Horn for Holmes, Vick and Mason. Third, Driver, Boldin and RW2 for Holmes.It appears that the first trade was never offered. Even if it was, the Holmes owner wouldn't really need Manning with Vick and Garcia (guys, you need to look at other owner's needs when offering trades). Martin is a few weeks from losing his job. Horn has been battling injuries all year. In essence, it is Horn for Holmes. Not a good trade.As for the second, see above, except that Vick and Mason are being traded. Even worse.The third, well, you guys have discussed that at great length. The question we must ask is would you accept the following trade: Manning, Martin, and Horn for Driver, Boldin and RW2? I think that we can take out the RBs as both have issues and it boils down to Manning and Horn for Driver and Boldin. Not a great trade, but collusive on its face? I don't think so. We also need to look at the league rules. An owner can start one back and 4 WRs. The owner getting Holmes could have figured that one back out of Staley, RW2 and Rhodes would be a starter. RB slot covered. Now we need 4 WRs: Boldin, Driver, Mason, Muhammad, Bradford, S. Moss, Randle El. You can find 4 WRs there to be slightly competitive. Add in Vick/Garcia, Tony G, and a kicker and DT and you have a team that could score some points. Win it all? Maybe not. But there is also a total points prize.I think that if you look at everything that you could make the argument that it is not that bad of a trade.I have been in a league with Unlucky and have no reason to question his integrity. In fact, he contacted me after our league commish wasted the league pot on beer at Penn State and asked me to help him draft an agreement which legally bound him to pay out the entry fee. I respect that and would gladly join a Greek League if I had room for another league.With that being said, the family relationship bothers me but it appears that almost the entire league is related to someone and trades between family members will have to occur.I would be upset if I were in the league but I understand the trade and would not overturn it. However, it appears that the owners involved may agree to overturn the trade so this issue may be moot.Edited portion. My point that I got away from is that the other owners should be just as mad at themselves for not offering a better trade as they are for the trade. I have tried to trade Manning for weeks in a league as I also have Bulger and Ramsey. I have had no bites so I traded Manning for Plummer and R. Gardner. A bad trade but the best offer that I had for a player that was essentially depth on my team. I need WRs. I would hate to have an owner cry collusion on this. If they did, I would ask them to tell the league what they offered me. As noted before, the only other "public" offer had some serious shortcomings.
Last edited by a moderator:
jhib
Footballguy
I feel like I'm jumping into a family argument, but since I read through 4 pages of this stuff...Count me in with the guys who think this is an unfair trade, but not so bad that everyone should jump to "obvious collusion" talk. I'd be pissed if I were one of the other guys, but that doesn't mean the traders were trying to cheat. I think everyone's been in leagues where the communication isn't great, and owners feel left out of the opportunity to make better deals than the trades that go through. Looking at the rosters, I wouldn't be THAT surprised if the Holmes-less guy ends up improving. And I don't think the new Holmes guy's roster looks unbeatable at all. And no, I don't mean if Holmes gets hurt (that "but if he gets injured..." talk is useless garbage).That being said, I think you sound pretty extreme in your stance on collusion, sandbagger. So far, unless I've missed something, the only kinds of trades you'd consider POSSIBLY being collusion are renting players and multiple unfair trades between two teams. I personally think you're crazy to let a A.Smith for P.Holmes go by with a simple explanation from the A.Smith owner that... well... I know Holmes has been better in the past, but that doesn't mean anything about the future, and I really think Smith is going to take over the lead in NE.I understand the Vick/Warner trade in your league. I don't think that's even in the same class as this hypothetical Smith/Holmes trade. Especially since that was in a keeper league (right?) and everybody sees the long-term potential of Vick. Who sees that kind of potential in A.Smith?So what WOULD be a single trade that might seem to be collusion to you?Could I get away with a Delvin Joyce for Priest trade because I heard Fassell say that the Giants needed to spell Tiki more often, and I think Joyce is going to light the world on fire when given his chance?Thanks. I honestly was just wondering....
bagger
Footballguy
lol at "league of thugs".every once in a while you have some gems pick.go jazz.Being in Unlucky's league of questionable honor . . . $50 with a slight chance there may be collusion.Being in Sandfagger's league of known thugs . . . $50 and you know there will be collusion.Being in amphibrianbri's ethical league . . . priceless.
hope everything's cool at your kid's school, seriously.
bagger
Footballguy
hey scrapper. thanks for addressing my points. that's more than most do on this board.i'm glad that you used this board's resources. it's a great board. my point wasn't directly at you per se regarding badmouthing unlucky. the entire post just sort of spiraled that way and even though unlucky certainly doesn't need me to come to his defense, i felt that someone should take the other side of all of the bashing as i felt it was getting out of control.Sandbagger,I'd like to address some of your points:
- Unlucky is in a unique situation on these boards, and has a great reputation, that's why some of us blindly trusted him with $50 or more per league. In case you haven't noticed, between this thread and the other one, WAY more people think this trade should be reversed than don't. More people are unhappy about this than are. Many of the people who read and post on this board are current and future players in Unlucky's leagues. You've stated yourself that owners should do their due dilligence before they join a league, and seeing how Unlcuky has handled this should certainly be considered due diligence in the future, don't you think?
Future potential owners should know that if they happen to join one of Unlucky's leagues where people (possibly) collude and make insanely unbalanced trades, he will allow it to stand and they will not have a fair chance at winning the league or protesting the trade. His commissioning style does not protect the integrity of the league. Some people (like me) care a lot about that, some people (like you) seem to think it's fun not to have that. Either way, people should be aware of this before they put their money down.
He has also publicly condoned a post that said, "Ripping someone off is playing the game really well." If that's the kind of owners he's looking for- may he get what he asks for. And I'm sure owners out there who DO want to collude, have noticed a golden opportunity for next year in his leagues, and even moreso, in yours.
- Many people bring collusion questions to this board, and you reply in almost all of their threads. Now you have a problem with this? I value this resource and am happy to be able to ask my fellow fantasy owners if they would be upset at this kind of BS...or not. And for the record, this was going on through E-mail way before it hit the boards, and Unlucky's original stance was FAR from what it turned into shortly after.
- I have no idea how the two owners in question feel, because neither has spoken up. Their silence has made things even harder, honestly. If one of them spoke up and told me to F off for questioning their integrity, I'd be a lot more apt to believe them than by them not even bothering to comment. Their uncle did mention that one of them was going to ask that the trade be reversed, but I have no idea if this is true or not. Unlucky has not acknowledged it, and there had been no mention of it outside of this thread. I would really like some followup on that.
- The rules do explicitly state unfair trades won't be vetoed. But they also give a false sense of security that collusion trades WILL be handled. In this case, I don't feel the league rules were upheld at all as they are written. By the league rules, this trade should have been vetoed if there was even a HINT of collusion, and Unlucky has admitted that it is a possibility in this case, and then a case could be made whether or not to overturn that veto.
- Lastly, if anyone is still reading and wants to know how the story ends, he has allowed this trade to stand.
i agree that people going into unlucky's leagues should ask questions of him of how far he will go to not veto the trade. so i'm sure this post has done some good, as long as everyone knows that unlucky did not do anything outside of the rules he initially set up at the beginning of the season.
i have to take exception that you insinuate that i don't care about the integrity of leagues. in the keeper league that i commish, i have treated that league with the upmost integrity. when we did not have specific tiebreaker rules to get into the playoffs i stated that we'd use the nfl rules knowing full well that it would eliminate myself from playoff contention (breaking a 3-way tiebreaker for 2 slots).
i have set up many rules to prevent collusion (such as no trade backs, and a week 8 trading deadline, which most consider early).
what i don't do is judge trades. again i have a different situation than unlucky in that my keeper league people have to live with their teams year in and year out (it's a keep 8...essentially a starting roster). this in and of itself prevents collusion as players want to maintain their core strength for years to come.
the smith/holmes was a hypothetical and i did say i would have a talk with the smith owner to figure out what's going on. but that's not what's been talked about here so ignore that. the trade in question is a 3-1 that isn't great IMO, and i've already said that i would not trade holmes for that.
but who am i or you to prevent someone else trying to do something to better their team? that's really where our disagreement comes in.
obviously my style would not be for you if we didn't know each other. the owners in my league do and know that i'll let them play. even though we're all friends there's so much smack talking that nobody would help another out. unlucky's league is different and i've said that from the beginning. but that's where you have to read the rules extra carefully in a league where you don't know people.
a stupid trade does not = collusion in my and unlucky's mind. you think differently and that's cool. i don't like idp and others do.
i don't take joy in you being bummed out about this. i am glad that unlucky stuck to his guns as that's what his rules said, because that's what matters...the rules. i think that unlucky was obligated to enforce his rules, no matter how unfair they're perceived to be.
i think what unlucky did was the right thing to do. i just hope that you know that unlucky is a stand up guy even though you feel that you're getting shafted here, although i don't see why. it's all part of a game and someone got a great deal. like i told the other poster go out and get a great trade of your own.
obviously neither one of us is going to convince the other, but i appreciate you taking the time to repsond.
good luck in the league.
Last edited by a moderator:
Brave Sir Robin
Footballguy
Known thug here (and commish too).
When in doubt, follow the rules. The rules don't allow for the charge of collusion sans proof. The rules explicitly state that stupid trades are allowed. Lacking proof, it's a stupid trade.
The rules are faulty IMO but they are the rules everyone agreed to before plunking down $50. I am trying to imagine an owner being beaten down by an avalanche of emails and message board challenges until he confesses and I can't see it happening.
The threat to this particular league is great and I think terminal if the owners don't retract the trade (then Sandbagger would veto the trade back
). The rules being violated are a greater threat though and a veto would violate the rules despite being a seemingly sensible thing to do. Unlucky has to choke this down and rewrite the rules for next year but cannot violate his own unambiguous rules.
Now apparently they are willing to reverse it which should exonerate the two of collusion while condemning player B with the charge of stupidity. His options are to join the FF Witless Protection Program and start over with a new identity like "Mr. Bojangles" or something.
You guys have every right to be hot but you have no legal recourse per the league rules. The commish can't reverse it ethically because he is satisfied that it might not be collusion and has already said so.
There has to be a threshhold for collusion short of a confession. That threshhold has to be spelled out in the rules lest a season gets spoiled.
Finally, a 3-1 team (assuming their scoring and record are congruent) gaining Priest Holmes without cost has an 80% (pulled out of my ####) chance of winning the league. I'd lose interest real quick if I was there.
I like Greg R's use of "reasonable" which doesn't bother to distinguish between utterly stupid or completely dishonest. Imagine the person feigning innocence and embracing ignorance (worked for Reagan but most of us were pulling for him). I would feel comfortable with the commish having this power lacking any qualitative alternative.
When in doubt, follow the rules. The rules don't allow for the charge of collusion sans proof. The rules explicitly state that stupid trades are allowed. Lacking proof, it's a stupid trade.
The rules are faulty IMO but they are the rules everyone agreed to before plunking down $50. I am trying to imagine an owner being beaten down by an avalanche of emails and message board challenges until he confesses and I can't see it happening.
The threat to this particular league is great and I think terminal if the owners don't retract the trade (then Sandbagger would veto the trade back
). The rules being violated are a greater threat though and a veto would violate the rules despite being a seemingly sensible thing to do. Unlucky has to choke this down and rewrite the rules for next year but cannot violate his own unambiguous rules.Now apparently they are willing to reverse it which should exonerate the two of collusion while condemning player B with the charge of stupidity. His options are to join the FF Witless Protection Program and start over with a new identity like "Mr. Bojangles" or something.
You guys have every right to be hot but you have no legal recourse per the league rules. The commish can't reverse it ethically because he is satisfied that it might not be collusion and has already said so.
There has to be a threshhold for collusion short of a confession. That threshhold has to be spelled out in the rules lest a season gets spoiled.
Finally, a 3-1 team (assuming their scoring and record are congruent) gaining Priest Holmes without cost has an 80% (pulled out of my ####) chance of winning the league. I'd lose interest real quick if I was there.
I like Greg R's use of "reasonable" which doesn't bother to distinguish between utterly stupid or completely dishonest. Imagine the person feigning innocence and embracing ignorance (worked for Reagan but most of us were pulling for him). I would feel comfortable with the commish having this power lacking any qualitative alternative.
Last edited by a moderator:
Collusion? I think that is what the Commish (whether appointed, elected or forced at gunpoint) is to decied!! If you don't like it,...........don't go back or call for a recall, or whatever!!! If it's because of the money,....fame......or self gratification, then you need to look in the mirror and remind yourself that it is just for fun!!
bagger
Footballguy
i'm not in the league although with my participation in the thread you think i would be.but seriously...
LOL at the Witless Protection and "Mr. Bojangles" smack.
:rotflmao:
BSR is classic. Now if you can just try to challenge me for the Nut division lead in the Isis league in the pyramid you'll be onto something. Mr. Bojangles is still pissed for me telling him to change his gender icon after i beat him so bad a couple weeks ago.
you'll have your chance for redemption at the end of the regular season. but don't get your hopes up. my team is sick.
you need to post here more often BSR/Bismillah. you're not nearly around as much as you used to be on the old board.
:sp:
BSR- great post. One of the owners involved has asked Unlucky to reverse the trade for the good of the league, and I really do appreciate that, especially since he hates my guts right now. We'll see what happens with that I guess.I'm sure Unlucky will make sure this kind of thing is clarified in his future rules, and I'm sure I will be a lot more picky about this type of thing now when selecting a league, since I've now seen what can happen.
And I agree that if the team that got Priest goes on a tear, this isn't going to be much of a league within a couple weeks, which is why I was so upset about all this. Part of the reason I joined this league was to be in a competitive league, and if everyone loses interest or "plays under protest" (as some have said they are doing now), that kind of wrecks it.
Sandbagger- I appreciate your response to my post above. Like you said, your style of rules aren't for me, and that's cool. I think having the owners all know each other helps a lot too. Anyway, nice debating you.
Brave Sir Robin
Footballguy
Oh Gawd I am crying real tears and my stomach hurts! Funniest thread ever. I don't want to encourage further ridicule because that'd be mean and against the intent of the grammar mods.But sometimes we have to do things we don't want to do!Sidesplitting minions:
:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:
Unlucky
Phenom
This whole thing really sucks. On one hand, I truly believe both owners that this wasn't collusion. The one giving up Priest was in multiple Greek Leagues last year and this year. I know that he's competitive. I got emails from both owners explaining their side of the trade, and I was satisfied with that. I don't want to post those emails because I feel that I'd be violating their privacy.On the other hand, I do need to keep people happy since that's my business. I won't get people to join the Greek Leagues if my reputation is soiled. My dilemma is that I need to go against what I truly feel is right in order to save my reputation. Imagine yourself as a judge in a criminal case where you feel the defendant is innocent, yet public outcry deems him guilty.I hope everyone understands why I felt I needed to do what I believe is right rather than bow to the public opinion.
wakelawyer
Footballguy
So is the trade being reversed?
It is NOT collusion, absent some sort of proof. If it looks like whining and smells like whining, then it must be whining.I commish two leagues and have seen plenty of trades that look bad on the surface. One owner was griped during this past off-season when another owner traded Shaun Alexander and Toomer for Jamal Lewis and Mason. Even I thought the Alexander owner was getting the short end of the trade. It turns out that he knew what he was doing.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. Since I don't own a crystal ball and I'm not omniscient, I don't know who will end up smelling better at the end of the season.
Raiders Fan
The Black Hole
Don't worry about it dude. The guy is just upset cause he thinks the team getting Priest is too good now.. Collusion is worthless players for studs... While this trade might not look good right now maybe the owner of Priest is worried.. Scrapper sounds worried he won't be able to beat the guy with Priest now... I would let it go through and forget about it.. No matter what you do you will not be able to keep all happy. You let it stand other owners will be upset that team is getting better and if you nix it the team receiving Priest will be upset.. Tough decision but it has to go through..
That thread is closed so can we make comments here, instead.Oh Gawd I am crying real tears and my stomach hurts! Funniest thread ever. I don't want to encourage further ridicule because that'd be mean and against the intent of the grammar mods.But sometimes we have to do things we don't want to do!Sidesplitting minions:
Gibberish to English bookIn hand I go outTo join a league with Captain.i will be short and to the point cause i am not moron so you can be woman about the trade but i am not rookie and horn sucks anyway so unlucky is not bad manger of league where crybabie woman players run around calling me baby and rook or moron or whatever but im not baby and could we reverse the trade because i know how to play football and i don't think any of the other was in for trying to do and i did nothing wrong with what i did so horn is not so giid and others not so god either that i thought priest was good 4 tradeUnlucky - I definitely understand where you are at, and I thoroughly believe that your reputation is safe.If I were you, I would send out an e-mail to ALL members of the Greek leagues that you commission (if you can do that) and state you policy clearly and concisely so noone can object in the future.I would state it in as such: "I will allow ANY and ALL trades, no matter how inequitable looking, or how one-sided they seem, or how unbalanced the league becomes, UNLESS I am thoroughly convinced there is collusion involved. It is not my, or your, job to second guess another owner's strategy.I will NOT reverse or veto trades based on any objections from owners not involved in the trade, no matter how 'shady' the deal looks to the uninvolved owner. I am the FINAL and ONLY decisionmaker on whether a trade is collusive and I alone have the power to veto trades. If any owner has hard proof of collusion between owners, that matter will be investigated thoroughly. As always, any vetos I make are subject to being overturned, as stated in the rules, but no trades will be overturned or reversed unless I veto them."Anyway, that's how I'd handle it.
Yeah, that's the ugly thing about these kinds of deals.Even if Priest goes down with a decapitation or something next week, you can't look back and judge the trade that way. Those evaluating the trade from the outside, as well as those proposing/accepting it, have to evaluate it NOW, based on current best available info.As things stand now, the players involved are healthy, Priest is one of the (if not THE) elite backs in all of FF, and the guy trading him away has no sound reason to believe he'll be getting anything like comparable value in return.It could work out that the guy getting Priest is dead in the water because of it, but it won't make a difference as to the deal's fairness -- it'll just mean an unfair trade turned out lucky for the wrong party. Pre-season, 1999, trading Vinny Testaverde for Kurt Warner WOULD HAVE BEEN COLLUSION, even though Vinny (coming off a monster year) never really played well again, and Kurt went on to a couple MVP's.If Priest is dead in a ditch this time next week, and RW2 is named starting Qb, Wr, Rb, AND God Almighty, the trade was still crap.
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.
Similar threads
