Disagree. It's pretty much collusion by definition. 50% of the people agree.
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!
Commissioner Collusion - what say you? - Update - I’m playing the sketchy commish in the semi’s and Thomas is out (5 Viewers)
- Thread starter Judge Smails
- Start date
Well you interpreted them in the way they weren't intended. See how grey area can be so problematic?
It IS collusion by definition.
it smells bad.....but its still ok to eat
He wouldn’t have had said player to start if he didn’t agree to sit him. What if the owner trading Thomas wanted Mahomes for Wentz in addition if the owner didn’t agree to bench Thomas?
That's probably the biggest takeaway.
Clearly, there is no definitive view on this. And polling the actual league never works as everyone there has a vested interest in the guy with the best record losing.
But clearly, this was important to @Judge Smails so in the interest of league unity and fairness, it's probably best to hammer out a clarification to use for the future.
Also, what were all the other pieces of the trade?
candian fantasy guy
Footballguy
I wonder how many of the "yes" votes are commissioners? As a commissioner, I don't want to control the league or the other teams, I just manage it and I try to avoid issues like this. If there is no preset language in the rules about this, what is the commissioner to do? Overturn the trade after the fact? What happens to their matchup then? Switch the lineups around to what the rest of the league thought they should have played? These options seem a little wild just because they made a verbal agreement that amounted to very little. Talk about affecting a week!
I own Russell Wilson and Kyler Murray. I decided to trade away one of them for a backup kicker, to my best friend. I did have one stipulation - he has to bench the QB whenever it benefits me.
Pipes
Footballguy
It is a failure of league by laws. Define the limits of trade compensation. Are conditional trades allowed? (Say you trade a pick and if it ends up falling down to a certain spot you have to kick in an extra pick - or you want the option to swap say 1st rd picks)
this is ultimately a conditional trade. Either it’s allowed or it isn’t, but it’s not collusion
this is ultimately a conditional trade. Either it’s allowed or it isn’t, but it’s not collusion
Last edited by a moderator:
Our league doesn’t change rules mid season. The solution is to abide by the current rules and propose a change in the off-season
CalBear
Footballguy
NFL teams do not have "trade conditions" like this, because they're illegal collusion. Can you imagine, "OK, we'll trade you Michael Thomas but you have to agree to not put him in the lineup against us" working in the NFL?
NBA has conditional trades all the time. NFL has trades where the compensation changes based on the number of games a player plays
Johnny Utah #9
Footballguy
It’s a close call. I think it could be construed as collusion since it was a premeditated between both the owners and had it’s intended effect of swinging an outcome of a game that affected the playoff prospects of other teams in the league.
I don’t think any of your suggested solutions to the problem are appropriate though. Would an equitable solution to this situation be to retroactively insert Thomas into the lineup for Mattison, thereby changing the win-loss result back to what it should have been if no agreement? That would nullify the effects of said collusion, and still let the teams keep their players involved in the trade as intended.
I'm talking about the feeling and motivation.
I said, "I'd say every GM who's ever traded away a top player has felt this. NFL teams do it all the time not wanting to trade to a division opponent."
You hear it all the time about a team hesitant to trade to a division opponent.
Apologies I wasn't clear.
Great.
Neither of those conditions resemble, "I won't try to win when we play each other".
Ask yourself, why don't NFL GMs just include as a condition of the trade that the traded players may not be used against their former team?
That'd solve the problem you've identified.
Do you think the league office would be OK with that sort of agreement?
he wouldn't have "been able to start him" ...... because he wouldn't have even had him....
no.....it wasn't "I won't try to win".....it was....."I won't start Michael Thomas"......there is a difference
There is no difference. It was "I won't start Michael Thomas even though starting him would be trying my hardest to win"
Like he mentioned, this would never fly in any real professional league.
Right. He only acquired Thomas after pledging, "I won't try to win when we play each other".
you are assuming that he was trying to lose.....can't assume that.....did making the trade based on the conditions of the deal decrease his chances that week?......sure
but he was also trying to increase his chances of winning the bigger prize down the road.......but you don't want to talk about that
but he was also trying to increase his chances of winning the bigger prize down the road.......but you don't want to talk about that
If he was trying to win, he would have played Thomas.
But, he didn't, and he therefore he wasn't.
how about this week.....and the next.....and the next....his team is probably better moving forward with Thomas because he agreed not to play him one week.....
Not trying your hardest to win isn't the opposite of trying to lose. If someone said "I'll give you my extra pair of extra fast running shoes if you run today's race barefoot" , then you still may take the deal as you are helping yourself down the road, and you are also still going to TRY to win this week even though you're at a disadvantage. Is it fair to all the other participants if you are running barefoot this week? No, no it is not.
Cjw_55106
Footballguy
You can call it whatever you want, I don’t buy that he wasn’t trying to win. If I had a chance to trade for a player that I really wanted I would accept the deal because I don’t want it to be revoked. I can see how someone thinks this is collusion, but I just think it’s part of an offer. When you start to get into the “what ifs”, in my opinion you lost the argument. Every situation is different. Some of you are really out there as far as your “what if’s” go.
That does nothing to change the fact that "I won't try to win when we play each other" is not valid trade currency.
lose the battle to win the war......and as a great Jeopardy player once said:
"Sometimes when you win, you really lose, and sometimes when you lose, you really win, and sometimes when you win or lose, you actually tie, and sometimes when you tie, you actually win or lose. Winning or losing is all one organic mechanism, from which one extracts what one needs.------Gloria Clemente
"Sometimes when you win, you really lose, and sometimes when you lose, you really win, and sometimes when you win or lose, you actually tie, and sometimes when you tie, you actually win or lose. Winning or losing is all one organic mechanism, from which one extracts what one needs.------Gloria Clemente
again you keep missing the point completely. Yes his team is better long term. THere are MANY situations where you can improve your team long term.
Honest question... how would you feel if Team B's condition was "We will make the trade if you start a bye week player in your RB spot this week" (We are assuming it is not against the rules to start bye week players)
Helaire-ious
Footballguy
no I'm not.....if I think sitting Michael Thomas one week is going to give me a better chance to win the championship.....guess what I'm doing......sitting Michael Thomas one week.....
Similar threads
