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!
You are describing passing the smell test. If the goal was to get the asset on that specific guys team so he can beat your rival, you by definition aren’t getting a market rate deal. It’s some level of soft dealing to influence competitive balance
No one would blink (or use the "C" word) if the trade were made exactly as it was and this was Thomas' bye week. The deal would be done knowing the availability of the players and that factoring into the evaluation of the players. The team would be accepting less chance of victory for one game in exchange for improving his team for the long haul. Still playing to win; not colluding and not losing on purpose.
Frankly soft dealing should ultimately bite you in the rear over time as whatever temporary influence you are trying to exert will overweighed by reducing roster value. So it probably falls into the bucket of unintended consequences more often than not
There is no specific rule about trade conditions. Maybe somebody could pm me with their league rules/constitution which covers all of this + the scenarios mentioned in this thread. Integrity of the league is understood.
Frankly even if he took a lesser deal than he could have gotten, it still isnt collusion or unethical.
The other person had the motive to accept the trade to improve their team. The person offering the WR did not improve their team on balance.
The owners lied about the unknown condition (sitting MT during their matchup). I don't know how much clearer deceit there could be.
It doesn't. This is the 1st time I've ever heard this specific scenario discussed in all my time here, and in all my time at FFToday, and in all my time at NetSports (where I was a mod way way back in the day)
When it comes to universally understood ethical concepts like "cheating is bad" and the understanding that "collusion is cheating" I don't think you need to. And that wouldn't matter if it was a $6 pot or a $6K pot. Ethics are ethics.
Again "Don't cheat at FF" would seem to be one of those "unwritten rules". I have nothing further to add to that. Either the people you play with are ethical or they are not. In my IDP league I had to remove two brothers because with one mathematically eliminated and the other on the cusp of a playoff appearance, they tried to make a deadline deal sending the bad team's best 4 players to the good team.
Perhaps, but it does not fall into the bucket of collusion or being unethical, which is the point.
I think the blame is equal on both sides. I'm actually more concerned about the team that might get an easier win, as they were described as still fighting for a playoff spot.
Worse is in the eye of the beholder. There is no for sure answer to which one is worse because it comes down to your point of view. People evaluate players differently. There is no right answer to what is worse and what is better.
They shouldn’t have any expectation with how a owner will manage their roster. How is that possibly deceit?
He could shout his motive from the rooftops and it still wouldn't be unethical or collusion.
In my hypothetical I didn't "give away" anyone. As framed, that's collusion or a form of roster dumping. I took great caution to specify that I traded for fair value, and needed depth at TE.
That is why I used the example of draft picks. I think it is obvious that a future 2nd from a team who will get a 1st round bye is WORSE than a future 2nd from a playoff team who will not get a bye.
In this case the owner was not managing their roster. The other owner required him to sit MT. The owner that received MT said specifically that if it were up to him (the owner managing their own roster) he would have played MT. That is the entire crux of this collusion situation and where the deceit rears it's ugly head.
and that is the everloving point. Integrity should be assumed. If it has to be written in the rules that you shouldn't commit collusion, then you should probably find better quality people to play with, or every loophole imaginable will eventually be exploited.
Soft dealing is definitely unethical if impossible to prove provided the smell test hurdle was passed and our leader of ethical behavior lied about it
But that is not the entirety of the value of the trade - which I think is the point you are trying to make. There are other factors that come into play when evaluating the trade offers to see which is better or worse. I think we are on the same side here.
yep - this is why I answer trade concernsfrom league members (as commish) with "a deal doesn't have to be 100% fair to be accepted. people are allowed to make crappy deals. Making a crappy deal may just mean a better one wasn't available, or that manager valued that player differently."
They managed their roster in as much as they took sitting MT into consideration. They could have said no to the deal. In managing his own roster he felt he could play an acceptable lineup while sitting MT. Yes, that is managing the roster.
I'm not sure why folks struggle with this. This is the heart of the collusion that occurred.
Not in the slightest. Two assets of fair value were exchanged. Each team dealt from a position of strength, the league voted on it, it passed. There were no hidden terms or conditions. Both teams received value for value and both teams had the intention of winning their next game.
You are making Olympic size long jump leaps here on throwing the game not starting WR132. But I agree that there was an attempt to conceal the condition, which is the issue, not necessarily the condition itself. Had it come out before and sour grapes came up he could argue to the league to pound sand and change the rules in the off-season
Not when both teams agreed to managing his roster to that desirable outcome it's not. It's collusion. You can put it in a box, gift wrap it & put a bow on it, that doesn't make it a birthday present. It's still collusion. Two parties entered into a secret agreement that one party would get MT on the condition that he benched him in their game.
His ranking is irrelevant. He's missed a ton of time. That doesn't make him Danny Amendola. He's still Michael Thomas. Talk about making "Olympic sized long jump leaps".
That's all it is. My hypothetical doesn't remotely fit the definition of "roster dumping".
It comes down to Motivation and intent.
As I said, it is more precise but it is still a level of roster dumping. The purpose was to affect the competitive balance and nothing more. He solicited the trade in fact in this hypothetical.
If they are of equal value then how does it improve the other team so dramatically that they earn a win from it?
Other guy gets better roster construction. Hot Sauce takes the L on roster construction but can argue he didn’t get worse
The hypothetical is the hypothetical.
It’s called “trading from depth for depth”.
Without actual player names it is hard to determine if it is roster dumping or not.
A WR 3 is equal value to a TE 2. And not just any WR3 but one that will bring a win.
I enjoy the back and forth with you. And yes you did craft it in an unrealistic way. If the motivation was as stated and let’s not pretend value is an exact term, it’s a range based on the universe of opinion. You are hugging that range to your chest like a shield while the intent of the trade had nothing to do with your roster as absent the competitive balance you have no motivation to make the trade
It was both.
And again, as I and others have clearly told you: my motivation of making that trade is not remotely
I disagree with that, it’s just a condition of the trade to be factored into the analysis of overall value unless it is prohibited by league rules. Take it or leave it. Wait a week and see if they still want to do the trade. Maybe MT blows up and the value equation changes in the trade
This is why you write down rules and bylaws instead of listening to self proclaimed ethics experts talking out both sides of their mouths
