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 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Judge Smails
- Start date
It’s not shady. It’s just a condition, it’s either allowed or not
your opinion on MT’s potential to score is irrelevant to the shady condition imposed on the trade involving two teams about to face each other & one of them benching a player they just traded for.
the lie is the cherry on top.
hiding it is shady because they didn’t do anything wrong besides hide it unless the rules outlaw it
Last edited by a moderator:
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
1. I am not proclaiming myself to be an ethics expert. Never have. Use the quote feature if you want to make a claim like that.
2. I’ve been completely consistent. You’re tying very hard to claim my hypothetical to be hypocritical. It is not. You just don’t understand it.
I Am the Stig
Footballguy
The problem with your hypothetical is that you can sculpt it into the shape you need to fit your narrative.
But, ethically, on its face value it doesn’t pass muster based on your stated reason for making the trade. The motivation is what puts it on shaky ground from the get go.
It is possible to wrap it in a package that is difficult for the league to detect the motivation but to claim that this is somehow more above bore than the trade being discussed is laughable. You may have avoided the collusion claim but it may still be raised by the league as well as other far easier violations depending on actual players and roster compositions.
And even with this, unless specified in rules I would say it is likely ok.
The trade being discussed both players did what they needed to do to improve their teams. One team more of lifeline short term improvement and the other is playing the long game. Both want the same things but have different priorities.
Your example you purposely want to determine league winners and losers.
Last edited by a moderator:
ghostguy123
Footballguy
So then basically anyone with any sort of intelligence only makes unethical trades because of other things they likely think about other than just the players/picks involved in a deal.
1. I’m not digging back 10 pages to find your college class syllabus
2. I understand what you are trying to do just fine. I think it’s inherently soft dealing if you make a trade not trying to improve your roster but impact the competitive balance of other games. You switch your defense of the motivation and intent of the trade based on what question you’re asked. I think that calls into question good faith.
I Am the Stig
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
all I said was I took logic classes and some things, like “don’t cheat at FF” are universally understood. Seems pretty straightforward as a concept.
The motivation was stated transparently.
the terms of the hypothetical deal were stated transparently.
Ive not altered my position on either.
meanwhile you’ve claimed it’s 1. Collusion, 2. Roster dumping, and 3. Soft dealing.
you’ve failed to establish that it’s any of those 3 things; or that you understand what those terms mean in context of my hypothetical.
lord give me strength.
Last edited by a moderator:
It’s all of it, you are messing with competitive balance, soft dealing is roster dumping. The point is that value isn’t the driving motivation so value really won’t be there. You aren’t trying to win the trade as the trade partner wouldn’t accept it and unwittingly put in action your plan
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
In the trade hypothetical I said it was to get a backup TE, which I described as a “TE2” because he’d be my TE2
being deliberately obtuse isn’t endearing.
being deliberately obtuse isn’t endearing.
I Am the Stig
Footballguy
Not at all. You can’t claim one deal is shady because the condition of the trade was undisclosed regarding the benching of the traded player arguing both collusion and competitive balance while proposing soliciting a trade for the sole purpose is to improve a team so they may knock a competitor out of contention somehow also isn’t impacting the competitive balance of the league is ok.
I Am the Stig
Footballguy
How was the motive stated transparently? Would you announce to the league that you are purposely helping another team in hopes of knocking another out?
Exactly how would that go?
ghostguy123
Footballguy
One deal had a condition, in fact a condition most people would say should not be allowed.
One deal had no condition at all.
Apples to oranges comparison. Completely disagree with you.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Then by your definition every trade is “messing with competitive balance” and this is a ridiculous counterpoint.
my driving motivation of the trade is irrelevant to the ethics of the trade. That was my entire point that somehow eludes you.
What I described was a perfectly fair deal between two non-colluding teams that were both trading from strength.
literally the perfect trade.
and the actual point is that peripheral impact, like my side benefit of the deal, can happen without any ethical consideration whatsoever.
In that hypothetical, I helped a trade partner improve their team, I received fair value back, AND maybe it helps my playoff position.
zero ethics concerns. And again, the ONLY reason you know my personal motive for making that deal is because i literally told you. and that motive, as I and others have tried to express, doesn’t change the ethics of the deal in the slightest.
Sorry, but you’re flat wrong here.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
If you are ONLY making trades based on the value of the players/picks involved you are doing it wrong.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Wouldn’t have to. It’s a fair trade between two teams with two players of equal value.
by “stated transparently” I was referring to my hypothetical. My personal reason for making the trade is irrelevant.
again - you are clearly trying way too hard to not understand this.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
It’s just hilarious. All trades must be 100% pure as the driven snow, and none can impact competitive balance of the league or they should be vetoed.
I’m mystified by this reaction to a pretty straightforward hypothetical, but the responses have proved insightful for sure.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
I Am the Stig
Footballguy
They are apples to oranges. The hypothetical is about as accurate as his Salvation Army Bucket analogy.
But while apples and oranges his hypothetical is not free and clear of problems. He simply disclosed a trade example that was non-collusion. Big deal. Most trades are. But my only point is that trades can be framed in many ways so it is best to have good rules and well written best practices to help adjudicate any issues.
Nudge agreed they had no such rules and asked for some examples. Unbelievable for a league with such a large pot to simply trust in the milk of human kindness. But what’s 6k among friends?
I think you nailed it no collusion in this scenario. It could also backfire on @Hot Sauce Guy if his starting TE gets injured.
I Am the Stig
Footballguy
We don’t know anything other than you have thrown out a WR3 for Kittle.
Sorry but a WR3 is a player like Cobb or E Sanders. That type of player for a Kittle is not equal
Last edited by a moderator:
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Well in that scenario I’m getting a backup TE for a WR3 type from the hypothetical other team.
but it could certainly backfire on me if a WR gets hurt, or if I then face my trade partner in the playoffs and the WR I dealt him blows up.
those realistic and potentially damaging scenarios also help illustrate the difference between a shady collusion deal like this topic is about where there’s no risk, to a fair deal that involves risk.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Again, being deliberately obtuse isn’t endearing. This is where I simply assume you’re incapable of having a respectful conversation and bow out.
I Am the Stig
Footballguy
Doesn’t matter. It is a bad trade and most people would not accept it.
That is the problem with hypotheticals like this. In fact the trade would and should be thoroughly mocked.
When I first started reading this thread I didn't realize it was a "hypothetical" trade. I thought you were trading a backup TE for a WR3. With how crappy most TE1s and TE2s are I would trade my BU for a good WR3 all day because I could get someone else to plug in if necessary.
I Am the Stig
Footballguy
It is a common understanding that TE1, TE2 refer to tiers of players, not personal roster depth chart.
A WR3 is a third tier of WRs all of whom would not be ranked higher than 30 in any ranking.
This is why you need actual player names Hypotheticals just don’t work to serve your point.
No WR3 is putting a team over the top in a given week. They can be found on the WW fir free. Try again.
I Am the Stig
Footballguy
Except he said Kittle would be a TE2 if the owner also had Kelce. Show me the team with both but I digress.
He set the bar at Kittle and claimed he was a TE2. This I presume would be the defense to the league.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
No, the topic at hand involves collusion & the subject of ethics came up, especially with regard to potential playoff implications of what seems like throwing a game as part of a trade (e.g. benching a top asset acquired in that trade for a secret agreement to bench them when they faced each other).
i gave a hypothetical to compare, as an example of how every trade can impact league standings, and how a deal can even have that intent without being unethical.
some have struggled with this concept, to say the least:
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
It’s a common understanding that collusion is unethical and shouldn’t be allowed, yet you can’t grasp that concept either.
I Am the Stig
Footballguy
Except I haven’t seen collusion. I have seen conditions of a trade that fell within the rules.It’s a common understanding that collusion is unethical and shouldn’t be allowed, yet you can’t grasp that concept either.
But you’re the guy thinks this trade is the equivalent to taking money out of Salvation Army bucket.
Last edited by a moderator:
When healthy I think you would be an idiot if you only got a WR3 in return for Kittle.
I Am the Stig
Footballguy
And with Kittle on IR in redraft it is a soft trade.
Hypotheticals and analogies are not his strong suit.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Don’t go down the rabbit hole, you’re just taking his bait.yoman said:
I said in the hypothetical that team A is giving team B a WR3 (for that team) for a TE2 (for team A)
The term was clearly used to indicate a backup TE.
I sarcastically said Kittle was a TE2 if you have Kelce as your TE1 to Illustrate the point that this member continues to deliberately misunderstand.
don’t waste your time.
I Am the Stig
Footballguy
Here are some actual trades in Yahoo for Darren Waller
Waller for Ronald Jones
Waller/Mostert for Mike Davis/E Engram/James Conner
Waller/Chubb for Evans/CMAC/D’Andre Swift
But Kittle for a WR3. LOL
Waller for Ronald Jones
Waller/Mostert for Mike Davis/E Engram/James Conner
Waller/Chubb for Evans/CMAC/D’Andre Swift
But Kittle for a WR3. LOL
ghostguy123
Footballguy
You are focused on not only all the wrong things but also things you are making up in your own head as we go along.
Yeesh
I Am the Stig
Footballguy
Oh you wish it was sarcastic.
And again, in your hypothetical you are not offering anything that isn’t already on the WW.
These trades just don’t happen in standard size leagues. A TE2 and WR3 are all JAGs and just not impactful enough to go through the hassle of a trade.
It just isn’t a good hypothetical and it is terribly unrealistic.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
I Am the Stig
Footballguy
I’m focused on a ridiculous hypothetical that barely makes a reasonable point. He could have crafted it any way he wished and picked Kittle.
I mean it is a apples to orange comparison which is another reason why it is just a bad point to make in relation to this trade.
So let’s dig into the hypothetical.
I once made a trade without any communication beyond the offer through the app. See anyone can point out a non relevant example.
I Am the Stig
Footballguy
Stealing is unethical. I’ll never forget where I was when I learned that.Also completely misunderstandingwhich in and of itself is just *chef’s kiss*
I Am the Stig
Footballguy
No, he is trying to paint a hypothetical without anything concrete in terms of actual player value.
He can claim Kittle was being sarcastic but frankly trading WW level players isn’t a better spin on his example.
I’ll take Trades the never happen for 500.
But that is why it’s hypothetical.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
I Am the Stig
Footballguy
No I understand his point. He was trying to demonstrate a "ethical" way to upset the competitive balance of the league in his favor via a trade.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
CalBear
Footballguy
How about this: You're at the draft. You know the guy drafting after you really wants Davante Adams. You have Adams at the top of your list, too, but you like Michael Thomas almost as much. So you make a deal: you agree to take Thomas instead of Adams, contingent on him not playing Adams against you during the season.
You could draw up league rules where this is allowed. Some people might enjoy the wheeler-dealer aspects of it. But it's not what is normally expected, and if you're making moves like that in leagues where it's not explicitly allowed, you're pushing the boundaries of ethics.
You could draw up league rules where this is allowed. Some people might enjoy the wheeler-dealer aspects of it. But it's not what is normally expected, and if you're making moves like that in leagues where it's not explicitly allowed, you're pushing the boundaries of ethics.
It is blowing my mind that this topic is so evenly divided. And for those who say this is fine, you are 100% wrong. It's about as ethical as me saying I have an internet friend who wants to join the league, then people find out it's just me, using the 2nd team as my very own farm system.
ratbast
Footballguy
I can’t believe this is such a big deal. It’s not collusion. They were playing each other! You can not blame anyone for benching Thomas this year anyway.
Owner 1: I want Thomas
Owner 2: I’m playing you this week.
Owner 1: I’m not going to play him this week anyway.
Owner 2: Great let’s do it.
Owner 1: I want Thomas
Owner 2: I’m playing you this week.
Owner 1: I’m not going to play him this week anyway.
Owner 2: Great let’s do it.
If this example was how it went down, then that is fine. Both owners admitted that this WASN"T how it went down though.
In my early years of playing, I used to do “swap me a defense for a TE” trade to cover bye weeks with the agreement that we would trade back the following week.
This is both collusion and unfair to the rest of the league. And I think the trade you described is essentially the same thing.
I am now a part of multiple dynasty leagues which have language in the bylaws expressly prohibiting conditional trades and a requirement for all teams to submit their most competitive lineup.
In this case, given how bad Thomas has been, I can see benching him for any reasonable alternative. Mattison isn’t it. And you have the owners admitting it.
This is both collusion and unfair to the rest of the league. And I think the trade you described is essentially the same thing.
I am now a part of multiple dynasty leagues which have language in the bylaws expressly prohibiting conditional trades and a requirement for all teams to submit their most competitive lineup.
In this case, given how bad Thomas has been, I can see benching him for any reasonable alternative. Mattison isn’t it. And you have the owners admitting it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
