Commissue Part 2 (1 Viewer)

[Donsmith753]

I commish a 16 team dynasty and two owners were having a discussion about who will rush for more yards next year: McCoy or Chris Johnson (each owner has one of them).

One suggested an agreement whereby whichever teams player rushes for less yards next year is given to the other team for free at the end of the season.

I've never come across something like this and it makes me a bit uneasy, especially considering the calibre of players involved.

Curious to see the views of the shark pool on this especially considering it doesn't really break any current rules.

 

[DoubleG]

Tell the Chris Johnson owner his team won't be long for the league if he keeps giving away players.

 

[ItsOnlytheRiver]

I would consider gambling players or draft picks to fall under the collusion umbrella - and I would add this to the rules or put it up for league vote at the minimum. This doesn't just affect the losing bettor here it affects the entire league and especially the teams vying for a championship.

 

[Donsmith753]

I would consider gambling players or draft picks to fall under the collusion umbrella - and I would add this to the rules or put it up for league vote at the minimum. This doesn't just affect the losing bettor here it affects the entire league and especially the teams vying for a championship.

This is part of the problem. I'm one of the stronger teams in the league so I wouldn't want it to look like my decision was made to stop one team getting stronger.Both teams currently have good but not great rosters.One has Stafford, Cj, Megatron, Torrey SmithOther has Rice, McCoy, Wallace, Jordy Nelson.

 

[ItsOnlytheRiver]

I would consider gambling players or draft picks to fall under the collusion umbrella - and I would add this to the rules or put it up for league vote at the minimum. This doesn't just affect the losing bettor here it affects the entire league and especially the teams vying for a championship.

This is part of the problem. I'm one of the stronger teams in the league so I wouldn't want it to look like my decision was made to stop one team getting stronger.Both teams currently have good but not great rosters.One has Stafford, Cj, Megatron, Torrey SmithOther has Rice, McCoy, Wallace, Jordy Nelson.

To me it seems like an agreement to make a lopsided trade based on factors that have nothing to do with the league. I would consider that collusion.

 

[GregR]

I commish a 16 team dynasty and two owners were having a discussion about who will rush for more yards next year: McCoy or Chris Johnson (each owner has one of them).

One suggested an agreement whereby whichever teams player rushes for less yards next year is given to the other team for free at the end of the season.

I've never come across something like this and it makes me a bit uneasy, especially considering the calibre of players involved.

Curious to see the views of the shark pool on this especially considering it doesn't really break any current rules.

It should make you more than just a bit uneasy. Any legitimate trade should be based on both owners having a reasonable expectation of the trade improving their overall gametime results. A commish doesn't have to agree the trade improves both teams. He just has to agree that the owner could honestly think so, even if he is wrong.

No one could make a reasonable explanation that giving such a RB away for nothing would improve their team. So trade would be denied.

If your league wants to have a league where players can be traded based on bets or otherwise given away for nothing, then write it into the rules. But it isn't something anyone should expect to be allowed unless it is specifically spelled out because it isn't part of the normally understood spirit of the game.

To help smooth things over, you could suggest the bet instead be that the loser has to pay the winner's entry fee. Or maybe the winner gets to choose a new name for the loser's team, something like that to keep it fantasy involved.

 

[P-Dizzle]

It's not collusion at all, the discussion was raised and still being discussed on the football (soccer) forum that all league members post on. Our league is in regular contact and this isn't the first thing that's been thrown up. We have agreements on future trade picks, where the team that does worse gets a better of two 2013 2nd rounders.

I don't think it's as mad as some folk are making out.

 

[habsfan]

I'm not sure which common league rule this would violate to be honest - gross negligence perhaps?. The bet itself has nothing to do with the league or fantasy football at all and league "assets" should not be used to settle the bet.

 

[Captain Hook]

It's not collusion at all, the discussion was raised and still being discussed on the football (soccer) forum that all league members post on. Our league is in regular contact and this isn't the first thing that's been thrown up. We have agreements on future trade picks, where the team that does worse gets a better of two 2013 2nd rounders. I don't think it's as mad as some folk are making out.

But you are clearly looking at it from a personal/selfish perspective.The trade clearly hurts the other teams in the league for no reasonIt is totally against the spirit and rules of FF leagues - keep your gambling with the bookiesThis wouldn't even be a question if your league had a strong commissioner and well written rules but it would never fly in any of the leagues I play in or Commish

 

[ap28.allday]

I'm not sure which common league rule this would violate to be honest - gross negligence perhaps?. The bet itself has nothing to do with the league or fantasy football at all and league "assets" should not be used to settle the bet.

This has been the best way to put it. Bottom line is if it were my league, it wouldnt happen.

 

[ItsOnlytheRiver]

It's not collusion at all, the discussion was raised and still being discussed on the football (soccer) forum that all league members post on. Our league is in regular contact and this isn't the first thing that's been thrown up. We have agreements on future trade picks, where the team that does worse gets a better of two 2013 2nd rounders. I don't think it's as mad as some folk are making out.

What does this post even mean? Specifically... well, all of it, but especially your example which to me just seems like how most leagues hand out rookie picks from year to year.

 

[twistd]

Let them bet money instead. Perhaps they can bet the entry fee or something like that. I think betting players can change the competitive balance of the league. That hurts the teams that had nothing to do with the bet. I don't like that.

 

[ap28.allday]

Let them bet money instead. Perhaps they can bet the entry fee or something like that. I think betting players can change the competitive balance of the league. That hurts the teams that had nothing to do with the bet. I don't like that.

Agreed, we have monetary bets in our league but not for players. Last season 2 teams bet whom ever had the worst record had to buy pizza and beer for the rest of our league at the rookie draft. Haha, win/win for me!! This season 2 teams bet next years entry fee and control over team name and photo for 1 year on who's record is better.

 

[P-Dizzle]

It's not collusion at all, the discussion was raised and still being discussed on the football (soccer) forum that all league members post on. Our league is in regular contact and this isn't the first thing that's been thrown up. We have agreements on future trade picks, where the team that does worse gets a better of two 2013 2nd rounders. I don't think it's as mad as some folk are making out.

What does this post even mean? Specifically... well, all of it, but especially your example which to me just seems like how most leagues hand out rookie picks from year to year.

The picks were made in a trade, both thought they were getting a specific pick out of two 2013 2nd rounders so it was agreed whoever finished lower this season would get the better 2013 draft pick.It was just an idea to actually put something on the line when we were looking at RBs for the next season. If other league members are unhappy then they'll vote against it, if it comes to that.

 

[GregR]

It's not collusion at all, the discussion was raised and still being discussed on the football (soccer) forum that all league members post on. Our league is in regular contact and this isn't the first thing that's been thrown up. We have agreements on future trade picks, where the team that does worse gets a better of two 2013 2nd rounders. I don't think it's as mad as some folk are making out.

What does this post even mean? Specifically... well, all of it, but especially your example which to me just seems like how most leagues hand out rookie picks from year to year.

The picks were made in a trade, both thought they were getting a specific pick out of two 2013 2nd rounders so it was agreed whoever finished lower this season would get the better 2013 draft pick.It was just an idea to actually put something on the line when we were looking at RBs for the next season. If other league members are unhappy then they'll vote against it, if it comes to that.

There shouldn't be any expectation it will be allowed or even that a vote will be held on it. Something this clearly against the understood spirit of the game should just be banned by the commish as part of upholding his duty to protect the integrity for all the owners.If you want a league that allows this, write up a rule to allow it and put it up to a vote before you try to pull something like this.

 

[lbouchard]

IMO it upsets the competitive balance of the league and is collusion. Giving an elite RB away for nothing? If my league, I'd be up in arms.

 

[jojoh07]

IMO it upsets the competitive balance of the league and is collusion. Giving an elite RB away for nothing? If my league, I'd be up in arms.

 

[bonesman]

One suggested an agreement whereby whichever teams player rushes for less yards next year is given to the other team for free at the end of the season.

Was it the McCoy owner? I wouldn't be surprised if he was wrong (since it's only rushing yards)

 

[ItsOnlytheRiver]

It's not collusion at all, the discussion was raised and still being discussed on the football (soccer) forum that all league members post on. Our league is in regular contact and this isn't the first thing that's been thrown up. We have agreements on future trade picks, where the team that does worse gets a better of two 2013 2nd rounders. I don't think it's as mad as some folk are making out.

What does this post even mean? Specifically... well, all of it, but especially your example which to me just seems like how most leagues hand out rookie picks from year to year.

The picks were made in a trade, both thought they were getting a specific pick out of two 2013 2nd rounders so it was agreed whoever finished lower this season would get the better 2013 draft pick.It was just an idea to actually put something on the line when we were looking at RBs for the next season. If other league members are unhappy then they'll vote against it, if it comes to that.

I'm still confused, but from what I can gather this is a pretty stupid thing that's going on here. Now, if one guy thinks he's going to have the better year, and another guy thinks he's going to have the better year and they put their money where their mouth is by swapping future seconds I have no problem with that.

 

[JamboTaylor]

One suggested an agreement whereby whichever teams player rushes for less yards next year is given to the other team for free at the end of the season.

Was it the McCoy owner? I wouldn't be surprised if he was wrong (since it's only rushing yards)

It was the Johnson owner, and the proposed deal was actually total yards.

 

[bonesman]

One suggested an agreement whereby whichever teams player rushes for less yards next year is given to the other team for free at the end of the season.

Was it the McCoy owner? I wouldn't be surprised if he was wrong (since it's only rushing yards)

It was the Johnson owner, and the proposed deal was actually total yards.

Oh, crazyThat really doesn't matter at all though... I can imagine this flying in any league that I've ever been a part of... there's always some kind of side bets though.

 

[kutta]

It's not collusion at all, the discussion was raised and still being discussed on the football (soccer) forum that all league members post on. Our league is in regular contact and this isn't the first thing that's been thrown up. We have agreements on future trade picks, where the team that does worse gets a better of two 2013 2nd rounders. I don't think it's as mad as some folk are making out.

What does this post even mean? Specifically... well, all of it, but especially your example which to me just seems like how most leagues hand out rookie picks from year to year.

The picks were made in a trade, both thought they were getting a specific pick out of two 2013 2nd rounders so it was agreed whoever finished lower this season would get the better 2013 draft pick.It was just an idea to actually put something on the line when we were looking at RBs for the next season. If other league members are unhappy then they'll vote against it, if it comes to that.

I'm still confused, but from what I can gather this is a pretty stupid thing that's going on here. Now, if one guy thinks he's going to have the better year, and another guy thinks he's going to have the better year and they put their money where their mouth is by swapping future seconds I have no problem with that.

Why is swapping future seconds any better? We have an issue in our league where two owners have agreed to swap first round rookie picks next year, and of course, the pick order is based upon order of finish this year. So in reality what will happen is that the better team will end up with potentially a very good draft pick and will be giving up a worse pick. This seems like the same issue as in the OP, but on a smaller scale. It still disrupts the integrity of the league and IMO, shouldn't be allowed.

 

[Donsmith753]

It's not collusion at all, the discussion was raised and still being discussed on the football (soccer) forum that all league members post on. Our league is in regular contact and this isn't the first thing that's been thrown up. We have agreements on future trade picks, where the team that does worse gets a better of two 2013 2nd rounders. I don't think it's as mad as some folk are making out.

What does this post even mean? Specifically... well, all of it, but especially your example which to me just seems like how most leagues hand out rookie picks from year to year.

The picks were made in a trade, both thought they were getting a specific pick out of two 2013 2nd rounders so it was agreed whoever finished lower this season would get the better 2013 draft pick.It was just an idea to actually put something on the line when we were looking at RBs for the next season. If other league members are unhappy then they'll vote against it, if it comes to that.

I'm still confused, but from what I can gather this is a pretty stupid thing that's going on here. Now, if one guy thinks he's going to have the better year, and another guy thinks he's going to have the better year and they put their money where their mouth is by swapping future seconds I have no problem with that.

Why is swapping future seconds any better? We have an issue in our league where two owners have agreed to swap first round rookie picks next year, and of course, the pick order is based upon order of finish this year. So in reality what will happen is that the better team will end up with potentially a very good draft pick and will be giving up a worse pick. This seems like the same issue as in the OP, but on a smaller scale. It still disrupts the integrity of the league and IMO, shouldn't be allowed.

In this case the better team gets the later pick. Two teams accepted trades at the same time involving one pick ( a future 2nd). That Owner had another future 2nd too and so as one of the stronger teams in the league I said I'd take the one that's expected to be later.If however this other team manages to do better than me this year I'll get the earlier pick. So the better team gets the later pick.It's really nothing like the issue I've posted here.

 

[Danish Bengal]

In my main league we have written in the rules that futures, repos and conditional trades aren't allowed, so this trade (with is obviously conditional) would very easily be overruled

 

[dehaven123]

not a prob at all.

in fact, i hear jerry jones and lil danny have a bet re: the salary cap hit issue.

Jerry told Danny tha continuing to sure is a waste of resources. Danny disagreed. so, they made a bet. if danny sues and looses, they agreed RG3 would be given to the Cowboys.

seems very legitimate and in no way impacts league balance. carry on.

 

[Shane Falco]

col·lu·sion

noun \kə-ˈlü-zhən\

Definition of COLLUSION

: secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose

— col·lu·sive adjective

— col·lu·sive·ly adverb

Its not collusion. Its is a bet that is detrimental to the league and as I commish I would not allow it on those grounds. Poor for the competitive balance, yada yada. But not collusion.

Sorry but I see the word collusion thrown around all the time and I really think half the people think its means lopsided trade

 

[ItsOnlytheRiver]

col·lu·sionnoun \kə-ˈlü-zhən\Definition of COLLUSION: secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose— col·lu·sive adjective— col·lu·sive·ly adverb Its not collusion. Its is a bet that is detrimental to the league and as I commish I would not allow it on those grounds. Poor for the competitive balance, yada yada. But not collusion.Sorry but I see the word collusion thrown around all the time and I really think half the people think its means lopsided trade

The only reason it isn't "collusion" by that definition is that the bettors decided to make the bet public.

 

[ItsOnlytheRiver]

It's not collusion at all, the discussion was raised and still being discussed on the football (soccer) forum that all league members post on. Our league is in regular contact and this isn't the first thing that's been thrown up. We have agreements on future trade picks, where the team that does worse gets a better of two 2013 2nd rounders. I don't think it's as mad as some folk are making out.

What does this post even mean? Specifically... well, all of it, but especially your example which to me just seems like how most leagues hand out rookie picks from year to year.

The picks were made in a trade, both thought they were getting a specific pick out of two 2013 2nd rounders so it was agreed whoever finished lower this season would get the better 2013 draft pick.It was just an idea to actually put something on the line when we were looking at RBs for the next season. If other league members are unhappy then they'll vote against it, if it comes to that.

I'm still confused, but from what I can gather this is a pretty stupid thing that's going on here. Now, if one guy thinks he's going to have the better year, and another guy thinks he's going to have the better year and they put their money where their mouth is by swapping future seconds I have no problem with that.

Why is swapping future seconds any better? We have an issue in our league where two owners have agreed to swap first round rookie picks next year, and of course, the pick order is based upon order of finish this year. So in reality what will happen is that the better team will end up with potentially a very good draft pick and will be giving up a worse pick. This seems like the same issue as in the OP, but on a smaller scale. It still disrupts the integrity of the league and IMO, shouldn't be allowed.

I couldn't think of a more fair trade than swapping future seconds. Those assets are exactly the same value right now. Should we disallow trading WRs holding similar value? Chances are they won't hold equal value a year from now, and by gosh, the better team might have traded for the better WR!

 

[Trey]

No need for a rule/league vote/etc.

As the commish you need to preserve the integrity of the league. Teams trading away top tier players for nothing is harmful to the league.

Tell them it's not even close to allowed and move on.

 

[BaBastage]

Any legitimate trade should be based on both owners having a reasonable expectation of the trade improving their overall gametime results. A commish doesn't have to agree the trade improves both teams. He just has to agree that the owner could honestly think so, even if he is wrong.

This is probably one the best and simplest 'sniff tests' to determine if any particular trade should be allowed.

 

[BaBastage]

Its not collusion. Its is a bet that is detrimental to the league and as I commish I would not allow it on those grounds. Poor for the competitive balance, yada yada. But not collusion.

I agree here too. It's not collusion, but still should not be allowed.

 

[geoff8695]

Tell the Chris Johnson owner his team won't be long for the league if he keeps giving away players.

I wouldn't be so sure about that...Dynasty owners sometimes get carried away with a prior year's statistics; admittedly, CJ's 2011 was, "turrible-just turrible". Yet, he still tallied over 1460 combined yards on 319 touches, and McCoy has averaged ~1600 combined yards like clockwork for the past two seasons with a career high 321 touches in 2011. However, McCoy also put up a gaudy 20 TDs which translated to big fantasy totals in 2011. As far as I know, Andy Reid is still coaching the iggles which means McCoy has a ceiling upon number of touches... CJ on the other hand is likely to get significantly more touches and could easily exceed 400 touches (something he's done 50% of the time through four NFL seasons). OTOH, Andy Reid's lead RB has NEVER had 400 touches in a season.So which would be more surprising, Andy Reid's lead RB to suddenly depart from 300+ touches per season, or CJ to resume his 400+ touches per season ways?Personally, I would expect to see McCoy maintain his 1600+ yds average with a decline in TDs, while CJ goes for 1750+ (CJ's CAREER Avg. is 1768 per season). Don't get me wrong, for dynasty I'll take the 23 year old elite RB over the 26 year old elite RB and hope for a couple extra seasons of RB1 production. However, in 2012 I don't see a huge advantage for McCoy...That being said, owners should never be allowed to give away rostered players on stupid side wagers. Tell them instead to put their money where their mouths are and wager league entry fees or beer or something that doesn't impact the league's integrity. Two owners' getting into a pissing contest about which one has the more elite RB shouldn't be allowed to affect the competitive balance of the league.

 

[kutta]

It's not collusion at all, the discussion was raised and still being discussed on the football (soccer) forum that all league members post on. Our league is in regular contact and this isn't the first thing that's been thrown up. We have agreements on future trade picks, where the team that does worse gets a better of two 2013 2nd rounders. I don't think it's as mad as some folk are making out.

What does this post even mean? Specifically... well, all of it, but especially your example which to me just seems like how most leagues hand out rookie picks from year to year.

The picks were made in a trade, both thought they were getting a specific pick out of two 2013 2nd rounders so it was agreed whoever finished lower this season would get the better 2013 draft pick.It was just an idea to actually put something on the line when we were looking at RBs for the next season. If other league members are unhappy then they'll vote against it, if it comes to that.

I'm still confused, but from what I can gather this is a pretty stupid thing that's going on here. Now, if one guy thinks he's going to have the better year, and another guy thinks he's going to have the better year and they put their money where their mouth is by swapping future seconds I have no problem with that.

Why is swapping future seconds any better? We have an issue in our league where two owners have agreed to swap first round rookie picks next year, and of course, the pick order is based upon order of finish this year. So in reality what will happen is that the better team will end up with potentially a very good draft pick and will be giving up a worse pick. This seems like the same issue as in the OP, but on a smaller scale. It still disrupts the integrity of the league and IMO, shouldn't be allowed.

I couldn't think of a more fair trade than swapping future seconds. Those assets are exactly the same value right now. Should we disallow trading WRs holding similar value? Chances are they won't hold equal value a year from now, and by gosh, the better team might have traded for the better WR!

I disagree. First of all, the assets are not exactly the same value right now. The worse team's 2nd round pick is worth more than the better team's. I am totally fine with people making trades for future picks, but the values at the time of the draft should at least have a chance of being equal. There is no possible way, at the time of the draft, that people would swap 2nd round picks. So the swapping of picks is based solely on a bet, and the outcome will, no matter what, be better for one team than the other.Swapping two WR's is different. There is a chance one WR could be better. Or there is a chance the other could. One 2nd round pick will always be better than the other, and who gets the benefit of that is based upon a bet that has nothing to do with the league. That is a problem.

 

[Hoosier16]

It's not collusion at all, the discussion was raised and still being discussed on the football (soccer) forum that all league members post on. Our league is in regular contact and this isn't the first thing that's been thrown up. We have agreements on future trade picks, where the team that does worse gets a better of two 2013 2nd rounders. I don't think it's as mad as some folk are making out.

What does this post even mean? Specifically... well, all of it, but especially your example which to me just seems like how most leagues hand out rookie picks from year to year.

The picks were made in a trade, both thought they were getting a specific pick out of two 2013 2nd rounders so it was agreed whoever finished lower this season would get the better 2013 draft pick.It was just an idea to actually put something on the line when we were looking at RBs for the next season. If other league members are unhappy then they'll vote against it, if it comes to that.

I'm still confused, but from what I can gather this is a pretty stupid thing that's going on here. Now, if one guy thinks he's going to have the better year, and another guy thinks he's going to have the better year and they put their money where their mouth is by swapping future seconds I have no problem with that.

Why is swapping future seconds any better? We have an issue in our league where two owners have agreed to swap first round rookie picks next year, and of course, the pick order is based upon order of finish this year. So in reality what will happen is that the better team will end up with potentially a very good draft pick and will be giving up a worse pick. This seems like the same issue as in the OP, but on a smaller scale. It still disrupts the integrity of the league and IMO, shouldn't be allowed.

I couldn't think of a more fair trade than swapping future seconds. Those assets are exactly the same value right now. Should we disallow trading WRs holding similar value? Chances are they won't hold equal value a year from now, and by gosh, the better team might have traded for the better WR!

I disagree. First of all, the assets are not exactly the same value right now. The worse team's 2nd round pick is worth more than the better team's. I am totally fine with people making trades for future picks, but the values at the time of the draft should at least have a chance of being equal. There is no possible way, at the time of the draft, that people would swap 2nd round picks. So the swapping of picks is based solely on a bet, and the outcome will, no matter what, be better for one team than the other.Swapping two WR's is different. There is a chance one WR could be better. Or there is a chance the other could. One 2nd round pick will always be better than the other, and who gets the benefit of that is based upon a bet that has nothing to do with the league. That is a problem.

This really makes no sense at all. Are you really saying people shouldn't swap future 2nd round picks because one team will end up winning the trade?

 

[ItsOnlytheRiver]

It's not collusion at all, the discussion was raised and still being discussed on the football (soccer) forum that all league members post on. Our league is in regular contact and this isn't the first thing that's been thrown up. We have agreements on future trade picks, where the team that does worse gets a better of two 2013 2nd rounders. I don't think it's as mad as some folk are making out.

What does this post even mean? Specifically... well, all of it, but especially your example which to me just seems like how most leagues hand out rookie picks from year to year.

The picks were made in a trade, both thought they were getting a specific pick out of two 2013 2nd rounders so it was agreed whoever finished lower this season would get the better 2013 draft pick.It was just an idea to actually put something on the line when we were looking at RBs for the next season. If other league members are unhappy then they'll vote against it, if it comes to that.

I'm still confused, but from what I can gather this is a pretty stupid thing that's going on here. Now, if one guy thinks he's going to have the better year, and another guy thinks he's going to have the better year and they put their money where their mouth is by swapping future seconds I have no problem with that.

Why is swapping future seconds any better? We have an issue in our league where two owners have agreed to swap first round rookie picks next year, and of course, the pick order is based upon order of finish this year. So in reality what will happen is that the better team will end up with potentially a very good draft pick and will be giving up a worse pick. This seems like the same issue as in the OP, but on a smaller scale. It still disrupts the integrity of the league and IMO, shouldn't be allowed.

I couldn't think of a more fair trade than swapping future seconds. Those assets are exactly the same value right now. Should we disallow trading WRs holding similar value? Chances are they won't hold equal value a year from now, and by gosh, the better team might have traded for the better WR!

I disagree. First of all, the assets are not exactly the same value right now. The worse team's 2nd round pick is worth more than the better team's. I am totally fine with people making trades for future picks, but the values at the time of the draft should at least have a chance of being equal. There is no possible way, at the time of the draft, that people would swap 2nd round picks. So the swapping of picks is based solely on a bet, and the outcome will, no matter what, be better for one team than the other.Swapping two WR's is different. There is a chance one WR could be better. Or there is a chance the other could. One 2nd round pick will always be better than the other, and who gets the benefit of that is based upon a bet that has nothing to do with the league. That is a problem.

If you are swapping WRs with a team you are making an evaluation of talent and guessing the WR you are receiving will be better going forward. Just like if you trade your 2013 second for another team's 2013 second you are making an evaluation that your group of players is better than theirs. It has everything to do with the league.

 

[kutta]

It's not collusion at all, the discussion was raised and still being discussed on the football (soccer) forum that all league members post on. Our league is in regular contact and this isn't the first thing that's been thrown up. We have agreements on future trade picks, where the team that does worse gets a better of two 2013 2nd rounders. I don't think it's as mad as some folk are making out.

What does this post even mean? Specifically... well, all of it, but especially your example which to me just seems like how most leagues hand out rookie picks from year to year.

The picks were made in a trade, both thought they were getting a specific pick out of two 2013 2nd rounders so it was agreed whoever finished lower this season would get the better 2013 draft pick.It was just an idea to actually put something on the line when we were looking at RBs for the next season. If other league members are unhappy then they'll vote against it, if it comes to that.

I'm still confused, but from what I can gather this is a pretty stupid thing that's going on here. Now, if one guy thinks he's going to have the better year, and another guy thinks he's going to have the better year and they put their money where their mouth is by swapping future seconds I have no problem with that.

Why is swapping future seconds any better? We have an issue in our league where two owners have agreed to swap first round rookie picks next year, and of course, the pick order is based upon order of finish this year. So in reality what will happen is that the better team will end up with potentially a very good draft pick and will be giving up a worse pick. This seems like the same issue as in the OP, but on a smaller scale. It still disrupts the integrity of the league and IMO, shouldn't be allowed.

I couldn't think of a more fair trade than swapping future seconds. Those assets are exactly the same value right now. Should we disallow trading WRs holding similar value? Chances are they won't hold equal value a year from now, and by gosh, the better team might have traded for the better WR!

I disagree. First of all, the assets are not exactly the same value right now. The worse team's 2nd round pick is worth more than the better team's. I am totally fine with people making trades for future picks, but the values at the time of the draft should at least have a chance of being equal. There is no possible way, at the time of the draft, that people would swap 2nd round picks. So the swapping of picks is based solely on a bet, and the outcome will, no matter what, be better for one team than the other.Swapping two WR's is different. There is a chance one WR could be better. Or there is a chance the other could. One 2nd round pick will always be better than the other, and who gets the benefit of that is based upon a bet that has nothing to do with the league. That is a problem.

This really makes no sense at all. Are you really saying people shouldn't swap future 2nd round picks because one team will end up winning the trade?

Yes.Let's look at it this way. Let's use first round picks because it's the same concept but more dramatic. If an hour before the draft were to start, the guy with the 1.1 and the 1.12 pick swap those picks and only those picks, there should be an uproar from the league. Of course that should not be allowed (at least in the leagues I play in). The 1.1 is miles better than the 1.12, and no argument can be made otherwise. Now what if the swap was made because the Team A coach drank more beers in 5 minutes than the Team B coach? Does that make it OK? No. And a bet on who's team will do better also does not make it OK. The integrity of the league should not be compromised because people are betting on who's team is better or which player is better or who can drink more beers than the other guy.

 

[ItsOnlytheRiver]

It's not collusion at all, the discussion was raised and still being discussed on the football (soccer) forum that all league members post on. Our league is in regular contact and this isn't the first thing that's been thrown up. We have agreements on future trade picks, where the team that does worse gets a better of two 2013 2nd rounders. I don't think it's as mad as some folk are making out.

What does this post even mean? Specifically... well, all of it, but especially your example which to me just seems like how most leagues hand out rookie picks from year to year.

The picks were made in a trade, both thought they were getting a specific pick out of two 2013 2nd rounders so it was agreed whoever finished lower this season would get the better 2013 draft pick.It was just an idea to actually put something on the line when we were looking at RBs for the next season. If other league members are unhappy then they'll vote against it, if it comes to that.

I'm still confused, but from what I can gather this is a pretty stupid thing that's going on here. Now, if one guy thinks he's going to have the better year, and another guy thinks he's going to have the better year and they put their money where their mouth is by swapping future seconds I have no problem with that.

Why is swapping future seconds any better? We have an issue in our league where two owners have agreed to swap first round rookie picks next year, and of course, the pick order is based upon order of finish this year. So in reality what will happen is that the better team will end up with potentially a very good draft pick and will be giving up a worse pick. This seems like the same issue as in the OP, but on a smaller scale. It still disrupts the integrity of the league and IMO, shouldn't be allowed.

I couldn't think of a more fair trade than swapping future seconds. Those assets are exactly the same value right now. Should we disallow trading WRs holding similar value? Chances are they won't hold equal value a year from now, and by gosh, the better team might have traded for the better WR!

I disagree. First of all, the assets are not exactly the same value right now. The worse team's 2nd round pick is worth more than the better team's. I am totally fine with people making trades for future picks, but the values at the time of the draft should at least have a chance of being equal. There is no possible way, at the time of the draft, that people would swap 2nd round picks. So the swapping of picks is based solely on a bet, and the outcome will, no matter what, be better for one team than the other.Swapping two WR's is different. There is a chance one WR could be better. Or there is a chance the other could. One 2nd round pick will always be better than the other, and who gets the benefit of that is based upon a bet that has nothing to do with the league. That is a problem.

This really makes no sense at all. Are you really saying people shouldn't swap future 2nd round picks because one team will end up winning the trade?

Yes.Let's look at it this way. Let's use first round picks because it's the same concept but more dramatic. If an hour before the draft were to start, the guy with the 1.1 and the 1.12 pick swap those picks and only those picks, there should be an uproar from the league. Of course that should not be allowed (at least in the leagues I play in). The 1.1 is miles better than the 1.12, and no argument can be made otherwise. Now what if the swap was made because the Team A coach drank more beers in 5 minutes than the Team B coach? Does that make it OK? No. And a bet on who's team will do better also does not make it OK. The integrity of the league should not be compromised because people are betting on who's team is better or which player is better or who can drink more beers than the other guy.

No one is disagreeing with that. Of course, you were responding to my post which presented an entirely different scenario.

 

[Johnny Blood]

Our rules state that trades cannot involve any external considerations, such as money. This is clearly an external consideration. It would not be allowed.

The rule posted above about conditional trades is good, I'm going to add that to our rules.

 

[Kevrunner]

It is just crazy to let one owner give another owner a player without receiving compensation in return. A bet? You gotta be kidding me. If a commissioner lets this happen, whether there is a rule against it or not, then he or she, is a horrible commish and if I was in that league today, I wouldn't be there tomorrow.

 

[Synesthesia]

col·lu·sionnoun \kə-ˈlü-zhən\Definition of COLLUSION: secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose— col·lu·sive adjective— col·lu·sive·ly adverb Its not collusion. Its is a bet that is detrimental to the league and as I commish I would not allow it on those grounds. Poor for the competitive balance, yada yada. But not collusion.Sorry but I see the word collusion thrown around all the time and I really think half the people think its means lopsided trade

The only reason it isn't "collusion" by that definition is that the bettors decided to make the bet public.

What? The only reason it's not collusion by that definition is because it doesn't fit the definition of what collusion is? Holy meaningless tautology, Batman! That'd be like telling someone that the only reason their trade isn't illegal is because it doesn't violate any rules, as if such a declaration should carry any sort of weight or meaning. Look, things can be bad without being collusion. I hate how we've gotten to a point in fantasy culture where we've basically said "anything goes but collusion", so now when we see something we don't like, we have to come up with some sort of tortured exegesis to explain how it's somehow collusion, since we've all agreed that that's the one thing that doesn't fly. There are a lot of really bad, really detrimental things that are not collusion, but which should still be outlawed. For instance, player dumping, whereby a team eliminated from contention just cuts all their players. Or blatantly predatory trades (such as trading away a superstar when you hear on twitter that he tore his ACL, but before it hits the mainstream media). Any sort of player renting, which is not necessarily collusive, but which is nevertheless typically fairly nepotistic and should be discouraged. Tanking games to get a more favorable matchup (or, relatedly, giving away players to teams facing your rival to force your rival into a worse matchup). None of these things are collusive (most only involve one party acting in bad faith, some don't involve anyone acting in bad faith), but all of these practices are detrimental to the competitive balance of the league, and all should be disallowed on those grounds. Everything, including all those collusion protections everyone so loves, should really get back to that one simple goal: safeguarding the competitive balance of the league.

 

[Hooper31]

I commish a 16 team dynasty and two owners were having a discussion about who will rush for more yards next year: McCoy or Chris Johnson (each owner has one of them).One suggested an agreement whereby whichever teams player rushes for less yards next year is given to the other team for free at the end of the season.I've never come across something like this and it makes me a bit uneasy, especially considering the calibre of players involved.Curious to see the views of the shark pool on this especially considering it doesn't really break any current rules.

This is a perfect example of why commissioners need to exist in fantasy leagues. The rules can't cover everything. You're placed in this position of power to handle situations like this. Don't be namby-pamby. Make a decision and stick to it. Don't do something silly like bring democracy into it with a league wide vote. Decide, enforce, and move forward. When someone asks for a reason tell them its because you consider it a form of collusion and leave it at that. They can have their opinion and you can consider their opinion, but in the end its on you to bring a finality to the situation.

 

[Hoosier16]

It's not collusion at all, the discussion was raised and still being discussed on the football (soccer) forum that all league members post on. Our league is in regular contact and this isn't the first thing that's been thrown up. We have agreements on future trade picks, where the team that does worse gets a better of two 2013 2nd rounders. I don't think it's as mad as some folk are making out.

What does this post even mean? Specifically... well, all of it, but especially your example which to me just seems like how most leagues hand out rookie picks from year to year.

The picks were made in a trade, both thought they were getting a specific pick out of two 2013 2nd rounders so it was agreed whoever finished lower this season would get the better 2013 draft pick.It was just an idea to actually put something on the line when we were looking at RBs for the next season. If other league members are unhappy then they'll vote against it, if it comes to that.

I'm still confused, but from what I can gather this is a pretty stupid thing that's going on here. Now, if one guy thinks he's going to have the better year, and another guy thinks he's going to have the better year and they put their money where their mouth is by swapping future seconds I have no problem with that.

Why is swapping future seconds any better? We have an issue in our league where two owners have agreed to swap first round rookie picks next year, and of course, the pick order is based upon order of finish this year. So in reality what will happen is that the better team will end up with potentially a very good draft pick and will be giving up a worse pick. This seems like the same issue as in the OP, but on a smaller scale. It still disrupts the integrity of the league and IMO, shouldn't be allowed.

I couldn't think of a more fair trade than swapping future seconds. Those assets are exactly the same value right now. Should we disallow trading WRs holding similar value? Chances are they won't hold equal value a year from now, and by gosh, the better team might have traded for the better WR!

I disagree. First of all, the assets are not exactly the same value right now. The worse team's 2nd round pick is worth more than the better team's. I am totally fine with people making trades for future picks, but the values at the time of the draft should at least have a chance of being equal. There is no possible way, at the time of the draft, that people would swap 2nd round picks. So the swapping of picks is based solely on a bet, and the outcome will, no matter what, be better for one team than the other.Swapping two WR's is different. There is a chance one WR could be better. Or there is a chance the other could. One 2nd round pick will always be better than the other, and who gets the benefit of that is based upon a bet that has nothing to do with the league. That is a problem.

This really makes no sense at all. Are you really saying people shouldn't swap future 2nd round picks because one team will end up winning the trade?

Yes.Let's look at it this way. Let's use first round picks because it's the same concept but more dramatic. If an hour before the draft were to start, the guy with the 1.1 and the 1.12 pick swap those picks and only those picks, there should be an uproar from the league. Of course that should not be allowed (at least in the leagues I play in). The 1.1 is miles better than the 1.12, and no argument can be made otherwise. Now what if the swap was made because the Team A coach drank more beers in 5 minutes than the Team B coach? Does that make it OK? No. And a bet on who's team will do better also does not make it OK. The integrity of the league should not be compromised because people are betting on who's team is better or which player is better or who can drink more beers than the other guy.

What does that have to do with swapping future 2nds?

 

[griff321]

col·lu·sion

noun \kə-ˈlü-zhən\

Definition of COLLUSION

: secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose

— col·lu·sive adjective

— col·lu·sive·ly adverb

Its not collusion. Its is a bet that is detrimental to the league and as I commish I would not allow it on those grounds. Poor for the competitive balance, yada yada. But not collusion.

Sorry but I see the word collusion thrown around all the time and I really think half the people think its means lopsided trade

The only reason it isn't "collusion" by that definition is that the bettors decided to make the bet public.

What? The only reason it's not collusion by that definition is because it doesn't fit the definition of what collusion is? Holy meaningless tautology, Batman! That'd be like telling someone that the only reason their trade isn't illegal is because it doesn't violate any rules, as if such a declaration should carry any sort of weight or meaning. Look, things can be bad without being collusion. I hate how we've gotten to a point in fantasy culture where we've basically said "anything goes but collusion", so now when we see something we don't like, we have to come up with some sort of tortured exegesis to explain how it's somehow collusion, since we've all agreed that that's the one thing that doesn't fly. There are a lot of really bad, really detrimental things that are not collusion, but which should still be outlawed. For instance, player dumping, whereby a team eliminated from contention just cuts all their players. Or blatantly predatory trades (such as trading away a superstar when you hear on twitter that he tore his ACL, but before it hits the mainstream media). Any sort of player renting, which is not necessarily collusive, but which is nevertheless typically fairly nepotistic and should be discouraged. Tanking games to get a more favorable matchup (or, relatedly, giving away players to teams facing your rival to force your rival into a worse matchup). None of these things are collusive (most only involve one party acting in bad faith, some don't involve anyone acting in bad faith), but all of these practices are detrimental to the competitive balance of the league, and all should be disallowed on those grounds. Everything, including all those collusion protections everyone so loves, should really get back to that one simple goal: safeguarding the competitive balance of the league.

Outstanding posting really. Having a side bet of this nature opens a flood gate and compromises the competitive balance of the league.

 

[DoubleG]

Tell the Chris Johnson owner his team won't be long for the league if he keeps giving away players.

I wouldn't be so sure about that...Dynasty owners sometimes get carried away with a prior year's statistics; admittedly, CJ's 2011 was, "turrible-just turrible". Yet, he still tallied over 1460 combined yards on 319 touches, and McCoy has averaged ~1600 combined yards like clockwork for the past two seasons with a career high 321 touches in 2011. However, McCoy also put up a gaudy 20 TDs which translated to big fantasy totals in 2011. As far as I know, Andy Reid is still coaching the iggles which means McCoy has a ceiling upon number of touches... CJ on the other hand is likely to get significantly more touches and could easily exceed 400 touches (something he's done 50% of the time through four NFL seasons). OTOH, Andy Reid's lead RB has NEVER had 400 touches in a season.So which would be more surprising, Andy Reid's lead RB to suddenly depart from 300+ touches per season, or CJ to resume his 400+ touches per season ways?Personally, I would expect to see McCoy maintain his 1600+ yds average with a decline in TDs, while CJ goes for 1750+ (CJ's CAREER Avg. is 1768 per season). Don't get me wrong, for dynasty I'll take the 23 year old elite RB over the 26 year old elite RB and hope for a couple extra seasons of RB1 production. However, in 2012 I don't see a huge advantage for McCoy...That being said, owners should never be allowed to give away rostered players on stupid side wagers. Tell them instead to put their money where their mouths are and wager league entry fees or beer or something that doesn't impact the league's integrity. Two owners' getting into a pissing contest about which one has the more elite RB shouldn't be allowed to affect the competitive balance of the league.

It took just over 24 hours, but I set the hook good, no?

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Most leagues will have trading rules that state trades may involve player(s) for player(s) or draft pick(s) for draft pick(s) or any combination thereof with no outside considerations allowed.

This situation would be akin to some one paying personal cash to acquire another teams player. It could also lead to players in multiple leagues together saying I'll trade you Player X in this league, as long as you accpet my offer in the other league.

The commish needs to step in and not allow nonsense like this. Most leagues should also have a rule that states: The commisioner will keep the integrity of the league in tact and Make all final decisions on league disputes.

The bet can be settled various different ways that does not affect the rest of the league.

 

[P-Dizzle]

Most leagues will have trading rules that state trades may involve player(s) for player(s) or draft pick(s) for draft pick(s) or any combination thereof with no outside considerations allowed.

This situation would be akin to some one paying personal cash to acquire another teams player. It could also lead to players in multiple leagues together saying I'll trade you Player X in this league, as long as you accpet my offer in the other league.

The commish needs to step in and not allow nonsense like this. Most leagues should also have a rule that states: The commisioner will keep the integrity of the league in tact and Make all final decisions on league disputes.

The bet can be settled various different ways that does not affect the rest of the league.

What are you on about? How would any of that be more likely because two players decided to put one of their RBs on the line?The bet has been dropped by the way, I suggested it to another member on our league's forum for a bit of fun and to raise the stakes a little. I hadn't considered the wider impact it would have on the league, other than depleting the losing sides RB corp. Some people on here going menstrual and slating the commish etc. need to get a grip though.

 

[creeps1313]

This idea shouldnt even be entertained, let alone actually being up for consideration. Its pure nonsense...this isnt the TV show "The League."

 

[Hooper31]

Most leagues will have trading rules that state trades may involve player(s) for player(s) or draft pick(s) for draft pick(s) or any combination thereof with no outside considerations allowed.

This situation would be akin to some one paying personal cash to acquire another teams player. It could also lead to players in multiple leagues together saying I'll trade you Player X in this league, as long as you accpet my offer in the other league.

The commish needs to step in and not allow nonsense like this. Most leagues should also have a rule that states: The commisioner will keep the integrity of the league in tact and Make all final decisions on league disputes.

The bet can be settled various different ways that does not affect the rest of the league.

Most leagues? From my experience most leagues don't have rules that go beyond lineup requirements, roster limits, playoff format, and scoring method.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Most leagues will have trading rules that state trades may involve player(s) for player(s) or draft pick(s) for draft pick(s) or any combination thereof with no outside considerations allowed.

This situation would be akin to some one paying personal cash to acquire another teams player. It could also lead to players in multiple leagues together saying I'll trade you Player X in this league, as long as you accpet my offer in the other league.

The commish needs to step in and not allow nonsense like this. Most leagues should also have a rule that states: The commisioner will keep the integrity of the league in tact and Make all final decisions on league disputes.

The bet can be settled various different ways that does not affect the rest of the league.

What are you on about? How would any of that be more likely because two players decided to put one of their RBs on the line?

It's what's known as a "slippery slope". It isn't necessarily more likely it would happen, but it opens the door to it. Trading a plyer based on a bet, is an occurrence that takes place outside of the league (your bet) influencing a trade within the league.

 

[Runningman]

I "traded" my first round pick for another guys in our dynasty league before last season started. I don't think this will be allowed in the league anymore, just didn't sit well with the other owners.