What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Does this sound like collusion to you? (1 Viewer)

rickyg

Footballguy
Long standing redraft league made up of 2 groups of good friends.

Last place team is horrible and has almost no shot of making playoffs barring a miracle.

His only good players left are gore and foster.

He just traded with the team tied for 2nd place (who he happens to be good buddies with).

Trade was:

Gore/k hunter

For

Mjd/r. Jennings. (He does not own McFadden)

So basically he got a guy who is going back to mop up duties once McFadden returns and a has been crappy Rb on a putrid offense for one of the best RBS in fantasy football.

How does this make his team better? Is it me or is this trade so lopsided that you'd HAVE to question whether collusion is involved?

 
Last edited by a moderator:

jmo87usc

Footballguy
Seems like his only defense would be that MJD is two years younger and may have more value in dynasty for the next year or two. Makes sense to look toward next year since he is all but eliminated. I have no problem with it. I doubt the Jennings and Hunter swap was a major part of it.

 

blake

Footballguy
If McFadden returns . . .

Bad trade. Not collusion.
Yup, you can't predict the future (no one can). Bad trade the way it looks now, but I haven't read any proof of collusion. Got to let the trade stand. Who knows, maybe McFadden doesn't come back and Jennings is the starting back for Oakland the rest of the season.

 

blake

Footballguy
This is why re-draft leagues need to cut-off trade deadlines much sooner for those statistically out of the playoffs
Or make it possible for more teams to be alive in the playoff chase longer? Kind of going off-topic here...don't mean to hijack the thread. This is an interesting point/topic of discussion though.

 

solorca

Footballguy
I don't understand the concern with the trade. MJD hasn't been playing terribly the past few games, putting up solid numbers (especially in PPR). On top of that, you have a guy who currently has a starting job with Mcfadden's return always being questionable at best.

You said that the last place team is "horrible and has almost no shot of making the playoffs". To me, that shows me an owner who knows that he's in a must-win situation and needs to do everything he can to ensure he wins immediately. With this trade, he gets two starters for this week and possibly longer. Gore has a terrible matchup against the Panthers this week, so MJD/Jennings will almost certainly give him a huge upgrade for the very short term, if nothing else.

It's a fair trade. If I was sitting at 3-6 or so and I knew that my only chance of making the playoffs was to win the next 4 games, I'd probably make the same trade.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Dr. Octopus

Footballguy
It really doesn't look as bad as you seem to think it is. I own McFadden is two leagues, and have very little faith in him coming back any time soon.

 

stbugs

Footballguy
I don't understand the concern with the trade. MJD hasn't been playing terribly the past few games, putting up solid numbers (especially in PPR). On top of that, you have a guy who currently has a starting job with Mcfadden's return always being questionable at best.

You said that the last place team is "horrible and has almost no shot of making the playoffs". To me, that shows me an owner who knows that he's in a must-win situation and needs to do everything he can to ensure he wins immediately. With this trade, he gets two starters for this week and possibly longer. Gore has a terrible matchup against the Panthers this week, so MJD/Jennings will almost certainly give him a huge upgrade for the very short term, if nothing else.

It's a fair trade. If I was sitting at 3-6 or so and I knew that my only chance of making the playoffs was to win the next 4 games, I'd probably make the same trade.
Agree completely. It is a bet that McFadden doesn't come back soon and you have 2 starters for one.

 

Interseptopus

Footballguy
I always laugh at these kinds of posts. The OP went about this much better than most people do; most people fly off the handle and this turns into a gripe fest from the OP. Not in this case, legitimate question but still easy to break down.

Collusion IMO is trading J.Finely, D. Wilson for Gore.

A lot of people don't look at these trades from multiple angles. Here is a team that is doing horrible. He is obviously not winning with Gore/Hunter. So he makes a desperation trade that changes his chances. If he has done so badly with Gore so far, who is to say that will change if he keeps Gore? He made a change.

The OP may not like this trade for the guy getting Gore. Chances are MJD was his rb2, Jennings was on his bench. So, the guy now has 2 rb1 starting and has dramatically improved his team.

However, the guy getting MJD and Jennings has a chance to get two startable RBs for the rest of the season. Jennings could very much be a lottery player if McFadden has difficulty getting back healthy, which is very possible.

You may not like a strong team getting stronger, but this trade is fair across the board

 

jmo87usc

Footballguy
I always laugh at these kinds of posts. The OP went about this much better than most people do; most people fly off the handle and this turns into a gripe fest from the OP. Not in this case, legitimate question but still easy to break down.

Collusion IMO is trading J.Finely, D. Wilson for Gore.

A lot of people don't look at these trades from multiple angles. Here is a team that is doing horrible. He is obviously not winning with Gore/Hunter. So he makes a desperation trade that changes his chances. If he has done so badly with Gore so far, who is to say that will change if he keeps Gore? He made a change.

The OP may not like this trade for the guy getting Gore. Chances are MJD was his rb2, Jennings was on his bench. So, the guy now has 2 rb1 starting and has dramatically improved his team.

However, the guy getting MJD and Jennings has a chance to get two startable RBs for the rest of the season. Jennings could very much be a lottery player if McFadden has difficulty getting back healthy, which is very possible.

You may not like a strong team getting stronger, but this trade is fair across the board
You may be exactly right with the mindset of both trade partners. That's why collusion is so hard to prove. Just because they are good friends you can't accuse them. And just because one trade partner is not as wise as the other you can't accuse them.

It's almost like a special kind of inadvertent collusion that you can't indict on. Maybe the team getting Gore used his friendship to take advantage of the other guy and the other guy fell for it. Too many unknowns to accuse though. Only thing I would be upset about is if I had made a better offer for Gore and he took this instead.

 

jdkapow

Footballguy
If the bad team isn't completely out of it, then he's right to pursue high-risk strategies: that's the only way he'll get back into things. It probably won't work (hence high-risk), but what he's got right now definitely isn't working, so he has nothing to lose. Maybe MJD comes around and Jenning is a high-scoring starter the rest of the way. Probably not, but there's at least a chance, which is more than he started with.

Not collusion.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

rickyg

Footballguy
Thanks for the input guys. I really had no desire for the answers to go one way or another. I know that I was feeling one way about the trade and I asked the shark pool for their opinions to get other more objective opinions before I go ahead and make a collusion accusation (which are considered pretty serious in our league, since we are all friends...although it has happened before 10 years ago!).

 

Interseptopus

Footballguy
Thanks for the input guys. I really had no desire for the answers to go one way or another. I know that I was feeling one way about the trade and I asked the shark pool for their opinions to get other more objective opinions before I go ahead and make a collusion accusation (which are considered pretty serious in our league, since we are all friends...although it has happened before 10 years ago!).
Your questioning is understandable. I have these kinds of questions too in some trades in my league. I wouldn't like this trade if I were in your league, because I think the guy getting gore is much stronger now, but it doesn't seem to be collusion IMO. If it was for Jennings and someone else, like Ben Tate, then yeah collusion. But MJD and Jennings do have boom/bust value

 

FlapJacks

Footballguy
I always laugh when the commish blocks a trade like this and it end up that the guy who people thought was making a bad trade would have had a steal

 

StrikeS2k

Footballguy
I always laugh when the commish blocks a trade like this and it end up that the guy who people thought was making a bad trade would have had a steal
had a horrible commish veto a trade a couple of years ago. The guy who the commish thought was getting screwed did get screwed. By the commish. If the trade had gone through he would have made the playoffs but the veto kept him out of the playoffs and also basically won the league for the other guy. A commish, much like the refs, shouldn't be remembered for altering the outcome of a game or, in this case, the teams that make the playoffs. A commish better have a DAMN good reason for getting involved in trades other than approving them.

 

Zaphod

Two heads are better than one
Thanks for the input guys. I really had no desire for the answers to go one way or another. I know that I was feeling one way about the trade and I asked the shark pool for their opinions to get other more objective opinions before I go ahead and make a collusion accusation (which are considered pretty serious in our league, since we are all friends...although it has happened before 10 years ago!).
So are you indicating that you are going to make a collusion accusation?

 

rickyg

Footballguy
Thanks for the input guys. I really had no desire for the answers to go one way or another. I know that I was feeling one way about the trade and I asked the shark pool for their opinions to get other more objective opinions before I go ahead and make a collusion accusation (which are considered pretty serious in our league, since we are all friends...although it has happened before 10 years ago!).
So are you indicating that you are going to make a collusion accusation?
No quite the opposite...I would have only felt good about making that accusation if the response in this thread was overwhelmingly in favor of collusion.

 

rickyg

Footballguy
I always laugh at these kinds of posts. The OP went about this much better than most people do; most people fly off the handle and this turns into a gripe fest from the OP. Not in this case, legitimate question but still easy to break down.

Collusion IMO is trading J.Finely, D. Wilson for Gore.

A lot of people don't look at these trades from multiple angles. Here is a team that is doing horrible. He is obviously not winning with Gore/Hunter. So he makes a desperation trade that changes his chances. If he has done so badly with Gore so far, who is to say that will change if he keeps Gore? He made a change.

The OP may not like this trade for the guy getting Gore. Chances are MJD was his rb2, Jennings was on his bench. So, the guy now has 2 rb1 starting and has dramatically improved his team.

However, the guy getting MJD and Jennings has a chance to get two startable RBs for the rest of the season. Jennings could very much be a lottery player if McFadden has difficulty getting back healthy, which is very possible.

You may not like a strong team getting stronger, but this trade is fair across the board
You may be exactly right with the mindset of both trade partners. That's why collusion is so hard to prove. Just because they are good friends you can't accuse them. And just because one trade partner is not as wise as the other you can't accuse them. It's almost like a special kind of inadvertent collusion that you can't indict on. Maybe the team getting Gore used his friendship to take advantage of the other guy and the other guy fell for it. Too many unknowns to accuse though. Only thing I would be upset about is if I had made a better offer for Gore and he took this instead.
A week ago I offered him Keenan Allen and Andre brown (he had Wilson) or Ellington for gore.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Warrior

Footballguy
What's the problem?

2 starting Rbs for 1 starting RB and a backup. Slightly lopsided but nothing crazy in the least.

 

Warrior

Footballguy
I always laugh at these kinds of posts. The OP went about this much better than most people do; most people fly off the handle and this turns into a gripe fest from the OP. Not in this case, legitimate question but still easy to break down.

Collusion IMO is trading J.Finely, D. Wilson for Gore.

A lot of people don't look at these trades from multiple angles. Here is a team that is doing horrible. He is obviously not winning with Gore/Hunter. So he makes a desperation trade that changes his chances. If he has done so badly with Gore so far, who is to say that will change if he keeps Gore? He made a change.

The OP may not like this trade for the guy getting Gore. Chances are MJD was his rb2, Jennings was on his bench. So, the guy now has 2 rb1 starting and has dramatically improved his team.

However, the guy getting MJD and Jennings has a chance to get two startable RBs for the rest of the season. Jennings could very much be a lottery player if McFadden has difficulty getting back healthy, which is very possible.

You may not like a strong team getting stronger, but this trade is fair across the board
You may be exactly right with the mindset of both trade partners. That's why collusion is so hard to prove. Just because they are good friends you can't accuse them. And just because one trade partner is not as wise as the other you can't accuse them. It's almost like a special kind of inadvertent collusion that you can't indict on. Maybe the team getting Gore used his friendship to take advantage of the other guy and the other guy fell for it. Too many unknowns to accuse though. Only thing I would be upset about is if I had made a better offer for Gore and he took this instead.
A week ago I offered him Keenan Allen and Andre brown (he had Wilson) or Ellington for gore.
MJD and Jennings is pretty comparable to Allen and Brown. I'd rather have Allen/Brown but not by much.

 

giveup

Footballguy
Also depends on his other starters of course. If he has Marshall and Gordon, but Gore and Ellington are his 2 best backs then your offer, while better doesn't help him as much.

My league is burning because of this type of issue right now. Keeper league and Team A (veteran) in 1st got Marshall from Team B (rookie) in last for Cooper and James. Sort of crazy but whatever you have got to make changes in last place or build for next year. I later find out the Team B has turned away much better offers from other owners. And Team A just plucked Cooper of waivers less than 24 hours earlier and Team B never made a claim to do the same... the two talk constantly about FF. So did one owner fleece the other or did they cash in on friendship? Tough to prove either way but here I am stuck with a hot angry mob. Be very careful before calling collusion.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

blake

Footballguy
A week ago I offered him Keenan Allen and Andre brown (he had Wilson) or Ellington for gore.
MJD and Jennings is pretty comparable to Allen and Brown. I'd rather have Allen/Brown but not by much.
Yup, that isn't an overwhelmingly better offer. I'd rather have Allen over MJD or Jennings, but when looking at the guy's roster, maybe I wouldn't and would prefer the two starting RBs. And the two starting RBs that I can count on...not a wild card like Andre Brown which would be costing me an RB1 like Gore.

 

Johnny Blood

Footballguy
It's almost like a special kind of inadvertent collusion that you can't indict on. Maybe the team getting Gore used his friendship to take advantage of the other guy and the other guy fell for it. Too many unknowns to accuse though. Only thing I would be upset about is if I had made a better offer for Gore and he took this instead.
There is no inadvertent collusion. Collusion requires intent.

Exploiting personal relationships to benefit in trades is one of the fundamental principles of business and competition. It's not collusion. I always notice in my leagues that those who complain the most about trades are those who talk least about fantasy football with the other players. They sit on their thumbs and then from their perspective other people's trades magically appear out of thin air, and it is "unfair".

As for this trade, it looks perfectly fine.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

BigSteelThrill

Footballguy
Flatly a dump.

This trade did not, in any reasonable way, help the 2nd team try to win a championship in a quicker amount of time. Sans a promise of wink-wink-nod-nod Ill pay you back later.

 

BigSteelThrill

Footballguy
It's almost like a special kind of inadvertent collusion that you can't indict on. Maybe the team getting Gore used his friendship to take advantage of the other guy and the other guy fell for it. Too many unknowns to accuse though. Only thing I would be upset about is if I had made a better offer for Gore and he took this instead.
There is no inadvertent collusion. Collusion requires intent.

Exploiting personal relationships to benefit in trades is one of the fundamental principles of business and competition. It's not collusion. I always notice in my leagues that those who complain the most about trades are those who talk least about fantasy football with the other players. They sit on their thumbs and then from their perspective other people's trades magically appear out of thin air, and it is "unfair".

As for this trade, it looks perfectly fine.
The 2nd guy is not trying to improve his team... he is trying to improve the the other guys team.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Johnny Blood

Footballguy
2 starting RBs for 1 starting RB and a handcuff. On the verge of elimination, he needs points in his lineup not an insurance policy on his bench.

If your subjective opinion on the players' value is law the whole game of fantasy becomes pointless.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

blake

Footballguy
2 starting RBs for 1 starting RB and a handcuff. On the verge of elimination, he needs points in his lineup not an insurance policy on his bench.

If your subjective opinion on the players' value is law the whole game of fantasy becomes pointless.
That is exactly right. It isn't a horrible trade and what makes it even less bad is the fact that no one can predict the future. Many trades I've thought were one sided proved me wrong when looking back on them later. This could be a classic car of that.

If Ben Tate can (likely) take over the starting RB position in Houston, why can't Jennings in Oakland for the rest of the season?

 

Buffaloes

Footballguy
It's almost like a special kind of inadvertent collusion that you can't indict on. Maybe the team getting Gore used his friendship to take advantage of the other guy and the other guy fell for it. Too many unknowns to accuse though. Only thing I would be upset about is if I had made a better offer for Gore and he took this instead.
There is no inadvertent collusion. Collusion requires intent.

Exploiting personal relationships to benefit in trades is one of the fundamental principles of business and competition. It's not collusion. I always notice in my leagues that those who complain the most about trades are those who talk least about fantasy football with the other players. They sit on their thumbs and then from their perspective other people's trades magically appear out of thin air, and it is "unfair".

As for this trade, it looks perfectly fine.
The 2nd guy is not trying to improve his team... he is trying to improve the the other guys team.
maybe he is just bad a trading and playing fake football. hence the bad team. or maybe you know these guys and do know team 2's motive. :shrug:

imo it's not that lopsided a trade to make a thread about it, esp if McFadden stays true to his injury-prone form.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

BigSteelThrill

Footballguy
It's almost like a special kind of inadvertent collusion that you can't indict on. Maybe the team getting Gore used his friendship to take advantage of the other guy and the other guy fell for it. Too many unknowns to accuse though. Only thing I would be upset about is if I had made a better offer for Gore and he took this instead.
There is no inadvertent collusion. Collusion requires intent.

Exploiting personal relationships to benefit in trades is one of the fundamental principles of business and competition. It's not collusion. I always notice in my leagues that those who complain the most about trades are those who talk least about fantasy football with the other players. They sit on their thumbs and then from their perspective other people's trades magically appear out of thin air, and it is "unfair".

As for this trade, it looks perfectly fine.
The 2nd guy is not trying to improve his team... he is trying to improve the the other guys team.
maybe he is just bad a trading and playing fake football. hence the bad team. or maybe you know these guys and do know team 2's motive. :shrug:

imo it's not that lopsided a trade to make a thread about it, esp if McFadden stays true to his injury-prone form.
Maybe I'm the long lost King of Siam. You never know, that could be true also.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top