Happy "Is This Collusion" Day to Those Who Celebrate (1 Viewer)

[eighsse2]

Before we get started with the Airing of Grievances, here's a hypothetical that just kind of popped into my head. I think I've thought of something like this before and brought it up in collusion debates, but I maybe have it more well-formed now.

"Hey Jim, I'll trade you Justin Jefferson for Saquon Barkley. Oh and by the way, just a totally separate thought, just something to mull over, after the conclusion of the fantasy season, I might be willing to trade you my first round pick for Jameson Williams."

"Hey Jim, I'll trade you Justin Jefferson for Saquon Barkley. Oh and by the way, just a totally separate thought, just something to mull over, after the conclusion of the fantasy season, there's like a 5% chance I'll be willing to trade you my first round pick for Jameson Williams."

"Hey Jim, I'll trade you Justin Jefferson for Saquon Barkley. Oh and by the way, just a totally separate thought, just something to mull over, after the conclusion of the fantasy season, there's about a 50% chance I'd be willing to trade you my first round pick for Jameson Williams."

"Hey Jim, I'll trade you Justin Jefferson for Saquon Barkley. Oh and by the way, just a totally separate thought, just something to mull over, after the conclusion of the fantasy season, there's a 99.99% chance I'd be willing to trade you my first round pick for Jameson Williams."

As long as he has any chance to back out of the pick-for-Williams trade ("Well, I don't want to do that trade anymore. It really was 99.99% likely, but I guess it ended up in the 0.01%!"), it seems to me it might not be collusion.

So, are all of these collusion? Or is there a number where it becomes collusion? Or is it just a gradient of less collusiony to more collusiony?

Yeahhhhh I know, I'm basically trying to be controversial here, but I really do find it an interesting question, kind of a paradox, to me anyway.

 

[msudaisy26]

Not trying to be mean, but I don't get it.

 

[eighsse2]

Not trying to be mean, but I don't get it.

No worries, I can try to explain better. The idea is, the guy wants to do a trade with future consideration. A deal now, and a deal later. That is normally considered collusion, if he said "I will trade you Justin Jefferson for Saquon Barkley, then after the season I will trade you my first round pick for Jameson Williams." If it is an actual agreement involving future consideration, it's collusion. But what if it's not an agreement, but just informing him of a likelihood of that same future consideration? Or an extreme likelihood?

 

[Gatorade]

Anything short of a trade now is basically nothing in my book and is not even a consideration as being realistic.

 

[rockaction]

It’s the contract mailbox problem from college/law school. What constitutes an offer and acceptance with due consideration given? In this case, the collusion (IMO) begins with the solicitation of the malfeasance with the very first hedge or implication, and then it is all contingent upon bad faith by both parties should they entertain underhanded stuff like the scenario mentioned.

If it isn't nipped in the bud right away it is cause for punishing both parties. This would seem to be an example where the person bringing it up needs a stern talking to by the league as he or she is relying on weasel things to defend one’s honor or motive. Actions like this seem to be for people hung way too up on logistical things and pushing obvious boundaries rather than thinking about concepts like justice and fair play.

mailbox rule

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[wgoldsph]

I'm not sure that a handshake agreement for a future trade is collusion. To me it's when two teams make a trade that one team is clearly being aided by another. Barkley for 4 fringe roster players is colluding.

I had a guy in my league that wanted to make trades in stages. "I'll take Jefferson for the rest of the season, then next year I'll give you someone from my roster and a pick". That's colluding because he's the only one who's improving his team at the moment. If he said "I'll trade you Jefferson for an overpay, and then next year we can talk about me sending him back for something similar"...

I've flummuxed myself here honestly. There's nothing to stop teams from making similar trades without any preconceived plan, team A gets Jefferson and then decides to retool after the season so they get their original picks back from team B. But it feels "collusiony" for it to be preplanned, like team A is renting Jefferson for the season.

So idk. With your example though the two teams are making a handshake agreement for next year, an agreement that also gives both teams equal value. I don't see why there's a problem with telling a league mate you'll trade them anything next season, but don't be surprised when your trade partner gets upset if you pull out.

 

[rockaction]

And in before anybody says you need an agreement to collude. A person can try to collude with or solicit all eleven other people in the league, and if nobody bites, it’s a punishable offense. This isn’t the “seal” of contract theory either (the seal was a formal arrangement and specific legal instrument to show you agreed to the terms of the K, which gave it legitimacy and operational effect). We are looking for what justice is—we’re not looking for not “gotchas!” or excuses to play footsie with all comers.

 

[rockaction]

And we are nothing without honor, by the way, which is what this all comes down to. No rule is going to shake a determined bad faith actor from potentially acting a certain way to destroy league balance. If there are serious problems like this, the best advice is the old advice: never play with what you cannot afford to lose, and if you get stuck with no remedy for obvious malfeasance, find a different league.

 

[Skipdog77]

Just join a league like my 29 year old main league, where there hasn't been a trade in the last 5 seasons or more, and voila...no collusion worries.

 

[Hankmoody]

I have told me leagues "you can do future considerations all you want. However, I won't be enforcing or getting involved in any way".

It's impossible to adjudicate. I meant this, oh I thought you meant that, oh no Jameson blew out his achilles and got a 22 game suspension for playing his trombone at Goodell's colonoscopy appointment.. If it's not on the trade transaction I'm not enforcing it.

 

[Hankmoody]

That said, I've seen them work out ok but the wording needs to be crystal clear and you gotta trust your trade partner (since I am not enforcing anything). On a Jonathan Taylor trade last year was the following note:

"If Taylor averages 16 PPG or more over the remaining regular season and any playoff games Team A is in, then Team A will also give Team B a 2025 2nd round pick. This pick becomes a 1st round pick if Team A's final draft position is 10-12".

Pretty well written and quite clear. If Taylor goes off it includes a 2nd or possibly a late 1st if the new owner does well enough. Also pretty awesome because Taylor caught FIRE in the playoffs and Team A won the league. Had that condition only been for the regular season there would have been no pick (he averaged 10 PPG weeks 10-13 but 26 PPG weeks 15-17). Well worth 1.12 for a trophy.

 

[wlwiles]

I'm not sure that a handshake agreement for a future trade is collusion. To me it's when two teams make a trade that one team is clearly being aided by another. Barkley for 4 fringe roster players is colluding.

I had a guy in my league that wanted to make trades in stages. "I'll take Jefferson for the rest of the season, then next year I'll give you someone from my roster and a pick". That's colluding because he's the only one who's improving his team at the moment. If he said "I'll trade you Jefferson for an overpay, and then next year we can talk about me sending him back for something similar"...

I've flummuxed myself here honestly. There's nothing to stop teams from making similar trades without any preconceived plan, team A gets Jefferson and then decides to retool after the season so they get their original picks back from team B. But it feels "collusiony" for it to be preplanned, like team A is renting Jefferson for the season.

So idk. With your example though the two teams are making a handshake agreement for next year, an agreement that also gives both teams equal value. I don't see why there's a problem with telling a league mate you'll trade them anything next season, but don't be surprised when your trade partner gets upset if you pull out.

We had a situation like this just last year in my 1QB dynasty league. After the rookie draft, prior to Week 1, Team A decided he wanted to start a rebuild so he sold Saquon and Lamar for a couple firsts and seconds. By the trade deadline, Team A is in third place, almost a lock for a playoff spot, meanwhile Team B (his trade partner) has been decimated by injury and is in 10th place. Team A approaches B and says "let's do the exact trade backwards, I can use Saquon and Lamar to go for the title, and you can continue to tank and ensure those picks you gave me (that you'll get back) are early". So they ran the original trade in reverse.

Nobody looked at the situation as a rental of players, because the trades were made months apart and each team's intentions were made well known to the league.

Team A made the championship but ended up losing by ~3 pts and finished second.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Any hypothetical future condition seems problematic to me. The vague or explicit promise for a future deal as a contingency for a deal today = bad.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

And in before anybody says you need an agreement to collude. A person can try to collude with or solicit all eleven other people in the league, and if nobody bites, it’s a punishable offense. This isn’t the “seal” of contract theory either (the seal was a formal arrangement and specific legal instrument to show you agreed to the terms of the K, which gave it legitimacy and operational effect). We are looking for what justice is—we’re not looking for not “gotchas!” or excuses to play footsie with all comers.

yep. If someone robs a bank, but there’s no money accessible because the vault is on a timer, the person is still a bank robber.

The intent of a shady deal is punishable as collusion. I’d boot someone from the league I commission without a second thought.

 

[Gally]

I talk about future trades with other owners all the time. There are many situations where I don't want to trade a player now but may be willing to in the off season. There is nothing wrong with that. It is not collusion in any way.

Also, putting conditions on trades similar to the Taylor example above is perfectly fine as well. I am trading you a pick for a player. That pick is contingent on how well that player performs. There is nothing in that scenario that has two teams trying to make one team better out of two teams. Each owner is trying to get better as best they can.

For me the collusion comes in when part A of a trade is not "fair" or "equal" at the time the trade is made and that the secondary part happening at a later date is what makes the trade "equal". So for example, I will trade you Jefferson and my first round pick for Barkley and Jamo however, Right now I am going to trade you only Jamo now and once the season is over I get Barkley. So part A is Jefferson and a First for Jamo. Then after the season Barkley is the player to be named later. That is collusion and should not be allowed.

 

[Gally]

Any hypothetical future condition seems problematic to me. The vague or explicit promise for a future deal as a contingency for a deal today = bad.

I don't think this is true necessarily. It would depend on the future condition. If you are making a draft pick contingent upon how a player performs I think that is perfectly acceptable. One team gets a better pick the better the player performs. It's not making one team out of two. It is simply stating the better a player actually performs the better my compensation gets.

I think that is perfectly acceptable. However, the I will give you Player X for Player Y and a player Z after the season is unacceptable. That allows a team to play with Players X and Players Z while giving up only Player Y now. Then giving up Player Z when the season is over and you are done with him is wrong and collusion. To me those are two very different situations.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Any hypothetical future condition seems problematic to me. The vague or explicit promise for a future deal as a contingency for a deal today = bad.

I don't think this is true necessarily. It would depend on the future condition. If you are making a draft pick contingent upon how a player performs I think that is perfectly acceptable. One team gets a better pick the better the player performs. It's not making one team out of two. It is simply stating the better a player actually performs the better my compensation gets.

I think that is perfectly acceptable. However, the I will give you Player X for Player Y and a player Z after the season is unacceptable. That allows a team to play with Players X and Players Z while giving up only Player Y now. Then giving up Player Z when the season is over and you are done with him is wrong and collusion. To me those are two very different situations.

I could see that aspect - it’s the “I might deal you a player at the end of the year” as a value-add that’s problematic.

That said, if my league-mates did a deal where it was Barkley for JJ today & Jameson after the season, then posted that contingency to the message board, it would be fine.

That’s Barkley+Jameson for JJ. Not a great deal, but it’s a deal.

It’s the “might” where it gets sketchy. Anything but a 100% done deal seems problematic to me.

 

[Gally]

That said, if my league-mates did a deal where it was Barkley for JJ today & Jameson after the season, then posted that contingency to the message board, it would be fine.

That’s Barkley+Jameson for JJ. Not a great deal, but it’s a deal.

It’s the “might” where it gets sketchy. Anything but a 100% done deal seems problematic to me.

So you are fine with teams making a trade where one team gets to keep and use a player all year that is part of the deal and then just hand that player over once the season is over?

That to me is the definition of making one team out of two and is definitely wrong.

Every trade negotiation is a "might" until both teams accept. I guess I just don't understand the concept in the OP. It may be because a JJ for Barkley deal is fine on it's own. As is a 1st for Jamo in the off season. I don't really understand the hypothetical "might" scenarios and anything more than a standard trade discussion that happens for every trade ever made.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

That said, if my league-mates did a deal where it was Barkley for JJ today & Jameson after the season, then posted that contingency to the message board, it would be fine.

That’s Barkley+Jameson for JJ. Not a great deal, but it’s a deal.

It’s the “might” where it gets sketchy. Anything but a 100% done deal seems problematic to me.

So you are fine with teams making a trade where one team gets to keep and use a player all year that is part of the deal and then just hand that player over once the season is over?

That to me is the definition of making one team out of two and is definitely wrong.

Every trade negotiation is a "might" until both teams accept. I guess I just don't understand the concept in the OP. It may be because a JJ for Barkley deal is fine on it's own. As is a 1st for Jamo in the off season. I don't really understand the hypothetical "might" scenarios and anything more than a standard trade discussion that happens for every trade ever made.

For me all that matters is that all of the details of the trade are completed in one shot.

There’s no chance for the team giving the two pieces to back out of giving one of those pieces later.

Look, I don’t love it, but I don’t see it as being as bad as the “giving one player and then maybe another later”. If the dude backs out and it becomes a one for one trade because he changed his mind, that seems unethical to me.

 

[Terpman22]

Man I was I disappointed to see this wasn't the thread talking about how the league basically colluded/tried to re: the Deshaun Watson fully guaranteed contract.

 

[zed2283]

So are we saying that Jefferson > Barkley and first round pick > Jamison?

I don't see any collusion here whatsoever.

 

[eighsse2]

That said, if my league-mates did a deal where it was Barkley for JJ today & Jameson after the season, then posted that contingency to the message board, it would be fine.

That’s Barkley+Jameson for JJ. Not a great deal, but it’s a deal.

It’s the “might” where it gets sketchy. Anything but a 100% done deal seems problematic to me.

So you are fine with teams making a trade where one team gets to keep and use a player all year that is part of the deal and then just hand that player over once the season is over?

That to me is the definition of making one team out of two and is definitely wrong.

Every trade negotiation is a "might" until both teams accept. I guess I just don't understand the concept in the OP. It may be because a JJ for Barkley deal is fine on it's own. As is a 1st for Jamo in the off season. I don't really understand the hypothetical "might" scenarios and anything more than a standard trade discussion that happens for every trade ever made.

Basically my point depended upon one important condition that apparently is not as widely accepted as I thought (and I don't even really agree with it either, is just something I've accepted because I thought pretty much everyone else agreed)

That condition is:
ANY future consideration in a trade is collusion. Or at least it opens the door for collusion to occur and therefore must never be allowed. (Again I don't really agree, it's just what I thought the very broad consensus was.)

Whether it's as ridiculous as "I give you these 10 studs for your 10 garbage guys. After the season, we undo the trade completely, but you give me Bijan and Ja'Marr Chase in addition" ...
or as pointless and harmless as "I'll trade you Sean Tucker for Antonio Gibson. After the season, I'll trade you Alec Pierce for Isaiah Davis."

Now going back to my original post, if we do hypothetically operate under that condition, someone can try to sort of sidestep the "future consideration ban" by merely saying that it is an arbitrarily great likelihood that he would do the "future consideration", but claiming that such likelihood is not contingent on the initial trade. If his word is good with the other guy, then saying "there is a 99.999% probability that I will do such-and-such in the future" becomes essentially a part of the deal.

 

[eighsse2]

So are we saying that Jefferson > Barkley and first round pick > Jamison?

I don't see any collusion here whatsoever.

Replace the players and picks with anything you want, I was just throwing out names. It's more about the philosophical side of what mechanisms are allowed.

 

[JohnnyU]

I need a Tylenol. You Guys give great headache.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

So are we saying that Jefferson > Barkley and first round pick > Jamison?

I don't see any collusion here whatsoever.

The OP point isn't the players, it’s the timing+possibility that the 2nd player (Jamison) may not actually go back the other way.

There’s an out clause to varying degrees - 50% chance, 99.9% chance, etc.

It might end up being Saquan for JJ, which isn’t a great deal by any stretch, and an ambiguity involved in the transaction.

At least that’s how I read it.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I need a Tylenol. You Gus give great headache.

What did Gus ever do to deserve getting singled out like that? That’s harsh, man.

 

[JohnnyU]

I need a Tylenol. You Gus give great headache.

What did Gus ever do to deserve getting singled out like that? That’s harsh, man.

Typo for guys. Corrected.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I need a Tylenol. You Gus give great headache.

What did Gus ever do to deserve getting singled out like that? That’s harsh, man.

Typo for guys. Corrected.

lol, I knew that. Just new boot goofin.

 

[zed2283]

So are we saying that Jefferson > Barkley and first round pick > Jamison?

I don't see any collusion here whatsoever.

The OP point isn't the players, it’s the timing+possibility that the 2nd player (Jamison) may not actually go back the other way.

There’s an out clause to varying degrees - 50% chance, 99.9% chance, etc.

It might end up being Saquan for JJ, which isn’t a great deal by any stretch, and an ambiguity involved in the transaction.

At least that’s how I read it.

Thanks for the clarification.

I still don't see any collusion. You're talking about two deals, even if you're trying to imply some sort of wink wink kickback or something.

 

[eighsse2]

So are we saying that Jefferson > Barkley and first round pick > Jamison?

I don't see any collusion here whatsoever.

The OP point isn't the players, it’s the timing+possibility that the 2nd player (Jamison) may not actually go back the other way.

There’s an out clause to varying degrees - 50% chance, 99.9% chance, etc.

It might end up being Saquan for JJ, which isn’t a great deal by any stretch, and an ambiguity involved in the transaction.

At least that’s how I read it.

And ironically, it's the ambiguity that is an attempt to prevent it from being considered collusion and make it "okay". It's basically tantamount to code language to mask criminal activity.

Jim wants rid of Bill. He goes to a hitman and the hitman says, "Go ahead and give me a gift of $100,000. Incidentally, whether you give me the money or not, there is a 99.999% chance that I'll off Bill." The understanding is, the money is for the hit. But according to the language, Jim is innocent. Though clearly no one should believe the language. But if you do hypothetically give the benefit of the doubt, then it was only a gift.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

So are we saying that Jefferson > Barkley and first round pick > Jamison?

I don't see any collusion here whatsoever.

The OP point isn't the players, it’s the timing+possibility that the 2nd player (Jamison) may not actually go back the other way.

There’s an out clause to varying degrees - 50% chance, 99.9% chance, etc.

It might end up being Saquan for JJ, which isn’t a great deal by any stretch, and an ambiguity involved in the transaction.

At least that’s how I read it.

Thanks for the clarification.

I still don't see any collusion. You're talking about two deals, even if you're trying to imply some sort of wink wink kickback or something.

Right, but it’s not a completed deal. The problematic context is that the second part might not actually happen.

That’s kind of weird. Any time there’s ambiguity in what’s actually being traded creates an issue in my opinion.

 

[Gally]

That’s kind of weird. Any time there’s ambiguity in what’s actually being traded creates an issue in my opinion.

But in this example (FF not murder) the second deal is just that....a second deal.

By and large I don't have a problem with anything provided each deal is acceptable in an of itself. Meaning it's not Barkley for CJ Ham now but then we trade Jefferson for for a 4th round pick after the season as part of the original offer. Those trades are not acceptable on face value as separate entities. The example given in the OP were acceptable on face value for each offer. So no issue with it.

My issue is with what ends up being a rental player. We are making this trade with these four pieces but you are keeping the main piece I want because I am tanking and you are fighting for a title. Then after the season the second shoe drops making it a rental player. That is the collusion situation. Two stand alone "fair" trades are fine. One trade where it's only "fair" when the second shoe drops is collusion.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

That’s kind of weird. Any time there’s ambiguity in what’s actually being traded creates an issue in my opinion.

But in this example (FF not murder) the second deal is just that....a second deal.

By and large I don't have a problem with anything provided each deal is acceptable in an of itself. Meaning it's not Barkley for CJ Ham now but then we trade Jefferson for for a 4th round pick after the season as part of the original offer. Those trades are not acceptable on face value as separate entities. The example given in the OP were acceptable on face value for each offer. So no issue with it.

My issue is with what ends up being a rental player. We are making this trade with these four pieces but you are keeping the main piece I want because I am tanking and you are fighting for a title. Then after the season the second shoe drops making it a rental player. That is the collusion situation. Two stand alone "fair" trades are fine. One trade where it's only "fair" when the second shoe drops is collusion.

We’re not in disagreement here. As I said, my only issue with the deals as proposed in the OP is the possibility that the 2nd (also valuable) component in the deal may or may not happen.

If it’s ambiguous, it’s really just Barkley for JJ, which seems heavily weighted on the JJ side. Any greater than zero chance that Jameson doesn’t go to the other team after the season imbalances this deal.

Now, would a Barkley for JJ deal automatically be presumed as collusion? Probably not. It’s a terrible trade, but there’s no rule against terrible trades. The only concern is whether the team giving up JJ Is helping another team knowingly at a disadvantage to facilitate greater success for the team getting JJ than themselves.

I just don’t like the open ended nature of the Jameson side. And IMO that piece is a critical component of the balanced value of this hypothetical deal. The timing isn’t the issue so long as it’s all above board, but the out clause gives me reason to suspect something shady.

 

[Gally]

I just don’t like the open ended nature of the Jameson side. And IMO that piece is a critical component of the balanced value of this hypothetical deal. The timing isn’t the issue so long as it’s all above board, but the out clause gives me reason to suspect something shady.

I guess I am kind of opposite than you. I will agree if the second deal is indeed part of the first deal and they are just delaying it then I have an issue. I didn't take that to be the case from the OP and maybe I am wrong in my understanding. But if you make a deal to trade those four pieces today but are delaying half the assets until after the season because one team wants to still use a part for the rest of the season then that is collusion and shouldn't be allowed. But if they agree to the Barkley for JJ trade and discuss a second trade that may or may not happen after the season then that is just a typical trade negotiation and I don't see anything wrong with it. There is only something wrong with it if it is 100% part of the trade and they are just delaying the swap. That is player rental and collusion to me.

 

[wgoldsph]

That said, if my league-mates did a deal where it was Barkley for JJ today & Jameson after the season, then posted that contingency to the message board, it would be fine.

That’s Barkley+Jameson for JJ. Not a great deal, but it’s a deal.

It’s the “might” where it gets sketchy. Anything but a 100% done deal seems problematic to me.

So you are fine with teams making a trade where one team gets to keep and use a player all year that is part of the deal and then just hand that player over once the season is over?

That to me is the definition of making one team out of two and is definitely wrong.

Every trade negotiation is a "might" until both teams accept. I guess I just don't understand the concept in the OP. It may be because a JJ for Barkley deal is fine on it's own. As is a 1st for Jamo in the off season. I don't really understand the hypothetical "might" scenarios and anything more than a standard trade discussion that happens for every trade ever made.

Basically my point depended upon one important condition that apparently is not as widely accepted as I thought (and I don't even really agree with it either, is just something I've accepted because I thought pretty much everyone else agreed)

That condition is:
ANY future consideration in a trade is collusion. Or at least it opens the door for collusion to occur and therefore must never be allowed. (Again I don't really agree, it's just what I thought the very broad consensus was.)

Whether it's as ridiculous as "I give you these 10 studs for your 10 garbage guys. After the season, we undo the trade completely, but you give me Bijan and Ja'Marr Chase in addition" ...
or as pointless and harmless as "I'll trade you Sean Tucker for Antonio Gibson. After the season, I'll trade you Alec Pierce for Isaiah Davis."

Now going back to my original post, if we do hypothetically operate under that condition, someone can try to sort of sidestep the "future consideration ban" by merely saying that it is an arbitrarily great likelihood that he would do the "future consideration", but claiming that such likelihood is not contingent on the initial trade. If his word is good with the other guy, then saying "there is a 99.999% probability that I will do such-and-such in the future" becomes essentially a part of the deal.

The "I might do X in the future" isn't collusion, it's a negotiation tactic. The two teams aren't giving one an advantage at the expense of the other, they're negotiating two trades that aren't even contingent on each other.

I said it before, the only negative here is that one owner can ruin the trust another owner very easily. I can say I'm 99% going to do anything, but I'm still not committing to it, I'd just need a really really damn good reason not to do it. A really really damn good reason could be that the trade is no longer in my favor, but again I'd need to weigh that against burning a bridge.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

But if they agree to the Barkley for JJ trade and discuss a second trade that may or may not happen after the season then that is just a typical trade negotiation and I don't see anything wrong with it. There is only something wrong with it if it is 100% part of the trade and they are just delaying the swap. That is player rental and collusion to me.

But it’s not a 2nd future deal. It’s a “they might send Jameson to the other team for nothing after the season, or they might not, based on nothing but vibes”.

You’re definitely the opposite of me here. I don’t love delaying the 2nd piece until after the season, but I think of “player rental” like trade-backs, which I agree is collusion.

This is “I’ll definitively trade you 2 pieces for 1, but I reserve the right to renege on one of them at my discretion.” To me that part is just whack. Either do the 2 for 1 (with whatever timing) or don’t. But either way there shouldn’t be any ambiguity as to what is being dealt for what.

That said, i’m not sure if that is actually “collusion” or just someone putting in a clause that screws their prospective trade partner if they don’t feel like honoring their agreement.

Interesting convo for sure though.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

The "I might do X in the future" isn't collusion, it's a negotiation tactic. The two teams aren't giving one an advantage at the expense of the other, they're negotiating two trades that aren't even contingent on each other.

I agree it’s not collusion (was saying as much as you posted this) but I do believe it could be interpreted as a contingency of the initial deal.

The future Jameson is the pot sweetener to entice the JJ shareholder to accept Barkley, no?

And if they renege on that, the manager giving up JJ gets hosed.

So it’s not collusion, but it’s not exactly kosher either.

 

[Gally]

This is “I’ll definitively trade you 2 pieces for 1, but I reserve the right to renege on one of them at my discretion.” To me that part is just whack. Either do the 2 for 1 (with whatever timing) or don’t. But either way there shouldn’t be any ambiguity as to what is being dealt for what.

So the "I'll definitely trade you 2 for 1 but reserve the right to renege" isn't really a 2 for 1 deal then. If you 100% agree to the deal then do it now. Don't "rent" the player the rest of the year and then give it to the other team after you are done using them. That is the collusion part.

If there is no ambiguity then there is no reason to hold off on part of the deal. That is the part I think is wrong.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

This is “I’ll definitively trade you 2 pieces for 1, but I reserve the right to renege on one of them at my discretion.” To me that part is just whack. Either do the 2 for 1 (with whatever timing) or don’t. But either way there shouldn’t be any ambiguity as to what is being dealt for what.

So the "I'll definitely trade you 2 for 1 but reserve the right to renege" isn't really a 2 for 1 deal then. If you 100% agree to the deal then do it now. Don't "rent" the player the rest of the year and then give it to the other team after you are done using them. That is the collusion part.

If there is no ambiguity then there is no reason to hold off on part of the deal. That is the part I think is wrong.

I’m with you somewhat on that. Letter of the law/spirit of the law kind of thing.

it’s not really a rental so much as a delay, which IMO isn’t anywhere near as bad as “i may or may not fulfill the 2nd leg of this deal”.

Regardless I don’t see it as collusion unless it does get reneged on, and ends up only being Saquan for JJ, and the team getting Saquan is totally ok with not getting the 2nd piece. Then it’s fishy as hell.

 

[Gally]

Regardless I don’t see it as collusion unless it does get reneged on, and ends up only being Saquan for JJ, and the team getting Saquan is totally ok with not getting the 2nd piece. Then it’s fishy as hell.

Yeah, I don't get this view at all. If it gets reneged on how is it collusion? Teams didn't purposely try to make one team good. One team would in fact be pissed because they didn't collude.

Now, backing out is a character issue that you didn't hold up your end of the bargain. But that end of the bargain is collusion.

I find it interesting we are exact opposite on this interpretation. I wonder if it's just a semantic thing as we both are against the general idea portrayed.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Regardless I don’t see it as collusion unless it does get reneged on, and ends up only being Saquan for JJ, and the team getting Saquan is totally ok with not getting the 2nd piece. Then it’s fishy as hell.

Yeah, I don't get this view at all. If it gets reneged on how is it collusion? Teams didn't purposely try to make one team good. One team would in fact be pissed because they didn't collude.

Now, backing out is a character issue that you didn't hold up your end of the bargain. But that end of the bargain is collusion.

I find it interesting we are exact opposite on this interpretation. I wonder if it's just a semantic thing as we both are against the general idea portrayed.

I think it’s semantics.

I am not ok with “player rentals” either, but that is something I define as “I loan you a player and you give the player back later”. This hypothetical is a timing thing, where 1 part of the deal is completed at a later date.

Also I don’t see the reneging as collusion either, just a “Richard” move. So we’re in agreement there.

 

[wgoldsph]

The "I might do X in the future" isn't collusion, it's a negotiation tactic. The two teams aren't giving one an advantage at the expense of the other, they're negotiating two trades that aren't even contingent on each other.

I agree it’s not collusion (was saying as much as you posted this) but I do believe it could be interpreted as a contingency of the initial deal.

The future Jameson is the pot sweetener to entice the JJ shareholder to accept Barkley, no?

And if they renege on that, the manager giving up JJ gets hosed.

So it’s not collusion, but it’s not exactly kosher either.

I feel like years ago there was a post on this board about what do we consider colluding and the group consensus seemed to be that there needed to be a clear and blatant sign of collusion before acting on it considering we're all adults who can build our teams however we want.

I think the idea of it being a pot sweetener goes right along with me saying it's a negotiation tactic. And as you said elsewhere, reneging makes one a huge Richard and it's not kosher in terms of league harmony. But "collision" is when two teams agree to make a move that only benefits one team (or one at a time) and that's not what we're talking about here.

I don't think it's something that can be glossed over the impact this kind of owner would have in a league. At the very minimum one owner will be extremely displeased. If they do moves like their serially then they can threaten the integrity of the league itself. I've been in a league that blew up because of one guy before (he was the commish so that aided the blowing up) trying to get one over on another owner he didn't like. So a move like this might not be "collusion" but it can still be very detrimental to the league itself.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I don't think it's something that can be glossed over the impact this kind of owner would have in a league. At the very minimum one owner will be extremely displeased. If they do moves like their serially then they can threaten the integrity of the league itself. I've been in a league that blew up because of one guy before (he was the commish so that aided the blowing up) trying to get one over on another owner he didn't like. So a move like this might not be "collusion" but it can still be very detrimental to the league itself

100% agree.

Imagine if he had 4-5 handshake deals like this going on simultaneously. What a nightmare league that would be.

 

[wgoldsph]

That said, I've seen them work out ok but the wording needs to be crystal clear and you gotta trust your trade partner (since I am not enforcing anything). On a Jonathan Taylor trade last year was the following note:

"If Taylor averages 16 PPG or more over the remaining regular season and any playoff games Team A is in, then Team A will also give Team B a 2025 2nd round pick. This pick becomes a 1st round pick if Team A's final draft position is 10-12".

This should be boiler plate for absolutely any trade involving future compensation. Absolutely no wiggle room.

 

[Lehigh98]

I feel like the "collusion" spotters are the same guys that reminded the teacher they forgot to assign homework.

 

[pinkstapler]

I'll just add in here what I tend to always parrot in these kinds of hypotheticals; this is why I no longer play in leagues where you don't pay for trading future year draft picks. I understand there are collusion scenarios that this safety net wouldn't catch (like some collusion-style player for player with promise of swaps/exchanges in the future, etc.); but it does discourage some forms of collusion, as well as just generally forcing owners to care about the league integrity along with their own team in the current year they are playing. Makes people think twice before mortgaging the future when they are paying for that future up front and can't just dine and dash.

 

[Gally]

this is why I no longer play in leagues where you don't pay for trading future year draft picks.

I would take this even a step further and add in only playing with people I actually know for any league that has money on the line. If everyone in the league are friends its much harder for underhanded shenanigans to take place because everyone is familiar with each other.

 

[Gally]

That condition is:
ANY future consideration in a trade is collusion. Or at least it opens the door for collusion to occur and therefore must never be allowed. (Again I don't really agree, it's just what I thought the very broad consensus was.)

I wholeheartedly disagree with this premise. Collusion to me is when two owners try to improve one team out of the assets of two (or more) teams. This would include one owner getting a stake in the winnings of a different team if they trade them players they need without getting anything back to help the original team improve. It includes "renting" players to one team (either by reversing the trade after the season or sending a player to be named later after the season).

Just the idea of future consideration isn't necessarily collusion. It can be but doesn't have to be. The conditional draft pick is an example of "future considerations" that isn't collusion. In fact that is probably the most fair way of trading draft picks there is. The better an acquired player performs the better the draft pick that was sent becomes.

Really the definition of collusion is two or more owners conspiring to make one team better at the expense of the other.

 

[Pickle Rody]

I don't see any collusion with any of the OP's scenarios.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I'll just add in here what I tend to always parrot in these kinds of hypotheticals; this is why I no longer play in leagues where you don't pay for trading future year draft picks. I understand there are collusion scenarios that this safety net wouldn't catch (like some collusion-style player for player with promise of swaps/exchanges in the future, etc.); but it does discourage some forms of collusion, as well as just generally forcing owners to care about the league integrity along with their own team in the current year they are playing. Makes people think twice before mortgaging the future when they are paying for that future up front and can't just dine and dash.

Yeah, all my dynasty formats are like that. Wanna deal your 1st & 2nd rounders for the next 2 years? Go for it, but you’re paying for those years immediately after the deal is consummated, so if you bounce, the next owner gets a however many free years.

IMO it’s the only way to do it.