Helping an eliminated team (1 Viewer)

[ctriopelle]

Sorry if this has been discussed, but I didn't find anything on a cursory search...

Anyone ever trade to improve an eliminated team to help them against someone you need to lose to make the playoffs? Not talking about trading guys back and forth weekly, but trading your depth to help them get a win against one of your foes. I see collusion as an eliminated team dumping their talent because its worthless to them while stacking a contender to become a superteam. This is potentially damaging to your team by sacrificing your depth, but could be a last gasp effort to slide into the playoff bracket.

I'm in an odd position, in that my team is 3rd in overall points in the league, and I have tremendous RB depth. Just had bad fortune from the FF gods of playing the top scorer just about every week in an all DH format, so I'm one game from the brink of elimination. Most of my bench RB's would be the #1 RB on the eliminated team's rosters and give them a much better shot of knocking off the current "in" teams. It wouldn't be giving away talent, I would just be making an effort to improve another team (slanted towards them), as opposed to improving my team, as would be the case in a "regular" trade.

Is this too shady to be considered viable strategy in a generally friendly league (only $75 entry fee)? We do have open trading for the entire year due to basic laziness of establishing a deadline, and general trust of owners. Wondering if anyone else has done or considered this...

 

[AnonymousBob]

This is some mighty fuzzy territory but unless you're getting something to improve your team, I wouldn't let this nonsense fly.

 

[The Redbeard]

I agree with AnonBob. Trades should only be made if they improve both teams. Where Sharks operate is in getting the scale of improvement to swing even slightly in their favor, whether that be through an out and out talent imbalance, or simply a better understanding of the upcoming strength of schedule and manipulation of match ups.

All of this being said - is there no trade with the other team that would improve their running backs AND make some aspect of your team better. If the answer is yes, go ahead and make a trade. If the answer is no, then I believe you would be operating outside the normal "fairness" most associate with sports and I would hope that the 3rd owner, the one you are screwing by loading up his current opponent, would have a chat with your commissioner.

 

[turnit643]

Is this too shady to be considered viable strategy in a generally friendly league (only $75 entry fee)? We do have open trading for the entire year due to basic laziness of establishing a deadline, and general trust of owners. Wondering if anyone else has done or considered this...

If you can come up with a decent trade, I think it would be a fine strategy. I would also hope some kind of trade deadline would be established for next season as a response.

 

[gianmarco]

I see absolutely nothing wrong with this as this isn't collusion by any means. In fact, it's a smart strategy if you have the depth to do so and can afford helping a team eliminate YOUR competition. There is nothing that says a trade has to be equal value.

 

[Upchuck]

This is some mighty fuzzy territory but unless you're getting something to improve your team, I wouldn't let this nonsense fly.

Friendly league, definitely not cool. In a serious money league, I think it could be considered 'part of the game'. I would not do it and I would hope that it comes back to bite you in the butt, and I'd be extremely pissed if you did it against me, AND I'd have a LONG LONG memory. In fact, I would make sure that it came back to haunt you down the road, if not this year then the next... and the next. In fact, if it eliminated me, I'd trade to your playoff opponent any way I could. Definitely not in the spirit of the game.

 

[-OZ-]

Just make sure you improve your team in some way.

Better PK for better RB?

 

[ctriopelle]

Thanks for the feedback. I'm not adding any details of who could be traded for who, since I didn't want this to digress into an assistant coach's discussion and the players are irrelvant anyway. You could be assured though that talent levels wouldn't be lopsided, just picked to improve another team's starters and help them score better for a given week (possibly using sleepers). I also wondered what kind of sentiment I could expect if I did this.

I find the response that it would be better received amongst anonymous big stakes teams than it would with your buddies. Sounds like your interpretation of shadiness is directly tied to the amount of competitiveness one should expect in a given league. So is it fair to say that if competitiveness is expected by the group, competitive folks would understand the strategy and not be offended?

 

[shims3]

Now if the last place team is selling their top players to a playoff team at this point of the season, then I find a problem with that. In my league a 1-11 team just traded Fitzgerald to a 9-3 team for nothing. And the league, which usually votes, did not get a chance to vote. It was executed by the commish.

Very fishy!

For yours...I think it is fine if the last place team is playing for something.

 

[Sopranos]

Allowing trades this late is worse than having unfair trades.. This is the reason a trade deadline is set 3 or so weeks BEFORE the playoff seeding is set

 

[Black]

A trade can be skewed...if you are getting something in return even if just a handcuff for one of your studs, then I think it's fine.

If you are giving away backup #1RBs for some Waiver Wire fodder, it's a form of tampering with the league's competativeness (and you wouldn't like it either...)

 

[PatrickT]

We had one last week, just before the deadline. 1st place team traded CJ to a cellar dwellar for 3 players, Berrian, Green and Dayne. It was a solid deal, helped both teams, nothing I could do, really. It had 0 effect on the season outcome for either player, the 1st place guy was just lining up for playoffs. Then, of course, Chad puts up 40 points against me.

 

[ckalltheway]

Trade deadlines should be week 10 at the absolute latest. Too many crazy trades happen when one team is in and one's out IMHO.

 

[Anthony Borbely]

The main objective of making trades should be to improve your roster.

It is wrong when the main reason for trading is to improve someone elses roster, regardless of the reason.

So is this unethical? In my opinion, absolutely.

 

[TxBuckeye]

Man, after reading the Shark Pool today, I'm glad I'm not in any leagues with many of you. Lots of unethical richards in here.

p.s. I'd laugh my ### off if you did this and the player you traded too came back and knocked you out in the playoffs. Karma can be a #####!

 

[Wrigley]

This is Collusion, period.

You are making one team better, while not trying to help your team.

no trade.

 

[Magnus_CA]

I see absolutely nothing wrong with this as this isn't collusion by any means. In fact, it's a smart strategy if you have the depth to do so and can afford helping a team eliminate YOUR competition. There is nothing that says a trade has to be equal value.

 

[T. Bagger]

I suppose it makes a difference if it's a dynasty league as opposed to redraft, and the specific players and other circumstances involved.

It it's dynasty, the team sending the currently producing player stands to potentially suffer for the so-called "unbalanced" trade down the line. In our dynasty league, something similar happened this year when a team traded Edge James for Michael Bush. The team that got Edge was playing two teams that the team trading Edge needed to lose over the next two weeks in order to qualify for the last playoff spot. The "receiving" team also had injuries to Purple Jesus, Lynch, and Brandon Jacobs and therefore no healthy running backs heading into the final two games, which were critical to the sending teams playoff hopes.

The sending team had 3 other Cardinals on his roster, Edge was his oldest running back, and if he wound up not qualifying was looking to get younger at the RB position. Edge didn't figure to be a regular starter next year for the sending team, so he apparently was willing to roll the dice that Bush may wind up starting for the Raiders in '08.

All in all, I have no problem whatsoever with this sort of move. The object of the game is to get into the playoffs and make a run at the title. Any personnel move should be undertaken with this motive in mind. Players are assets that a team uses to improve his teams chances, normally by directly improving his own starters or depth. If increasing your playoff odds takes the form of improving another teams chances to help you acheive that goal (and it's a dynasty league so the sending owner has to live with the consequences down the road), so be it.

As long as it's a dynasty league format, I don't see anything wrong with pulling out all the stops to win. I personally think it's commendable, as a matter of fact.

 

[GregR_2]

I see absolutely nothing wrong with this as this isn't collusion by any means. In fact, it's a smart strategy if you have the depth to do so and can afford helping a team eliminate YOUR competition. There is nothing that says a trade has to be equal value.

I don't think you seem to understand the meaning of collusion as used in FF. This is a prime example of it. If you conduct a transaction that hurts your team to help another team, that's collusion.As others have said, it's one thing if you're making a trade that helps your team and you are willing to give up a little more because of who the trade is with. That's not much different than the fact I'm stingier in trades to teams in my division than I am to teams out of my division. But either way I'm making a trade with the expectation it improves my team's gametime efforts, or averting my injury risk positively. If I'm not doing that, then I'm colluding.

 

[BLOX]

col·lu·sion /kəˈluʒən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuh-loo-zhuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. a secret agreement, esp. for fraudulent or treacherous purposes; conspiracy: Some of his employees were acting in collusion to rob him.

2. Law. a secret understanding between two or more persons to gain something illegally, to defraud another of his or her rights, or to appear as adversaries though in agreement: collusion of husband and wife to obtain a divorce.

 

[GregR_2]

col·lu·sion /kəˈluʒən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuh-loo-zhuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. a secret agreement, esp. for fraudulent or treacherous purposes; conspiracy: Some of his employees were acting in collusion to rob him.

2. Law. a secret understanding between two or more persons to gain something illegally, to defraud another of his or her rights, or to appear as adversaries though in agreement: collusion of husband and wife to obtain a divorce.

And in fantasy football circles it is also widely used as the term for transactions where a team is making a move to help another team, at their own detriment, whether it involved a secret agreement or not with the other owner. Moves like the one proposed.The point of language is communication. Though the FF use of collusion may not fit the dictionary's definition, people understand what is meant when it is used here.

 

[BLOX]

The point of my post was to show how the dictionary definition does correspond to the fantasy definition.

Regardless of how the communicatin is perceived the definition fits and proves that there are many forms of collusion:

two owners stacking one team

transactions involving cash

helping another owner defeat an opponent

not submitting your (in your opinion of course) best lineup, tanking.

Based on the definition there are more forms of collusion than I even thought.

The point is, you control one team and have to make sure it is good enough to get to the playoffs without concern for any other teams. If you help another owner defeat a team to get to the playoffs, you rob that owner of what was rightfully his.

 

[Mungo Burrows]

col·lu·sion /kəˈluʒən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuh-loo-zhuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. a secret agreement, esp. for fraudulent or treacherous purposes; conspiracy: Some of his employees were acting in collusion to rob him.

2. Law. a secret understanding between two or more persons to gain something illegally, to defraud another of his or her rights, or to appear as adversaries though in agreement: collusion of husband and wife to obtain a divorce.

And in fantasy football circles it is also widely used as the term for transactions where a team is making a move to help another team, at their own detriment, whether it involved a secret agreement or not with the other owner. Moves like the one proposed.The point of language is communication. Though the FF use of collusion may not fit the dictionary's definition, people understand what is meant when it is used here.

Based on the discussion here, I don't think everyone agrees fully on what the term means.If a move is done with the intention of increasing the likelihood of making the playoffs, is it really to "their own deteriment". It is done in an attempt to better their chances of meeting their ultimate goals. Yes the roster is theoretically weaker, but if the player given up is unlikely to be inserted in the starting lineup, is it really hurting the team?

This is one of the stickier issues that comes up in a lot of situations this time of year. Is the objective to field the best possible roster and try to win every game, or is it to achieve success in the playoffs/win the most money. Some times these are at odds, and how you side on that argument determines how you view these sorts of deals.

 

[Dt's Mules]

I made a trade with this very intent right before our trade deadline a week or so ago. It wasn't even questioned by my league. IMO, this falls under the broad definition of "benefiting your team".

The irony of it all is that if I hadn't made the trade, he would have played Kolby last week instead of Fargas and the 5 extra points would have won the game for him, defeating my playoff competitor and sealing my playoff birth.

 

[TxBuckeye]

The point is, you control one team and have to make sure it is good enough to get to the playoffs without concern for any other teams. If you help another owner defeat a team to get to the playoffs, you rob that owner of what was rightfully his.

Well put. This is the main point of the whole discussion.

 

[GregR_2]

col·lu·sion /kəˈluʒən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuh-loo-zhuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. a secret agreement, esp. for fraudulent or treacherous purposes; conspiracy: Some of his employees were acting in collusion to rob him.

2. Law. a secret understanding between two or more persons to gain something illegally, to defraud another of his or her rights, or to appear as adversaries though in agreement: collusion of husband and wife to obtain a divorce.

And in fantasy football circles it is also widely used as the term for transactions where a team is making a move to help another team, at their own detriment, whether it involved a secret agreement or not with the other owner. Moves like the one proposed.The point of language is communication. Though the FF use of collusion may not fit the dictionary's definition, people understand what is meant when it is used here.

Based on the discussion here, I don't think everyone agrees fully on what the term means.

They may not agree whether the word "collusion" is applicable if they go by the dictionary definition, but they understand the issues involved and when someone says collusion they understand the realm of actions the team may be engaging in, whether it includes a secret agreement or not.

If a move is done with the intention of increasing the likelihood of making the playoffs, is it really to "their own deteriment". It is done in an attempt to better their chances of meeting their ultimate goals.

Yes. Ends do not always justify the means. I can commit any number of actions that increase the likelihood of my making the playoffs which are against the rules, bad sportsmanship, unethical, and any other number of things not right. Just because something increases your chances of making the playoffs doesn't mean it is an action that most people believe is an expected, allowed, or ethical part of the game. Most people think you're supposed to win in sports and in games by winning your games, not on trying to lose them, and not on stacking other teams to accomplish what you were unable to do by yourself. Even when NFL teams, say, rest players, they don't do it to try to lose games or try to manipulate the playoff seeding. Their actions are done to try to improve their gametime efforts at a time when they matter.

Yes the roster is theoretically weaker, but if the player given up is unlikely to be inserted in the starting lineup, is it really hurting the team?

Trading away your depth for no improvement elsewhere is clearly a detriment to your gametime efforts by increasing the dropoff those efforts suffer if you have an injury.Further, it violates the belief that leagues are based on teams acting individually in their efforts. It doesn't matter if you conspire with the other team in advance or not. You created a situation where 1 team had to face the combined efforts of 2 opponents. Do you think that is anywhere close to meeting what most people consider to be the definition of "fair" in sports or games based on individual competition?

This is one of the stickier issues that comes up in a lot of situations this time of year. Is the objective to field the best possible roster and try to win every game, or is it to achieve success in the playoffs/win the most money. Some times these are at odds, and how you side on that argument determines how you view these sorts of deals.

I agree it is an issue that comes up. But I think it's a pretty black or white issue on whether, to steal a line from the other thread, people have selective principles or not based on how much they want the end result.Do you think what you're doing is ethical enough for you to send an email to your league and say honestly, "I'm trading these players to this team not because I think it helps my roster, but only because I think it will help him beat his opponent"? I doubt very many people who would engage in this kind of behavior would feel comfortable doing that, and that tells me they know they are doing something wrong, but have chosen to be selective in whether they stick to their principles or not. And likely they are willing to lie about their motivations in doing it for no reason than to get away with something they know others don't think is part of the game.

 

[Dt's Mules]

I see absolutely nothing wrong with this as this isn't collusion by any means. In fact, it's a smart strategy if you have the depth to do so and can afford helping a team eliminate YOUR competition. There is nothing that says a trade has to be equal value.

I don't think you seem to understand the meaning of collusion as used in FF. This is a prime example of it. If you conduct a transaction that hurts your team to help another team, that's collusion.As others have said, it's one thing if you're making a trade that helps your team and you are willing to give up a little more because of who the trade is with. That's not much different than the fact I'm stingier in trades to teams in my division than I am to teams out of my division. But either way I'm making a trade with the expectation it improves my team's gametime efforts, or averting my injury risk positively. If I'm not doing that, then I'm colluding.

Does it hurt your team? In the big picture it may help your team. Most trades involve some kind of give and take (e.g. improve at wr while regressing at rb). In a case like this, you may hurt your team by losing depth but improve your chances of winning the league by increasing the probably you make the playoffs.The goal of FF IMO is to win, not field the best team.

eta: please disregard the first part, i see you addressed it already in another post.

 

[Wrigley]

I see absolutely nothing wrong with this as this isn't collusion by any means. In fact, it's a smart strategy if you have the depth to do so and can afford helping a team eliminate YOUR competition. There is nothing that says a trade has to be equal value.

I don't think you seem to understand the meaning of collusion as used in FF. This is a prime example of it. If you conduct a transaction that hurts your team to help another team, that's collusion.As others have said, it's one thing if you're making a trade that helps your team and you are willing to give up a little more because of who the trade is with. That's not much different than the fact I'm stingier in trades to teams in my division than I am to teams out of my division. But either way I'm making a trade with the expectation it improves my team's gametime efforts, or averting my injury risk positively. If I'm not doing that, then I'm colluding.

Does it hurt your team? In the big picture it may help your team. Most trades involve some kind of give and take (e.g. improve at wr while regressing at rb). In a case like this, you may hurt your team by losing depth but improve your chances of winning the league by increasing the probably you make the playoffs.The goal of FF IMO is to win, not field the best team.

eta: please disregard the first part, i see you addressed it already in another post.

No, this helps another team......not yours.Two teams working as one, to defeat another, IS COLLUSION.

Why is that so hard to understand?

 

[Dt's Mules]

I see absolutely nothing wrong with this as this isn't collusion by any means. In fact, it's a smart strategy if you have the depth to do so and can afford helping a team eliminate YOUR competition. There is nothing that says a trade has to be equal value.

I don't think you seem to understand the meaning of collusion as used in FF. This is a prime example of it. If you conduct a transaction that hurts your team to help another team, that's collusion.As others have said, it's one thing if you're making a trade that helps your team and you are willing to give up a little more because of who the trade is with. That's not much different than the fact I'm stingier in trades to teams in my division than I am to teams out of my division. But either way I'm making a trade with the expectation it improves my team's gametime efforts, or averting my injury risk positively. If I'm not doing that, then I'm colluding.

Does it hurt your team? In the big picture it may help your team. Most trades involve some kind of give and take (e.g. improve at wr while regressing at rb). In a case like this, you may hurt your team by losing depth but improve your chances of winning the league by increasing the probably you make the playoffs.The goal of FF IMO is to win, not field the best team.

eta: please disregard the first part, i see you addressed it already in another post.

No, this helps another team......not yours.Two teams working as one, to defeat another, IS COLLUSION.

Why is that so hard to understand?

so trades are collusion? two teams are working together to improve their chances to defeat others, no?col·lu·sion (k-lzhn)

n.

A secret agreement between two or more parties for a fraudulent, illegal, or deceitful purpose.

let's see...

secret - nope

fraudulent - nope

illegal - nope

deceitful - nope

doesn't seem to fit the definition of collusion

Why is this so hard to understand?

eta: the best argument I could see against this would be "what does the team that is eliminated from the playoffs have to gain by winning the game?" Even if it as simple as wanting to play spoiler, then there is nothing wrong with this IMO. However, if they have no personal motivation for winning the game and only doing it to help you, then that feels like it would be crossing the line.

 

[Bandit]

This is a perfect example of why you need a trading deadline.

Here's what I would do: Send an e-mail to the league saying that you are about to make the trade, and use it as an example of why a trading deadline is needed. If everyone agrees to add the trade deadline for next season, then don't go through with the trade. If no trade deadline is added for next season, then I would go ahead and make the trade.

 

[Christo]

Sorry if this has been discussed, but I didn't find anything on a cursory search...Anyone ever trade to improve an eliminated team to help them against someone you need to lose to make the playoffs? Not talking about trading guys back and forth weekly, but trading your depth to help them get a win against one of your foes. I see collusion as an eliminated team dumping their talent because its worthless to them while stacking a contender to become a superteam. This is potentially damaging to your team by sacrificing your depth, but could be a last gasp effort to slide into the playoff bracket. I'm in an odd position, in that my team is 3rd in overall points in the league, and I have tremendous RB depth. Just had bad fortune from the FF gods of playing the top scorer just about every week in an all DH format, so I'm one game from the brink of elimination. Most of my bench RB's would be the #1 RB on the eliminated team's rosters and give them a much better shot of knocking off the current "in" teams. It wouldn't be giving away talent, I would just be making an effort to improve another team (slanted towards them), as opposed to improving my team, as would be the case in a "regular" trade.Is this too shady to be considered viable strategy in a generally friendly league (only $75 entry fee)? We do have open trading for the entire year due to basic laziness of establishing a deadline, and general trust of owners. Wondering if anyone else has done or considered this...

Never have, but I don't see a problem with it as long as the trade itself is fair.

 

[Wrigley]

I see absolutely nothing wrong with this as this isn't collusion by any means. In fact, it's a smart strategy if you have the depth to do so and can afford helping a team eliminate YOUR competition. There is nothing that says a trade has to be equal value.

I don't think you seem to understand the meaning of collusion as used in FF. This is a prime example of it. If you conduct a transaction that hurts your team to help another team, that's collusion.As others have said, it's one thing if you're making a trade that helps your team and you are willing to give up a little more because of who the trade is with. That's not much different than the fact I'm stingier in trades to teams in my division than I am to teams out of my division. But either way I'm making a trade with the expectation it improves my team's gametime efforts, or averting my injury risk positively. If I'm not doing that, then I'm colluding.

Does it hurt your team? In the big picture it may help your team. Most trades involve some kind of give and take (e.g. improve at wr while regressing at rb). In a case like this, you may hurt your team by losing depth but improve your chances of winning the league by increasing the probably you make the playoffs.The goal of FF IMO is to win, not field the best team.

eta: please disregard the first part, i see you addressed it already in another post.

No, this helps another team......not yours.Two teams working as one, to defeat another, IS COLLUSION.

Why is that so hard to understand?

so trades are collusion? two teams are working together to improve their chances to defeat others, no?col·lu·sion (k-lzhn)

n.

A secret agreement between two or more parties for a fraudulent, illegal, or deceitful purpose.

let's see...

secret - nope

fraudulent - nope

illegal - nope

deceitful - nope

doesn't seem to fit the definition of collusion

Why is this so hard to understand?

eta: the best argument I could see against this would be "what does the team that is eliminated from the playoffs have to gain by winning the game?" Even if it as simple as wanting to play spoiler, then there is nothing wrong with this IMO. However, if they have no personal motivation for winning the game and only doing it to help you, then that feels like it would be crossing the line.

No, trades are not collusion....not unless they are trying to make ONE team better. And that is what is trade does. He is not trying to make his team better, just making another better......THAT IS COLLUSION

Secret?......Yes it is!!!!! Unless he tells the rest of the league.

fraudulent?......YES!!!! Two teams trying to make one better is FRAUDULENT

illegal?.....Maybe, but in any league worth a crap.....collusion is illegal

deceitful? #### YES it is!!!! It is very underhanded.

I'm sure the owner that the eliminated team is playing might say this is deceitful, fraudulent, and illegal.

 

[AnonymousBob]

This is some mighty fuzzy territory but unless you're getting something to improve your team, I wouldn't let this nonsense fly.

Friendly league, definitely not cool. In a serious money league, I think it could be considered 'part of the game'. I would not do it and I would hope that it comes back to bite you in the butt, and I'd be extremely pissed if you did it against me, AND I'd have a LONG LONG memory. In fact, I would make sure that it came back to haunt you down the road, if not this year then the next... and the next. In fact, if it eliminated me, I'd trade to your playoff opponent any way I could. Definitely not in the spirit of the game.

Not cool even in a big money league. I know I'm arguing in the other thread that subtle tanking is okay to improve your playoff chances, but this is just bush league.

 

[Phurfur]

Sorry if this has been discussed, but I didn't find anything on a cursory search...Anyone ever trade to improve an eliminated team to help them against someone you need to lose to make the playoffs? Not talking about trading guys back and forth weekly, but trading your depth to help them get a win against one of your foes. I see collusion as an eliminated team dumping their talent because its worthless to them while stacking a contender to become a superteam. This is potentially damaging to your team by sacrificing your depth, but could be a last gasp effort to slide into the playoff bracket. I'm in an odd position, in that my team is 3rd in overall points in the league, and I have tremendous RB depth. Just had bad fortune from the FF gods of playing the top scorer just about every week in an all DH format, so I'm one game from the brink of elimination. Most of my bench RB's would be the #1 RB on the eliminated team's rosters and give them a much better shot of knocking off the current "in" teams. It wouldn't be giving away talent, I would just be making an effort to improve another team (slanted towards them), as opposed to improving my team, as would be the case in a "regular" trade.Is this too shady to be considered viable strategy in a generally friendly league (only $75 entry fee)? We do have open trading for the entire year due to basic laziness of establishing a deadline, and general trust of owners. Wondering if anyone else has done or considered this...

Did the guy approach you? If not it could be collusion. I would keep my depth and let the chips fall were they will.

 

[Dt's Mules]

I see absolutely nothing wrong with this as this isn't collusion by any means. In fact, it's a smart strategy if you have the depth to do so and can afford helping a team eliminate YOUR competition. There is nothing that says a trade has to be equal value.

I don't think you seem to understand the meaning of collusion as used in FF. This is a prime example of it. If you conduct a transaction that hurts your team to help another team, that's collusion.As others have said, it's one thing if you're making a trade that helps your team and you are willing to give up a little more because of who the trade is with. That's not much different than the fact I'm stingier in trades to teams in my division than I am to teams out of my division. But either way I'm making a trade with the expectation it improves my team's gametime efforts, or averting my injury risk positively. If I'm not doing that, then I'm colluding.

Does it hurt your team? In the big picture it may help your team. Most trades involve some kind of give and take (e.g. improve at wr while regressing at rb). In a case like this, you may hurt your team by losing depth but improve your chances of winning the league by increasing the probably you make the playoffs.The goal of FF IMO is to win, not field the best team.

eta: please disregard the first part, i see you addressed it already in another post.

No, this helps another team......not yours.Two teams working as one, to defeat another, IS COLLUSION.

Why is that so hard to understand?

so trades are collusion? two teams are working together to improve their chances to defeat others, no?col·lu·sion (k-lzhn)

n.

A secret agreement between two or more parties for a fraudulent, illegal, or deceitful purpose.

let's see...

secret - nope

fraudulent - nope

illegal - nope

deceitful - nope

doesn't seem to fit the definition of collusion

Why is this so hard to understand?

eta: the best argument I could see against this would be "what does the team that is eliminated from the playoffs have to gain by winning the game?" Even if it as simple as wanting to play spoiler, then there is nothing wrong with this IMO. However, if they have no personal motivation for winning the game and only doing it to help you, then that feels like it would be crossing the line.

No, trades are not collusion....not unless they are trying to make ONE team better. And that is what is trade does. He is not trying to make his team better, just making another better......THAT IS COLLUSION

Secret?......Yes it is!!!!! Unless he tells the rest of the league.

fraudulent?......YES!!!! Two teams trying to make one better is FRAUDULENT

illegal?.....Maybe, but in any league worth a crap.....collusion is illegal

deceitful? #### YES it is!!!! It is very underhanded.

I'm sure the owner that the eliminated team is playing might say this is deceitful, fraudulent, and illegal.

I see your point, but you have to take things one step further. Is the goal of a trade to make your team better or is it to better your chances of winning? I say the latter. You are making the assumption of secrecy. If that is the case and the motives aren't clear to the league, then it's secret. However we can't make that assumption. And if that is the case, then I would be inclined to agree with you.It isn't fraudulent or deceitful because it isn't two teams trying to make one better. It is two owners executing a trade for different reason (just like any other trade). The motives of the team "dumping" players is clear (or at least should be). However, as I said before, the motives of the receiving team is the real question and IMO where the whole issue hinges. He needs to have a reason why he would want this. For example, our league has a low score of the week fine. Even if his reason is something innocuous as that, the the trade is justifiable.

As long as each party has something to gain in the deal, then it shouldn't be questioned.

And for the record, if I was the owner of the team facing the eliminated team, I would feel the exact same way.

For the most part, the only clear case of collusion is when the eliminated team gives his good players to a contending team without gaining anything.

 

[BusterTBronco]

It's not collusion unless the eliminated owner is "in" on the plan.

 

[Wrigley]

It's not collusion unless the eliminated owner is "in" on the plan.

How couldn't he be in on it?Playoff team:"hey you look like you need some RB help"Eliminated team: "yes my RB's are the suck"PT:"well it's your lucky day, I've got plenty"ET:"this should be good, what do you want for them?"PT:"oh don't worry about it.....how does free sound?"ET:"okay, that sounds great"PT:"LOL"as another owner said earlier.....if someone did this to me and knocked me out of the playoffs, you can bet your ### I would be dumping all of my talent to the guy he's playing against.Just total BS

 

[BusterTBronco]

It's very simple.

Team A offers Team B a trade.

Team B evaluates offer, concludes that it is a good deal for his team, and accepts.

No collusion!

 

[bryhamm]

There is no reason for an eliminated team to do a trade. What purpose does it serve him (or her)?

This is why we have a rule that forbids teams that have been eliminated from making any trades.

 

[BusterTBronco]

There is no reason for an eliminated team to do a trade. What purpose does it serve him (or her)?This is why we have a rule that forbids teams that have been eliminated from making any trades.

Gee, I dunno. Maybe they want to win some games?By your logic, an eliminated team should just give up. Not even bother managing their starting roster each week. After all, what purpose does it serve him (or her)?

 

[Christo]

It's not collusion unless the eliminated owner is "in" on the plan.

How couldn't he be in on it?Playoff team:"hey you look like you need some RB help"

Eliminated team: "yes my RB's are the suck"

PT:"well it's your lucky day, I've got plenty"

ET:"this should be good, what do you want for them?"

PT:"oh don't worry about it.....how does free sound?"

ET:"okay, that sounds great"

PT:"LOL"

as another owner said earlier.....if someone did this to me and knocked me out of the playoffs, you can bet your ### I would be dumping all of my talent to the guy he's playing against.

Just total BS

The OP didn't say he would be giving the player away. He said it would be like a regular trade.All of the people not liking this aren't looking at it from every angle.

Every team has a responsibility to try to win each of their games, even if they're eliminated. Otherwise they would, by definition, be tanking. We allow teams in contention for the playoffs to make a trade to improve their team. Who's to say that an eliminated team can only try to win with the roster it has when it can be improved by making a trade too?

That's why I think that if trading is still allowed and the trade itself is fair, then there's nothing wrong with it.

 

[ctriopelle]

For what it's worth, I didn't end up making any trades, not worth any of the hassle if it starts half the argument I've seen here. Only had about a 1% chance of being successful in the end anyway. That's one of the nice things of the shark pool, you can tap a great FF resource and see (relatively anonymously) how a plan would be viewed without doing any real damage to the people you hang out with on a daily basis.

It is apparent from the reactions that lots of folks are awfully sensitive to potential collusion situations. In no way was I proposing that I drop a stud off my roster for some guy's second string kicker, quite the contrary since I need to preserve my own playoff viability. I would only consider trading someone destined for my bench the rest of the year, who happens to be better than the best options from the other team's current positional talent pool. There is a reason they are not in contention! In return I would expect something similar, a player he wouldn't likely use, of similar value, that would even have a good chance of being used by me. This is the way most fair trades are structured. Both guys need to get some sort of direct help, or else why would they do it? As a matter of fact, this is how I approach any trades I do. The only odd objective of the particular scenario I was questioning was to specifically target a partner who would be facing someone I need to lose this week with the byproduct making his team more competitive for my benefit. I wouldn't be seeing how badly I could screw him over by taking advantage of his poor football knowledge to wrestle an undervalued player for peanuts so I could stack my team (which would actually be counterproductive in this case). I'm talking about the kind of trade anyone would make in the middle of the season if they see an a reason, it's just that the timing now could help orchestrate an ourcome normally considered outside of your control (which may even have had a similar result in midseason, its just that the end effect wouldn't have been so obvious, or intentional).

Thanks to everyone for your comments! And next year I'll be sure we don't forget to institute a predetermined trade deadline!