What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Is it collusion (1 Viewer)

Is it collusion to reveal you'll be dropping a "throw in" player?

  • Yes - It's collusion - punish the owner.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No - Not collusion - move along.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes - Collusion but everyone does it - not worth caring about.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Don't you have better things to worry about?

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

Coach3K

Footballguy
Just read a little about the MLB player's union concerns about GM's talking about free agents at the winter meetings and it got me thinking about FF trade offers sent with messages that refer to "throw in players" (to make numbers even) as probable waiver-wire drops.

I just wanted to get a discussion going here to know whether this is a practice that "crosses the line" into collusion, or whether it's a perfectly valid strategy/tactic.

Example:

Player 1 has Addai.

Player 2 offers Eli Manning and Willis McGahee for him (assume it makes sense for both rosters - Player 1 is using Alex Smith as his starting QB, etc.). To make the trade work right, the rosters numbers have to be equal. Adding any other player of any value to the equation on Player 1's side will cause Player 1 to decline.

So, to get Addai, Player 2 offers Eli Manning and Willis McGahee for Addai and (thrown in) Mike Furrey.

Player 2 sends the offer and says, "I'm looking to get Addai. I know you need a QB bad and Eli has looked good. Furrey is just included to make the numbers even. I'm planning on dropping him, so if you're in love with him, he'll be on the waiver wire anyway."

Is this collusive - similar to the complaint that the MLB players complained about - in the sense that one owner is sharing information about potential free agents with another owner to influence a trade?

Not a big deal, but I like playing fair and playing on the level in my league. My feeling is it's not a big deal, but again - I didn't think about it until I saw the story today about MLB, etc.

(Edit - first poll I've done - my fingers naturally hit enter and prematurely posted poll - quickly added the other options)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think it's collusion. If Player 1 doesn't want Mike furrey then include him in the trade to make the numbers even. if he does want mike furrey, then suggest a different throw in from his squad...

If he doesn't even out the trade, my understanding is he has to drop someone to make his roster legal. Why not make the trade even numbers and let Player 2 worry about add/drops.

 
our league had the same roster restrictions as yours up until this year. all trades had to be 1 for or 2 for 2 ect... this year we changed the rule to allow for 2 for 1 or 3 for 1 trades. the new rule allows for this by stating that the team getting an extra player or 2 has to immediately drop enough players to get them to the league maximum while the team being short players fills out their roster in the normal drop/add once a week procedure. no throw ins needed that way

 
I don't think it's collusion, since they're just evening out the trade to follow league rules. I do think Player 2 talks too much, unnecessarily. He could either make the offer for Addai and "a player of your choice", or make the offer as it stands. If Furrey is too valuable to Player 1 to make the deal then he'll decline and/or counteroffer; given the roster limits he's got to follow he'll have to drop someone to pick Furrey back up in any case.

 
Just read a little about the MLB player's union concerns about GM's talking about free agents at the winter meetings and it got me thinking about FF trade offers sent with messages that refer to "throw in players" (to make numbers even) as probable waiver-wire drops.

I just wanted to get a discussion going here to know whether this is a practice that "crosses the line" into collusion, or whether it's a perfectly valid strategy/tactic.

Example:

Player 1 has Addai.

Player 2 offers Eli Manning and Willis McGahee for him (assume it makes sense for both rosters - Player 1 is using Alex Smith as his starting QB, etc.). To make the trade work right, the rosters numbers have to be equal. Adding any other player of any value to the equation on Player 1's side will cause Player 1 to decline.

So, to get Addai, Player 2 offers Eli Manning and Willis McGahee for Addai and (thrown in) Mike Furrey.

Player 2 sends the offer and says, "I'm looking to get Addai. I know you need a QB bad and Eli has looked good. Furrey is just included to make the numbers even. I'm planning on dropping him, so if you're in love with him, he'll be on the waiver wire anyway."

Is this collusive - similar to the complaint that the MLB players complained about - in the sense that one owner is sharing information about potential free agents with another owner to influence a trade?

Not a big deal, but I like playing fair and playing on the level in my league. My feeling is it's not a big deal, but again - I didn't think about it until I saw the story today about MLB, etc.

(Edit - first poll I've done - my fingers naturally hit enter and prematurely posted poll - quickly added the other options)
I NEVER let another GM know this. I try to make all my players sound legit even if I know and HE KNOWS that the player is crap.
 
What advantage does advanced knowledge of other teams drops give you? Assuming everyone gets notified of league transactions and there's anything but a first-come-first-server waiver system, then I don't see any advantage here.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top