Is this collusion? (1 Viewer)

[djjosee]

OK, so I completed a trade recently and it looks like this:

Coles / Oak D

for

Colston / Was D

AND next week

Big Ben / Duckett

for

Cassel / De Williams

We structured it like this b/c I needed some players for next week's trade to play this week (due to byes and injuries).

So, in other words ... is it collusion to do a "two step" trade?

Edit: To change Oak to Was ... few bottle of wine into it ... sorry

 

[blackjack23]

Yep

 

[KellysHeroes]

nope

 

[rock753]

Yep

Maybe not. I don't see any trade backs, so I will say no. When you have trade backs based around bye issues, I say yes. How are you trading Oak D for Oak D in week one, I think a typo.

 

[Just Win Baby]

Who's getting the OAK D?

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

You traded the Oakland D to yourself?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Yep. Collusion. 100%.

 

[Dirty Weasel]

As long as each trade on it's own is not lopsided, and tradebacks are not made, no problem. Tradebacks may go through in your league, but I think it's bad for the league. Basically, one team is borrowing another team's player to have an advantage against a 3rd team. That's BS.

 

[Anthony Borbely]

OK, so I completed a trade recently and it looks like this:

Coles / Oak D

for

Colston / Oak D

AND next week

Big Bem / Duckett

for

Cassel / De Williams

We structured it like this b/c I needed some players for next week's trade to play this week (due to byes and injusry).

So, in other words ... is it collusion to do a "two step" trade?

If you made both trades already, then no. But it seems you are making one next week after this weeks games. That is collusion as far as I'm concerned.

 

[rock753]

Yep. Collusion. 100%.

Please explain...

 

[rock753]

As long as each trade on it's own is not lopsided, and tradebacks are not made, no problem. Tradebacks may go through in your league, but I think it's bad for the league. Basically, one team is borrowing another team's player to have an advantage against a 3rd team. That's BS.

Bingo....that is collusion.This is not.

 

[Lambert]

Yep. Collusion. 100%.

Please explain...

I'd also be interested to hear an explanation of why some people think this is collusion. There's no tradeback involved. Trade A is WR & DEF for WR & DEF. Trade B is QB & RB for QB & RB. Neither trade is really lopsided to the extent that I would even consider voting to veto it individually, nor would I vote to veto it if both trades were combined as one. I'm not ruling out the possibility that this should be considered collusion, but I haven't seen any good reason to treat it as such yet. One person suggested that the fact that Trade B was made for next week rather than this week makes it collusion, but I don't really get that. Forgetting about Trade A, if I was negotiating with another team for Trade B, and the other guy was interested but didn't want to do it this week because of bye issues ... then he suggested he'd be willing to make the trade with me after this week's game, where exactly is the problem there?

 

[Chicago Hooligan]

Collusion doesn't only mean two teams stacking via lopsided trades.

What if two teams traded players back and forth all season to get around byes? This is collusion even if it's only for a couple weeks.

 

[Twilight]

It's not collusion. When to make a legit trade is always part of the negotiations. Both trades were legit on their own. Delaying one trade for a week is perfectly acceptable

 

[joffer]

if DeAngelo tears his ACL tomorrow, is this trade still going to happen? If yes, then i'd say it's not collusion.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

Not collusion. However, let me ask you this. If any of the players involved in the step 2 of the trade are injured, what does that do to the trade? Seems a bit unfair to not complete the trade to the rest of the league.

 

[joffer]

Not collusion. However, let me ask you this. If any of the players involved in the step 2 of the trade are injured, what does that do to the trade? Seems a bit unfair to not complete the trade to the rest of the league.

 

[SuperJohn96]

Yep. Collusion. 100%.

Please explain...

That's almost like roster sharing, that's why.Spreading one deal over multiple weeks is weak, and I have a feeling you knew that or you wouldn't have asked.

 

[Captain Hook]

IF both trades are final (some alluded to the injury concern) AND if both trades are ANNOUNCED then it is NOT collusion.

If either of those factors is not the case then it likely is collusion.

 

[PewterFan]

Yep. Collusion. 100%.

Textbook definition of collusion. This wouldn't be tolerated in any of my leagues.

 

[PranksterJD]

if DeAngelo tears his ACL tomorrow, is this trade still going to happen? If yes, then i'd say it's not collusion.

Wait... what?IMHO, the only thing making this (possibly) **not** collusion is the fact that both trades are relatively equal in value. If Deangelo is on IR come Tuesday and the 2nd trade goes through, its obvious the deals were collaborative, and therefore collusive. If Deangelo is on IR next week and the second trade DOESN"T go though, then I'd say the first trade stood on its own merit and everything is fine.The definitive factor as to whether this is collusion is whether the trades stand alone, or whether they are packaged. It should NOT be allowed if both trades are required for either one to work. Here's the scenario. These two teams agree to a deal that sends Coles / Oak D / Big Ben / DuckettforColston / Was D / Cassel / De Williamsrelatively fair, we can all agree. However, Owner 1 suggests ( as the OP does ), that they break the deal into two parts to allow him some bye week relief. This is fine, as long as the second deal could be eliminated should something alter the situation over the weekend. Its the same as if the first part didn't exist, and owners are making a verbal agreement on Friday to do a trade on Tuesday. This would be acceptable in any league. HOWEVER, if the trades are linked, then there is an unfair advantage being created, and as a result the trade should be voided. Let think another way...Week 1: Coles / Big Ben for CassellWeek 2: Duckett / Oak D for Colston / DeAngelo / Was DWould anyone think that these weren't collusive trades?

 

[Krewe]

if DeAngelo tears his ACL tomorrow, is this trade still going to happen? If yes, then i'd say it's not collusion.

Wait... what?IMHO, the only thing making this (possibly) **not** collusion is the fact that both trades are relatively equal in value. If Deangelo is on IR come Tuesday and the 2nd trade goes through, its obvious the deals were collaborative, and therefore collusive. If Deangelo is on IR next week and the second trade DOESN"T go though, then I'd say the first trade stood on its own merit and everything is fine.The definitive factor as to whether this is collusion is whether the trades stand alone, or whether they are packaged. It should NOT be allowed if both trades are required for either one to work. Here's the scenario. These two teams agree to a deal that sends Coles / Oak D / Big Ben / DuckettforColston / Was D / Cassel / De Williamsrelatively fair, we can all agree. However, Owner 1 suggests ( as the OP does ), that they break the deal into two parts to allow him some bye week relief. This is fine, as long as the second deal could be eliminated should something alter the situation over the weekend. Its the same as if the first part didn't exist, and owners are making a verbal agreement on Friday to do a trade on Tuesday. This would be acceptable in any league. HOWEVER, if the trades are linked, then there is an unfair advantage being created, and as a result the trade should be voided. Let think another way...Week 1: Coles / Big Ben for CassellWeek 2: Duckett / Oak D for Colston / DeAngelo / Was DWould anyone think that these weren't collusive trades?

It gave me a headache, and I had to read it over three times (even with some lawyer trainin')--- but I still have to say

 

[Zow]

Absent any premature trade back type deal I don't see the problem. Nothing wrong IMO about agreeing on a future trade to be made. Both meet the standard of rational sense. Most importatnyl as well, neither player is purposely hurting himself to help the other out.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

If you dont think this is collusion (or dont really know one way or the other) I would have to question your critical thinking ability. Thats not an attempt at an insult.

Just consider... how far you could take this scenario. You could abuse it to no end. As someone stated after my post, you are sharing a roster.

Take the exact same trade, and state the 2nd part doesnt happen until next year. Change the name of those pieces invloved to something like Gore, Turner and Steve Smith. Just because its minor doesnt mean its not collusion.

 

[Zow]

If you dont think this is collusion (or dont really know one way or the other) I would have to question your critical thinking ability. Thats not an attempt at an insult.Just consider... how far you could take this scenario. You could abuse it to no end. As someone stated after my post, you are sharing a roster.Take the exact same trade, and state the 2nd part doesnt happen until next year. Change the name of those pieces invloved to something like Gore, Turner and Steve Smith. Just because its minor doesnt mean its not collusion.

sharing the roster? how? they aren't trading the guys back. this is simply two separate trades between the same two owners. Happens all the time.

 

[Relentless]

if DeAngelo tears his ACL tomorrow, is this trade still going to happen? If yes, then i'd say it's not collusion.

Wait... what?IMHO, the only thing making this (possibly) **not** collusion is the fact that both trades are relatively equal in value. If Deangelo is on IR come Tuesday and the 2nd trade goes through, its obvious the deals were collaborative, and therefore collusive. If Deangelo is on IR next week and the second trade DOESN"T go though, then I'd say the first trade stood on its own merit and everything is fine.The definitive factor as to whether this is collusion is whether the trades stand alone, or whether they are packaged. It should NOT be allowed if both trades are required for either one to work. Here's the scenario. These two teams agree to a deal that sends Coles / Oak D / Big Ben / DuckettforColston / Was D / Cassel / De Williamsrelatively fair, we can all agree. However, Owner 1 suggests ( as the OP does ), that they break the deal into two parts to allow him some bye week relief. This is fine, as long as the second deal could be eliminated should something alter the situation over the weekend. Its the same as if the first part didn't exist, and owners are making a verbal agreement on Friday to do a trade on Tuesday. This would be acceptable in any league. HOWEVER, if the trades are linked, then there is an unfair advantage being created, and as a result the trade should be voided. Let think another way...Week 1: Coles / Big Ben for CassellWeek 2: Duckett / Oak D for Colston / DeAngelo / Was DWould anyone think that these weren't collusive trades?

You obviously don't know what collusion is then.Whether YOU think the trades are fair or not doesn't prove or disprove collusion. The secret agreement between the two trade partners to help themselves and at the same time negatively affect other people is, in my opinion, collusion.

 

[PranksterJD]

if DeAngelo tears his ACL tomorrow, is this trade still going to happen? If yes, then i'd say it's not collusion.

Wait... what?IMHO, the only thing making this (possibly) **not** collusion is the fact that both trades are relatively equal in value. If Deangelo is on IR come Tuesday and the 2nd trade goes through, its obvious the deals were collaborative, and therefore collusive. If Deangelo is on IR next week and the second trade DOESN"T go though, then I'd say the first trade stood on its own merit and everything is fine.

The definitive factor as to whether this is collusion is whether the trades stand alone, or whether they are packaged. It should NOT be allowed if both trades are required for either one to work. Here's the scenario. These two teams agree to a deal that sends

Coles / Oak D / Big Ben / Duckett

for

Colston / Was D / Cassel / De Williams

relatively fair, we can all agree. However, Owner 1 suggests ( as the OP does ), that they break the deal into two parts to allow him some bye week relief. This is fine, as long as the second deal could be eliminated should something alter the situation over the weekend. Its the same as if the first part didn't exist, and owners are making a verbal agreement on Friday to do a trade on Tuesday. This would be acceptable in any league. HOWEVER, if the trades are linked, then there is an unfair advantage being created, and as a result the trade should be voided. Let think another way...

Week 1: Coles / Big Ben for Cassell

Week 2: Duckett / Oak D for Colston / DeAngelo / Was D

Would anyone think that these weren't collusive trades?

You obviously don't know what collusion is then.Whether YOU think the trades are fair or not doesn't prove or disprove collusion. The secret agreement between the two trade partners to help themselves and at the same time negatively affect other people is, in my opinion, collusion.

Did I say something different? I think you're exactly right, though I'll admit that from your's and Krewe's responses, I may not have phrased it very well.The Cliff's Notes version of my post is....

If its one trade in two parts, then its collusive.

If its two independent trades ( legitimately ), then its fine.

 

[Relentless]

if DeAngelo tears his ACL tomorrow, is this trade still going to happen? If yes, then i'd say it's not collusion.

Wait... what?IMHO, the only thing making this (possibly) **not** collusion is the fact that both trades are relatively equal in value. If Deangelo is on IR come Tuesday and the 2nd trade goes through, its obvious the deals were collaborative, and therefore collusive. If Deangelo is on IR next week and the second trade DOESN"T go though, then I'd say the first trade stood on its own merit and everything is fine.

The definitive factor as to whether this is collusion is whether the trades stand alone, or whether they are packaged. It should NOT be allowed if both trades are required for either one to work. Here's the scenario. These two teams agree to a deal that sends

Coles / Oak D / Big Ben / Duckett

for

Colston / Was D / Cassel / De Williams

relatively fair, we can all agree. However, Owner 1 suggests ( as the OP does ), that they break the deal into two parts to allow him some bye week relief. This is fine, as long as the second deal could be eliminated should something alter the situation over the weekend. Its the same as if the first part didn't exist, and owners are making a verbal agreement on Friday to do a trade on Tuesday. This would be acceptable in any league. HOWEVER, if the trades are linked, then there is an unfair advantage being created, and as a result the trade should be voided. Let think another way...

Week 1: Coles / Big Ben for Cassell

Week 2: Duckett / Oak D for Colston / DeAngelo / Was D

Would anyone think that these weren't collusive trades?

You obviously don't know what collusion is then.Whether YOU think the trades are fair or not doesn't prove or disprove collusion. The secret agreement between the two trade partners to help themselves and at the same time negatively affect other people is, in my opinion, collusion.

Did I say something different? I think you're exactly right, though I'll admit that from your's and Krewe's responses, I may not have phrased it very well.The Cliff's Notes version of my post is....

If its one trade in two parts, then its collusive.

If its two independent trades ( legitimately ), then its fine.

The part that made the trade collusive to me was breaking it up in to two parts. Disguising it as two even trades, but the reason for that was to avoid byes and injuries. As a result, it benefited the two making the trades and was intended to hurt their opponents.

I also think the point about an injury to one of the players on the second part of the trade was valid. If that happens you know the owner that got the short end of that stick will say something if the other owner doesn't still accept it. And even if he does accept it wouldn't it look curious trading for a player that is hurt?

I think we are on the same page, your first post just threw me off.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

After weighing all the evidence, I've decided this is not collusion.

:bangs gavel:

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

no. just b/c a trade benefits you both does not make it collusory.

 

[thayman]

To avoid this issue it may be better in the future to just do one trade this week. Then the other next week.

 

[FantasyTrader]

To avoid this issue it may be better in the future to just do one trade this week. Then the other next week.

That doesn't really solve the problem though. Look, I like to trust people as much as the next guy but I'd have hard time giving up Colston for Coles with a "gentlemenly understanding" that I will be getting the part of the trade that benefits me a week from now - with no reprecussions for the other owner if they decided to back out. Actually, I think a better solution would be that if you need some of the players involved to play on your squad this week, then THE WHOLE THING should just wait until next week. Wait until the whole thing can happen all at once and you don't need to worry about any of this.