What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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

Is this collusion? (1 Viewer)

Status
Not open for further replies.

SchmackMel

Footballguy
These 2 guys are cousins and they agreed to the following deal:Tiki Barber for Garrison Hearst and Kevin JohnsonI am pretty sure they are colluding as the last place team is giving up Tiki in the deal and he admitted to me two weeks back that if fell out of contention he'd hook up a team in the league... it looks like a perfectly designed trade to help one team, while looking fair enough that it will pass the league's scrutiny...what do you guys suggest I do as commish?I am planning on letting the league members discuss it before getting involved... I want to remain above the fray and have the deciding vote... what do you guys think I should do?

 
On the surface it does seem like a bit of a lopsided trade, but not collussion. However, when you take into account what the guy told you about helping another team, it does smell funny. I think you have to share the info with the other league members and put it to a vote.

 
Of course it's not. I've yet to see a trade posted in a "Is this collusion" thread that actually approaches collusion. Aside from that Gadsden for Hayes trade, that is. That one was bull####! :hot:

 
As a commish my favorite phrase about trading is "you can't legislate stupidity". On the surface your trade doesn't look too unfair, but this part is what worries me:

I am pretty sure they are colluding as the last place team is giving up Tiki in the deal and he admitted to me two weeks back that if fell out of contention he'd hook up a team in the league...
I'd inform the league of that information and let them vote on the deal. I'd also have serious issues with the owner who said he'd dump his team, I'd probably not invite him back next year.
 
Don't know about your scoring system, but in my standard perofrmance system (1/10, 6/TD), Tiki is the #13 RB overall and Hearst is the #15. Over the last 4 weeks, there is only a 1 pt differential, with Tiki being the #14 RB and Hearst the #15. I don't see how the deal significantly improved or hurt either team.Unless your league scores pts/rec or there is some other objective reason this deal is lopsided, the fact that the cousin decided to trade Barber for Hearst is not reason to see collusion.

 
This is the worst collusion thread of the year. Tiki: 811 all purpose yards, 3 TD's, 2 fumbles lost. Given, he's played one less game then Hearst, but he's also looking at losing touches to Dorsey Levens. Hearst: 689 all purpose yards, 4TD's, 0 fumbles lost. add Kevin Johnson, (378 receiving yards and 2 TD's) and this thing is even, if not in favor of the guy trading Barber away.

 
If the guy told you, as the commish, that he was going to "hook another team up" I do not think that you can pass this deal through. We have a rule in my league that any league out of contention for the playoffs can not take part in any trade, for this reason alone.

 
Here are the averages according to my league's scoring system:Tiki Barber has scored 17.5 pts/weekHearst has scored 13.5 pts/weekI guess it's not that big... but with 1 pt/rec, Tiki has been really valuable the past 3 weeks.I dunno... I just put up something saying that it was my duty to pass along the info that the guy said he would hook up a team if he fell out of contention just as public info...one guy already said no.. we've only had 1 deal vetoed out of like 30, and that was between these same 2 last week and really pissed off the guy who is still in contention

 
not to mention that levens is slowly creeping into tiki-time and barlow is rapidly digressing to the clear #2 rb...

i hate when commish's start to police trades for the integrity of the league when it usually boils down to the trade involving some team in the commishes division or a team that is competing with the commish for a playoff spot, etc. etc...this is a legit enough trade that it should fly, regardless of what the tiki owner may have implied...

 
I'm in agreement with rover on this one--this likely benefits both teams.

Giving up Tiki for Hearst/KJ is not throwing in the towel. :no:

 
I think the problem is that you let the guy play in your league when he warned you in advance that he would pull a collusive deal if the situation was right. Everything else is just a symptom of that problem.

 
I thought he was joking about hooking up another team... kind of hard to ban your cousin-in-law for making a statement like that in passing :rolleyes:

 
There is only one thing to do if you suspect collusion: Get out of the league. the fact that this owner suggested he would collude if he was out of it is enough to make me look for another league.

 
There is only one thing to do if you suspect collusion: Get out of the league. the fact that this owner suggested he would collude if he was out of it is enough to make me look for another league.

 
I see absolutely nothing wrong with this trade. In fact, I don't even know who to say got the better of the deal. Strange that he made that comment, but this isn't hooking anyone up. It's about as fair of a trade as you can get.

 
I thought he was joking about hooking up another team... kind of hard to ban your cousin-in-law for making a statement like that in passing :rolleyes:
Oh, don't go giving me the rolly eyes. You state he admitted to you he'd do this. You didn't mention anything about it being in passing or coming off as a joke. And you're obviously interpreting it now as having been a true statement, so don't get bent out of shape when I respond based on how you made it sound.
 
Where's 'bagger when you need him for the all purpose collusion answer? Off debating hippos v. giraffes. As if an elephant couldn't stomp either one.

 
owner in our league told me he was going to make his brothers team stronger so he could beat me in the playoffs, then traded him Minny D and Stephen Davis in the span of 3 weeks to his bro. Of course he was joking when he said it, but 3 wks later it appears he wasn't joking.that's the problem, the appearance of favortism especially among relatives (bros, cousins etc...) causes problems in leagues. I don't think I'll ever get involved in a league where relatives are owners again.

 
Where's 'bagger when you need him for the all purpose collusion answer? Off debating hippos v. giraffes. As if an elephant couldn't stomp either one.
i've retired from the evaluating collusion threads business.i'm off to africa to live in the mud with the hippos. feel free to use my standard response to any and all collusion threads.thank you and goodbye. :yawn:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I thought he was joking about hooking up another team... kind of hard to ban your cousin-in-law for making a statement like that in passing :rolleyes:
Maybe he WAS joking.What are you doing? Penalizing him for one offhand statement he made months ago? The trade is fair - even given your 13 point whatever versus 17 point whatever for 1pt/rec. KJ in a pt/rec league is still a force - he will often go 5 catches for 50 yards - 10 points! And, with Morgan in the pooper, KJ is the best receiver on a team that will be passing a lot.The DEAL is fair and if the DEAL is fair, the rest of the "collusion" thoughts will get you ZERO respect from this board.Collusion must be STRAIGHT FORWARD or OBVIOUS to be actionable. This is as far from that as possible. Whatcoo got? You have a fair trade and a comment made MONTHS ago as the basis for your collusion argument - get off your high horse and stop meddling with your league's trades.
 
Watch out smlevin. I gave him the benefit of the doubt that his reason for thinking it was collusion was he took the guy seriously, and I get rolly eyed.Now that he apparently doesn't take the guy seriously so there's no reason to be suspecting collusion, he may give you a dreaded pirate. :pirate: ARGH!

 
hate when commish's start to police trades for the integrity of the league when it usually boils down to the trade involving some team in the commishes division or a team that is competing with the commish for a playoff spot, etc. etc...this is a legit enough trade that it should fly, regardless of what the tiki owner may have implied...
Exactly. This is a classic example of a commish fearing an opponent is improving his team (though I think the team getting barber is getting the short end), and formulating an argument about a single statement, probably made over a few beers at happy hour, to call the trade collusion and block it. You are not maintaining the integrity of the league, but undermining it.
 
Watch out smlevin. I gave him the benefit of the doubt that his reason for thinking it was collusion was he took the guy seriously, and I get rolly eyed.Now that he apparently doesn't take the guy seriously so there's no reason to be suspecting collusion, he may give you a dreaded pirate. :pirate: ARGH!
Watch out smlevin. I gave him the benefit of the doubt that his reason for thinking it was collusion was he took the guy seriously, and I get rolly eyed.Now that he apparently doesn't take the guy seriously so there's no reason to be suspecting collusion, he may give you a dreaded pirate. :pirate: ARGH!
Uh-Oh.I might get some real nasty smiley-face emoticons back now. Maybe, I'm a :nerd: with a :bag: who's going to be :boxing: against a :gang: who's :hot: enough to be the :devil: All I am is an Ike-like :sp:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top