Is this collusion? (1 Viewer)

[gianmarco]

I know, I know, I usually hate these threads too, but could use some opinions on this.

You are a fringe playoff team. It's the final week before playoffs. In order to make playoffs, you need to win your matchup and the team ahead of you needs to lose. This is the last week of trades.

Is it unethical or collusive to trade a valuable piece to the opponent of your nemesis to help him win and thus help your chances for the playoffs?

For example: TO for James Casey.

Obviously lopsided, but clearly as a way to help you get into the playoffs. There is NO agreement between the 2 teams beforehand and no sharing of prize money whatsoever. The 2 teams do not know each other. The other team is well out of the playoffs but this is a dynasty league so there's future value.

What say you?

 

[Mr.Pack]

Your trade deadline should have been 3 weeks ago, problem solved.

It stinks but it's a dynasty league, so I guess you have to allow it.

I would ask each owner what their rationalization is for this trade.

 

[gianmarco]

Your trade deadline should have been 3 weeks ago, problem solved.It stinks but it's a dynasty league, so I guess you have to allow it.I would ask each owner what their rationalization is for this trade.

Forget what the rules SHOULD be. They are what they are. The rationalization is simple:The team fighting for the playoff spot: "I feel this trade helps my playoff chances because it increases the chances the team ahead of me loses"The team out of the playoff spot: "Yeah, I'll take TO for my 4th TE. Why wouldn't I? I'll flip TO for more value later".

 

[Northbound Train]

There is NO agreement between the 2 teams beforehand and no sharing of prize money whatsoever. The 2 teams do not know each other. The other team is well out of the playoffs but this is a dynasty league so there's future value.

What say you?

You answered your own question....if they don't know one another how are they colluding Leave it be

 

[Organized Chaos]

I agree with Pack... But, if you gave your reasoning as an excuse, unless your rules strictly prohibit it, I'd let it fly..

It's agressive and risky, but I think it's solid play.

 

[Northbound Train]

Your trade deadline should have been 3 weeks ago, problem solved.

It stinks but it's a dynasty league, so I guess you have to allow it.

I would ask each owner what their rationalization is for this trade.

Forget what the rules SHOULD be. They are what they are.

Whoaaaaaa...you asked the question, why so defensive.And in a Dynasty.... Casey has more upside than T.O

 

[gianmarco]

Your trade deadline should have been 3 weeks ago, problem solved.

It stinks but it's a dynasty league, so I guess you have to allow it.

I would ask each owner what their rationalization is for this trade.

Forget what the rules SHOULD be. They are what they are.

Whoaaaaaa...you asked the question, why so defensive.And in a Dynasty.... Casey has more upside than T.O

You're right, I asked the question. The question is clearly asking in that particular situation. It's not asking how to prevent it or what would be better rules. Thus, I've seen these threads derailed for how others think it best to prevent a certain situation and that is NOT the question I'm asking. Not defensive, just trying to have the specific question answered.And yes, I also happen to agree that Casey has more upside, but let's assume the majority of the members view TO as having more value. Again, it's not the specifics of the trade that matters. The question is simply: Is it unethical or collusive to trade a much better player to the opponent of the team keeping you from the playoffs?

 

[PosterNutBag]

I don't think that collusion properly describes it. Unethical is probably a better word. I would frown against such a move since this type of thing doesn't happen in the real world when it comes to the NFL, MLB, NBA, etc. I just use that as my measuring stick for reasonableness.

 

[bweiser]

I don't think that collusion properly describes it. Unethical is probably a better word. I would frown against such a move since this type of thing doesn't happen in the real world when it comes to the NFL, MLB, NBA, etc. I just use that as my measuring stick for reasonableness.

huh? MLB teams trade young talent for proven veterans all the time.after the last 2 weeks, i'm really not sure which of these teams got the better of the deal.

 

[PosterNutBag]

I don't think that collusion properly describes it. Unethical is probably a better word. I would frown against such a move since this type of thing doesn't happen in the real world when it comes to the NFL, MLB, NBA, etc. I just use that as my measuring stick for reasonableness.

huh? MLB teams trade young talent for proven veterans all the time.after the last 2 weeks, i'm really not sure which of these teams got the better of the deal.

I was answering the question as it was posed and that is that teams do not trade proven talent to their competition so that they can beat the team they want their competition to beat in a given matchup.Sure, teams trade proven veterans for young talent all the time, but such a FF trade (with the players involved) just doesn't sit right with most.

 

[lyon812]

I consider it a fair trade, regardless of situation. Casey could be starting next year in a high octane offense, and Owens looks to be on his last legs. Anyone who perceives Owens as more valuable should have tried trading for him.

 

[awesomeness]

Considering this is a dynasty league, i don't understand how its collusion.

In a dynasty league i'd prefer to have James Casey over Terrell Owens, assuming that the reason i won't be making the playoffs is cause i'm rebuilding.

 

[Tex Goldstein]

Considering this is a dynasty league, i don't understand how its collusion.In a dynasty league i'd prefer to have James Casey over Terrell Owens, assuming that the reason i won't be making the playoffs is cause i'm rebuilding.

Is Casey only in if daniels is out due next year because of his ACL injury? it seems to me that O.D. is the guy in Houston for the foreseeable future but only if his knee reconstruction goes well...was there a hitch with the surgery? is there reasons to think tthat O.D. is done for his career. if he is gone, then i can see Casey for T.O. but only if Daniels is out of the way for 2010. i'm on the fence on this one. need more information on Daniels' possibility for return to action, I guess...

 

[rock753]

Collusion or not....(which it isn't)

Certainly not within' the spirit of the game. I wouldn't allow it.

 

[Mr. Retukes]

By definition it cannot be "collusion", because "collusion" requires both teams to be part of the secret plan.

Nonetheless, it's a pretty shady deal and borders on being unethical.

 

[SSOG]

Considering this is a dynasty league, i don't understand how its collusion.In a dynasty league i'd prefer to have James Casey over Terrell Owens, assuming that the reason i won't be making the playoffs is cause i'm rebuilding.

Is Casey only in if daniels is out due next year because of his ACL injury? it seems to me that O.D. is the guy in Houston for the foreseeable future but only if his knee reconstruction goes well...was there a hitch with the surgery? is there reasons to think tthat O.D. is done for his career. if he is gone, then i can see Casey for T.O. but only if Daniels is out of the way for 2010. i'm on the fence on this one. need more information on Daniels' possibility for return to action, I guess...

Daniels is a free agent after the season, and I think the odds are probably better than 50% that Houston lets him walk (they drafted two TEs last year, which indicated they were ready to move on without Owen, and that was even before his big injury).

 

[Jersey35]

First off, I disagree with the poster who said that the trade deadline should have been 3 weeks ago - this is DYNASTY - often the best time for weak teams to move aging players in order to get better IS late in the season. That said:

Not collusive and not really underhanded. A legitimate argument can be made for both sides of this trade. They aren't going above the rules to make this trade, and both sides improve their teams. Allow.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Not collusive and not really underhanded. A legitimate argument can be made for both sides of this trade. They aren't going above the rules to make this trade, and both sides improve their teams.

I think the point is that both sides didn't improve their teams. The OP gave the example of Terrell Owens for James Casey, but perhaps that was a bad example if he was trying to ask the question I think he was.Let's take a different example: Larry Fitzgerald for Kassim Osgood.

I believe the question is whether it's collusive (or otherwise unethical) to make an "obviously lopsided" trade (to quote the OP) for the sake of improving the enemy of your enemy.

And I believe the answer is yes. It's not fair to all the teams you didn't make lopsided trades with. (I'd view it as similar to tanking games in order to improve next year's draft position. It may serve the long-term interests of your team, but it's anti-competitive, and is unfair to all the teams you didn't tank games against.)

 

[Dave Stauff]

Not collusion, because it takes two to tango. Don't see it as unethical either in a dynasty format. But I don't think it's very smart for an owner to trade a difference maker for future potential in order to help another owner win a game. You give up the difference maker, which reduces your chances of winning yourself and you strengthen an opponent you'd have to meet in the playoffs even if you made it . . . and if you didn't make it, you couldn't reverse your strategy. So unless I believed I was upgrading my team for next year and beyond, I wouldn't even think of doing this.

Now whether Owens is a "difference maker" is another discussion - I play in several dynasties where a trade of Owens for Casey would not raise many eyebrows. Some owners chase potential while others will ride old horses into the sunset . . .

 

[SSOG]

Not collusive and not really underhanded. A legitimate argument can be made for both sides of this trade. They aren't going above the rules to make this trade, and both sides improve their teams.

I think the point is that both sides didn't improve their teams. The OP gave the example of Terrell Owens for James Casey, but perhaps that was a bad example if he was trying to ask the question I think he was.Let's take a different example: Larry Fitzgerald for Kassim Osgood.

I believe the question is whether it's collusive (or otherwise unethical) to make an "obviously lopsided" trade (to quote the OP) for the sake of improving the enemy of your enemy.

And I believe the answer is yes. It's not fair to all the teams you didn't make lopsided trades with. (I'd view it as similar to tanking games in order to improve next year's draft position. It may serve the long-term interests of your team, but it's anti-competitive, and is unfair to all the teams you didn't tank games against.)

Agreed. It's unfair that one team should benefit because they hit the dumb luck lottery and happened to be playing your rival this week. Among the reasons why you've managed to assemble the team that you've assembled, "quirks of scheduling" shouldn't be one of them.I'm of the opinion that sportsmanship demands that every move be made with a firm belief that it improves your team. "Improving your team" is open to interpretation- whether you want to focus on improving your team in the short run or improving your team in the long run makes no difference. That's all good. What's not all good is making a trade that you firmly believe *DOES NOT* improve your team, (or, worse, a trade that actively makes your team worse), even if said trade does improve your team's playoff odds or playoff positioning.

I wouldn't call this hypothetical an example of collusion, because there is no colluding going on. At the same time, I would make it illegal in all leagues as poor sportsmanship.

 

[Truman]

I'd be pretty pissed off to miss the playoffs because a trade I proposed got rejected as collusion. So I'm trying to compete here and someone else is telling me my team can't make a deal which gives me a better chance? Is the team which has to face the better player allowed to vote? Are the bubble teams who would be affected allowed to vote?

The reason eliminated teams aren't allowed to trade is because they have no chance of winning the league. In this case, someone is trying to improve their chances of winning the league and a trade is questioned.

 

[DoubleG]

Not collusive and not really underhanded. A legitimate argument can be made for both sides of this trade. They aren't going above the rules to make this trade, and both sides improve their teams.

I think the point is that both sides didn't improve their teams. The OP gave the example of Terrell Owens for James Casey, but perhaps that was a bad example if he was trying to ask the question I think he was.Let's take a different example: Larry Fitzgerald for Kassim Osgood.

I believe the question is whether it's collusive (or otherwise unethical) to make an "obviously lopsided" trade (to quote the OP) for the sake of improving the enemy of your enemy.

And I believe the answer is yes. It's not fair to all the teams you didn't make lopsided trades with. (I'd view it as similar to tanking games in order to improve next year's draft position. It may serve the long-term interests of your team, but it's anti-competitive, and is unfair to all the teams you didn't tank games against.)

Agreed. It's unfair that one team should benefit because they hit the dumb luck lottery and happened to be playing your rival this week. Among the reasons why you've managed to assemble the team that you've assembled, "quirks of scheduling" shouldn't be one of them.I'm of the opinion that sportsmanship demands that every move be made with a firm belief that it improves your team. "Improving your team" is open to interpretation- whether you want to focus on improving your team in the short run or improving your team in the long run makes no difference. That's all good. What's not all good is making a trade that you firmly believe *DOES NOT* improve your team, (or, worse, a trade that actively makes your team worse), even if said trade does improve your team's playoff odds or playoff positioning.

I wouldn't call this hypothetical an example of collusion, because there is no colluding going on. At the same time, I would make it illegal in all leagues as poor sportsmanship.

Excellent post. In fact this should be pinned somewhere.Not only does it clearly explain what collusion is and isn't, but also puts into clear words what most people try to falsely claim is collusion (i.e. poor sportsmanship) and clearly delineates between the two.

 

[habsfan]

Not collusive and not really underhanded. A legitimate argument can be made for both sides of this trade. They aren't going above the rules to make this trade, and both sides improve their teams.

I think the point is that both sides didn't improve their teams. The OP gave the example of Terrell Owens for James Casey, but perhaps that was a bad example if he was trying to ask the question I think he was.Let's take a different example: Larry Fitzgerald for Kassim Osgood.

I believe the question is whether it's collusive (or otherwise unethical) to make an "obviously lopsided" trade (to quote the OP) for the sake of improving the enemy of your enemy.

And I believe the answer is yes. It's not fair to all the teams you didn't make lopsided trades with. (I'd view it as similar to tanking games in order to improve next year's draft position. It may serve the long-term interests of your team, but it's anti-competitive, and is unfair to all the teams you didn't tank games against.)

Agreed. It's unfair that one team should benefit because they hit the dumb luck lottery and happened to be playing your rival this week. Among the reasons why you've managed to assemble the team that you've assembled, "quirks of scheduling" shouldn't be one of them.I'm of the opinion that sportsmanship demands that every move be made with a firm belief that it improves your team. "Improving your team" is open to interpretation- whether you want to focus on improving your team in the short run or improving your team in the long run makes no difference. That's all good. What's not all good is making a trade that you firmly believe *DOES NOT* improve your team, (or, worse, a trade that actively makes your team worse), even if said trade does improve your team's playoff odds or playoff positioning.

I wouldn't call this hypothetical an example of collusion, because there is no colluding going on. At the same time, I would make it illegal in all leagues as poor sportsmanship.

Excellent post. In fact this should be pinned somewhere.Not only does it clearly explain what collusion is and isn't, but also puts into clear words what most people try to falsely claim is collusion (i.e. poor sportsmanship) and clearly delineates between the two.

Hmmm.. not entirely convinced.Initially he acknowledges that "improving your team is open to interpretation" and says it makes no difference if the intended improvement is short term or long term but then says (in effect) that improving your playoff chances is not an acceptable example of short term improvement. I think those two thoughts can be viewed as contradictory.

I like to wordsmith with the best of them but I think "sportsmanship" is one of those words that is sometimes trotted out as a convenient "catch all" to thwart a lot of fuzzy things simply because they don't pass someone's "sniff test". In my opinion, every league has a "ruthless dial". In some leagues it's dialed up and others it's dialed down. Set your dial wherever you collectively want it (as a league) and be governed by it. What we think of this isn't really helpful. It's what your league thinks that counts...

 

[PosterNutBag]

The possible funny thing about this trade (only hindsight will tell) is that the team trading away TO to theoretically help his opponent beat someone else he needs to lose might actually backfire with TO facing likely Revis coverage all night. I am sure covering TO is more like a night off for him given the studs he has already shut down this year.

Also, habsfan ... your technical review of SSOG's post is basically saying the same thing he said but using different words. His use of sportsmanship might be vague to you, but it is exactly what you are saying with "ruthless dial" or "sniff test." There is no question it matters most what the league thinks of it and that is the reason this thread was created (b/c the OP realizes that this kind of deal is technically not against the rules, but isn't good sportsmanship or very ethical).

In a separate thought, I would be interested to see what other TEs were available (not that it matters much). If someone like Pettigrew was there (just injured and out for the season, but likely an upside guy for 2010) then I would be wondering why someone would trade a "hot" player for Casey when someone better was available for no cost on the waiver wire. I know player value is open to interpretation and everyone has a different view of it, but seeing who else is available would help me decide if this deal was even worse than it initially looks.

 

[fantasyplayer]

Not collusive and not really underhanded. A legitimate argument can be made for both sides of this trade. They aren't going above the rules to make this trade, and both sides improve their teams.

I think the point is that both sides didn't improve their teams. The OP gave the example of Terrell Owens for James Casey, but perhaps that was a bad example if he was trying to ask the question I think he was.Let's take a different example: Larry Fitzgerald for Kassim Osgood.

I believe the question is whether it's collusive (or otherwise unethical) to make an "obviously lopsided" trade (to quote the OP) for the sake of improving the enemy of your enemy.

And I believe the answer is yes. It's not fair to all the teams you didn't make lopsided trades with. (I'd view it as similar to tanking games in order to improve next year's draft position. It may serve the long-term interests of your team, but it's anti-competitive, and is unfair to all the teams you didn't tank games against.)

Agreed. It's unfair that one team should benefit because they hit the dumb luck lottery and happened to be playing your rival this week. Among the reasons why you've managed to assemble the team that you've assembled, "quirks of scheduling" shouldn't be one of them.I'm of the opinion that sportsmanship demands that every move be made with a firm belief that it improves your team. "Improving your team" is open to interpretation- whether you want to focus on improving your team in the short run or improving your team in the long run makes no difference. That's all good. What's not all good is making a trade that you firmly believe *DOES NOT* improve your team, (or, worse, a trade that actively makes your team worse), even if said trade does improve your team's playoff odds or playoff positioning.

I wouldn't call this hypothetical an example of collusion, because there is no colluding going on. At the same time, I would make it illegal in all leagues as poor sportsmanship.

To me, every move should be made with a firm belief that it improves your chances of being successful (i.e. making the playoffs and winning in the playoffs). I don't have a "win at all costs" mentality, but this move seems reasonable to me. In my mind, this isn't a lot different than a team who's clinched his playoff spot making trades that might hurt his team in the short run, but improve his chances in the playoffs due to matchups, etc.

 

[fantasyplayer]

The possible funny thing about this trade (only hindsight will tell) is that the team trading away TO to theoretically help his opponent beat someone else he needs to lose might actually backfire with TO facing likely Revis coverage all night. I am sure covering TO is more like a night off for him given the studs he has already shut down this year.

Also, habsfan ... your technical review of SSOG's post is basically saying the same thing he said but using different words. His use of sportsmanship might be vague to you, but it is exactly what you are saying with "ruthless dial" or "sniff test." There is no question it matters most what the league thinks of it and that is the reason this thread was created (b/c the OP realizes that this kind of deal is technically not against the rules, but isn't good sportsmanship or very ethical).

In a separate thought, I would be interested to see what other TEs were available (not that it matters much). If someone like Pettigrew was there (just injured and out for the season, but likely an upside guy for 2010) then I would be wondering why someone would trade a "hot" player for Casey when someone better was available for no cost on the waiver wire. I know player value is open to interpretation and everyone has a different view of it, but seeing who else is available would help me decide if this deal was even worse than it initially looks.

The guy who was trading T.O. wasn't doing so to improve at TE, he was trading him to improve the trade partner's chances of winning this week. The other TEs available is irrelevant to this conversation.

 

[PosterNutBag]

The possible funny thing about this trade (only hindsight will tell) is that the team trading away TO to theoretically help his opponent beat someone else he needs to lose might actually backfire with TO facing likely Revis coverage all night. I am sure covering TO is more like a night off for him given the studs he has already shut down this year.

Also, habsfan ... your technical review of SSOG's post is basically saying the same thing he said but using different words. His use of sportsmanship might be vague to you, but it is exactly what you are saying with "ruthless dial" or "sniff test." There is no question it matters most what the league thinks of it and that is the reason this thread was created (b/c the OP realizes that this kind of deal is technically not against the rules, but isn't good sportsmanship or very ethical).

In a separate thought, I would be interested to see what other TEs were available (not that it matters much). If someone like Pettigrew was there (just injured and out for the season, but likely an upside guy for 2010) then I would be wondering why someone would trade a "hot" player for Casey when someone better was available for no cost on the waiver wire. I know player value is open to interpretation and everyone has a different view of it, but seeing who else is available would help me decide if this deal was even worse than it initially looks.

The guy who was trading T.O. wasn't doing so to improve at TE, he was trading him to improve the trade partner's chances of winning this week. The other TEs available is irrelevant to this conversation.

LOL ... no kidding! But it was supposedly under the guise (since this is a dynasty league) that he was improving his team (by trading a veteran near the end of his career for a TE of the future).I was basing my comment on the assumption that this league (like all others I have ever been a part of) operates with the assumption that you have to believe you are improving your team in any trade. Trading a player to another team so that team can beat someone else is in effect lending players away and should not be allowed in my opinion b/c it is not fair to the other teams in the league not involved in the deal. The question it seemed to most with this deal was whether it could be argued that the team trading away TO could have been viewed as possibly improving his team (for the future) since this is dynasty.

 

[Kirby]

There is NO agreement between the 2 teams beforehand and no sharing of prize money whatsoever. The 2 teams do not know each other.

Then it's not collusion.

 

[habsfan]

The possible funny thing about this trade (only hindsight will tell) is that the team trading away TO to theoretically help his opponent beat someone else he needs to lose might actually backfire with TO facing likely Revis coverage all night. I am sure covering TO is more like a night off for him given the studs he has already shut down this year.

Also, habsfan ... your technical review of SSOG's post is basically saying the same thing he said but using different words. His use of sportsmanship might be vague to you, but it is exactly what you are saying with "ruthless dial" or "sniff test." There is no question it matters most what the league thinks of it and that is the reason this thread was created (b/c the OP realizes that this kind of deal is technically not against the rules, but isn't good sportsmanship or very ethical).

In a separate thought, I would be interested to see what other TEs were available (not that it matters much). If someone like Pettigrew was there (just injured and out for the season, but likely an upside guy for 2010) then I would be wondering why someone would trade a "hot" player for Casey when someone better was available for no cost on the waiver wire. I know player value is open to interpretation and everyone has a different view of it, but seeing who else is available would help me decide if this deal was even worse than it initially looks.

The guy who was trading T.O. wasn't doing so to improve at TE, he was trading him to improve the trade partner's chances of winning this week. The other TEs available is irrelevant to this conversation.

LOL ... no kidding! But it was supposedly under the guise (since this is a dynasty league) that he was improving his team (by trading a veteran near the end of his career for a TE of the future).I was basing my comment on the assumption that this league (like all others I have ever been a part of) operates with the assumption that you have to believe you are improving your team in any trade. Trading a player to another team so that team can beat someone else is in effect lending players away and should not be allowed in my opinion b/c it is not fair to the other teams in the league not involved in the deal. The question it seemed to most with this deal was whether it could be argued that the team trading away TO could have been viewed as possibly improving his team (for the future) since this is dynasty.

Collusion is an agreement, usually secretive, which occurs between two or more persons to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair advantageIn simple terms this is collusion. Given the intent of this trade as stated, "Team C" is suddenly not just competing against "Team A" this week, he or she is effectively competing against Team A and Team B. That is "limiting open competion"...

 

[CBower4545]

Not collusive and not really underhanded. A legitimate argument can be made for both sides of this trade. They aren't going above the rules to make this trade, and both sides improve their teams.

I think the point is that both sides didn't improve their teams. The OP gave the example of Terrell Owens for James Casey, but perhaps that was a bad example if he was trying to ask the question I think he was.Let's take a different example: Larry Fitzgerald for Kassim Osgood.

I believe the question is whether it's collusive (or otherwise unethical) to make an "obviously lopsided" trade (to quote the OP) for the sake of improving the enemy of your enemy.

And I believe the answer is yes. It's not fair to all the teams you didn't make lopsided trades with. (I'd view it as similar to tanking games in order to improve next year's draft position. It may serve the long-term interests of your team, but it's anti-competitive, and is unfair to all the teams you didn't tank games against.)

I don't think the example above here happens, I think OP example was better. Even if you are trying to improve your enemy's opponent, it would never makes sense to give away a top notch player for a worthless player. Because the small improvement of your enemy's opponent doesn't offset the damage it would do to your team. No I think it will more like the OP suggested, a deal you know in your heart is lopsided but you can still some see future value for you and a chance of it coming in your favor outside of the getting you into this year's playoffs. I believe that's where the problem is. Since the deal will have something of possible value to the the guy trying to buy a playoff spot, it will always give him a legitimate argument.As long as he is able to give a legitimate argument you have to let it pass. You can't start trying to read intent into deals because it's a slippery slope to losing trading all together. Once one trade is questions like this others will follow, and then people will simply try to stop trades out of retribution. I think this is just one of the things you have to live with as commissioner, without the owner messing up and outright saying his intentions then there is no way to prove it isn't a deal made in good faith just to improve his teams future. Though I agree with other posters that moving up the deadline will help this situation.

 

[Black]

It's dynasty....one team wants something now, one wants future value. That's the way it goes.

 

[gianmarco]

Does adding the comment of "I'm trying to get you a #3 WR. I need you to win this week so that I have a shot at the playoffs. " to the trade change how you feel?

The trade was indeed TO for James Casey and the team giving up TO actually prefers Casey (so he says). So both reasons factored into the trade offer. Change anything?

 

[BuckeyeArt]

No collusion and not even poor sportsmanship. I don't even think it's that bad of a trade. TO went for essentially a mid 2nd in our league. If Casey was unowned next year during our draft, it's not unreasonable to think that he'd go in the mid 2nd round.

 

[bollocks28]

Not collusion and your rules don't provide any recourse therefore the trade goes through... what would be hilarious is if the new owner of Owens doesn't even play him this week.

 

[CBower4545]

Does adding the comment of "I'm trying to get you a #3 WR. I need you to win this week so that I have a shot at the playoffs. " to the trade change how you feel?The trade was indeed TO for James Casey and the team giving up TO actually prefers Casey (so he says). So both reasons factored into the trade offer. Change anything?

That would change my opinion on what to do. If it was one of my leagues, that comment would bring the trade under review, and most likely vetoed. Of course our bylaws have rules against that kind of player dumping, I believe that it damages the integrity of the league. To me it really undermines any legitimate argument he has for the trade being made to improve his team. IMO the only acceptable reason to make a trade is if someway you believe it improves your team.

 

[PosterNutBag]

Does adding the comment of "I'm trying to get you a #3 WR. I need you to win this week so that I have a shot at the playoffs. " to the trade change how you feel?The trade was indeed TO for James Casey and the team giving up TO actually prefers Casey (so he says). So both reasons factored into the trade offer. Change anything?

That would change my opinion on what to do. If it was one of my leagues, that comment would bring the trade under review, and most likely vetoed. Of course our bylaws have rules against that kind of player dumping, I believe that it damages the integrity of the league. To me it really undermines any legitimate argument he has for the trade being made to improve his team. IMO the only acceptable reason to make a trade is if someway you believe it improves your team.

I agree. That quote tells the story and you can only be left to conclude that the trade is being made not to improve his team, but to lend a player to another team (which shouldn't be allowed). If the team trading away TO wasn't so stupid to make that comment, we would have a situation (like we did in this thread) where people could argue both sides of it since it is a dynasty league. It's pretty cut and dry now that this trade should not be permitted.

 

[BuckeyeArt]

Does adding the comment of "I'm trying to get you a #3 WR. I need you to win this week so that I have a shot at the playoffs. " to the trade change how you feel?The trade was indeed TO for James Casey and the team giving up TO actually prefers Casey (so he says). So both reasons factored into the trade offer. Change anything?

That would change my opinion on what to do. If it was one of my leagues, that comment would bring the trade under review, and most likely vetoed. Of course our bylaws have rules against that kind of player dumping, I believe that it damages the integrity of the league. To me it really undermines any legitimate argument he has for the trade being made to improve his team. IMO the only acceptable reason to make a trade is if someway you believe it improves your team.

I agree. That quote tells the story and you can only be left to conclude that the trade is being made not to improve his team, but to lend a player to another team (which shouldn't be allowed). If the team trading away TO wasn't so stupid to make that comment, we would have a situation (like we did in this thread) where people could argue both sides of it since it is a dynasty league. It's pretty cut and dry now that this trade should not be permitted.

I would still allow it. I don't see how this is much different than NOT trading with someone because it might be detrimental to your team. He's just trading an extra WR but choosing the trading partner who might most benefit him. There is no 'lending' going on because there is no promise to trade TO back to the original team.The dynasty aspect keeps this from being a lopsided trade. Nobody is going to trade Fitz instead of TO because it hurts them more in the long run. So you can't create the hypothetical, 'What if it were . . .".

 

[PosterNutBag]

Does adding the comment of "I'm trying to get you a #3 WR. I need you to win this week so that I have a shot at the playoffs. " to the trade change how you feel?The trade was indeed TO for James Casey and the team giving up TO actually prefers Casey (so he says). So both reasons factored into the trade offer. Change anything?

That would change my opinion on what to do. If it was one of my leagues, that comment would bring the trade under review, and most likely vetoed. Of course our bylaws have rules against that kind of player dumping, I believe that it damages the integrity of the league. To me it really undermines any legitimate argument he has for the trade being made to improve his team. IMO the only acceptable reason to make a trade is if someway you believe it improves your team.

I agree. That quote tells the story and you can only be left to conclude that the trade is being made not to improve his team, but to lend a player to another team (which shouldn't be allowed). If the team trading away TO wasn't so stupid to make that comment, we would have a situation (like we did in this thread) where people could argue both sides of it since it is a dynasty league. It's pretty cut and dry now that this trade should not be permitted.

I would still allow it. I don't see how this is much different than NOT trading with someone because it might be detrimental to your team. He's just trading an extra WR but choosing the trading partner who might most benefit him. There is no 'lending' going on because there is no promise to trade TO back to the original team.The dynasty aspect keeps this from being a lopsided trade. Nobody is going to trade Fitz instead of TO because it hurts them more in the long run. So you can't create the hypothetical, 'What if it were . . .".

Maybe lending would be a better word if this was a trade back. By lending, though, I meant to say that he is giving this guy free access to his roster while at the same time not giving the other teams a chance to get TO like they would have if he were cut. Based on his comments, it is clear what his intent is and that this is not a trade in good faith to improve his team ... but rather is an attempt to "gang up" against another team to fix a result.I agree that the dynasty aspect would have kept this from being shot down in the end, but that is without his open comment to the league. This guy was stupid to make a comment like that public.

 

[GregR_2]

Not collusive and not really underhanded. A legitimate argument can be made for both sides of this trade. They aren't going above the rules to make this trade, and both sides improve their teams.

I think the point is that both sides didn't improve their teams. The OP gave the example of Terrell Owens for James Casey, but perhaps that was a bad example if he was trying to ask the question I think he was.Let's take a different example: Larry Fitzgerald for Kassim Osgood.

I believe the question is whether it's collusive (or otherwise unethical) to make an "obviously lopsided" trade (to quote the OP) for the sake of improving the enemy of your enemy.

And I believe the answer is yes. It's not fair to all the teams you didn't make lopsided trades with. (I'd view it as similar to tanking games in order to improve next year's draft position. It may serve the long-term interests of your team, but it's anti-competitive, and is unfair to all the teams you didn't tank games against.)

Agreed. It's unfair that one team should benefit because they hit the dumb luck lottery and happened to be playing your rival this week. Among the reasons why you've managed to assemble the team that you've assembled, "quirks of scheduling" shouldn't be one of them.I'm of the opinion that sportsmanship demands that every move be made with a firm belief that it improves your team. "Improving your team" is open to interpretation- whether you want to focus on improving your team in the short run or improving your team in the long run makes no difference. That's all good. What's not all good is making a trade that you firmly believe *DOES NOT* improve your team, (or, worse, a trade that actively makes your team worse), even if said trade does improve your team's playoff odds or playoff positioning.

I wouldn't call this hypothetical an example of collusion, because there is no colluding going on. At the same time, I would make it illegal in all leagues as poor sportsmanship.

Yep, great post. If the team doesn't believe this trade improves their own roster, if they wouldn't do the same trade if the trade partner was playing a cellar dweller, then it's an unethical action.

 

[fantasyplayer]

The possible funny thing about this trade (only hindsight will tell) is that the team trading away TO to theoretically help his opponent beat someone else he needs to lose might actually backfire with TO facing likely Revis coverage all night. I am sure covering TO is more like a night off for him given the studs he has already shut down this year.

Also, habsfan ... your technical review of SSOG's post is basically saying the same thing he said but using different words. His use of sportsmanship might be vague to you, but it is exactly what you are saying with "ruthless dial" or "sniff test." There is no question it matters most what the league thinks of it and that is the reason this thread was created (b/c the OP realizes that this kind of deal is technically not against the rules, but isn't good sportsmanship or very ethical).

In a separate thought, I would be interested to see what other TEs were available (not that it matters much). If someone like Pettigrew was there (just injured and out for the season, but likely an upside guy for 2010) then I would be wondering why someone would trade a "hot" player for Casey when someone better was available for no cost on the waiver wire. I know player value is open to interpretation and everyone has a different view of it, but seeing who else is available would help me decide if this deal was even worse than it initially looks.

The guy who was trading T.O. wasn't doing so to improve at TE, he was trading him to improve the trade partner's chances of winning this week. The other TEs available is irrelevant to this conversation.

LOL ... no kidding! But it was supposedly under the guise (since this is a dynasty league) that he was improving his team (by trading a veteran near the end of his career for a TE of the future).I was basing my comment on the assumption that this league (like all others I have ever been a part of) operates with the assumption that you have to believe you are improving your team in any trade. Trading a player to another team so that team can beat someone else is in effect lending players away and should not be allowed in my opinion b/c it is not fair to the other teams in the league not involved in the deal. The question it seemed to most with this deal was whether it could be argued that the team trading away TO could have been viewed as possibly improving his team (for the future) since this is dynasty.

I may have missed it, but I didn't see anywhere in the OP that team trading away TO was arguing that having Casey improves his team. The fact that some are arguing that this trade might improve his team long-term in addition to the possible short-term playoff implications is only additional evidence that this trade is legitimate.I've also seen a couple of comments that this is an example of "lending" players, but I've seen no mention that another "compensatory trade" is to follow.

 

[PosterNutBag]

The possible funny thing about this trade (only hindsight will tell) is that the team trading away TO to theoretically help his opponent beat someone else he needs to lose might actually backfire with TO facing likely Revis coverage all night. I am sure covering TO is more like a night off for him given the studs he has already shut down this year.

Also, habsfan ... your technical review of SSOG's post is basically saying the same thing he said but using different words. His use of sportsmanship might be vague to you, but it is exactly what you are saying with "ruthless dial" or "sniff test." There is no question it matters most what the league thinks of it and that is the reason this thread was created (b/c the OP realizes that this kind of deal is technically not against the rules, but isn't good sportsmanship or very ethical).

In a separate thought, I would be interested to see what other TEs were available (not that it matters much). If someone like Pettigrew was there (just injured and out for the season, but likely an upside guy for 2010) then I would be wondering why someone would trade a "hot" player for Casey when someone better was available for no cost on the waiver wire. I know player value is open to interpretation and everyone has a different view of it, but seeing who else is available would help me decide if this deal was even worse than it initially looks.

The guy who was trading T.O. wasn't doing so to improve at TE, he was trading him to improve the trade partner's chances of winning this week. The other TEs available is irrelevant to this conversation.

LOL ... no kidding! But it was supposedly under the guise (since this is a dynasty league) that he was improving his team (by trading a veteran near the end of his career for a TE of the future).I was basing my comment on the assumption that this league (like all others I have ever been a part of) operates with the assumption that you have to believe you are improving your team in any trade. Trading a player to another team so that team can beat someone else is in effect lending players away and should not be allowed in my opinion b/c it is not fair to the other teams in the league not involved in the deal. The question it seemed to most with this deal was whether it could be argued that the team trading away TO could have been viewed as possibly improving his team (for the future) since this is dynasty.

I may have missed it, but I didn't see anywhere in the OP that team trading away TO was arguing that having Casey improves his team. The fact that some are arguing that this trade might improve his team long-term in addition to the possible short-term playoff implications is only additional evidence that this trade is legitimate.I've also seen a couple of comments that this is an example of "lending" players, but I've seen no mention that another "compensatory trade" is to follow.

You didn't miss it, but it was presumed (based on common sense ethics) that the guy was trading to improve his team (since that is the only legit reason a team should be trading as most of us would agree).What you might have missed recently is that the OP let us know that he held back some info at first and now let us know that the guy admitted that he was trying to stack this other team to defeat another opponent. I am not sure how you don't see that action as being completely unethical and not in the best interest of the league (all 12 teams) as a whole. It makes a mockery of the integrity of the league when a team is making trades to improve other teams and not his own.

 

[BuckeyeArt]

If the team doesn't believe this trade improves their own roster, if they wouldn't do the same trade if the trade partner was playing a cellar dweller, then it's an unethical action.

I disagree completely with that statement. The team I'm trading with has a lot to do with whether I make the trade. Making a team better in my division is a HUGE factor in whether I make a trade or not. Conversely, indirectly making them worse should be a factor as well.

 

[fantasyplayer]

Does adding the comment of "I'm trying to get you a #3 WR. I need you to win this week so that I have a shot at the playoffs. " to the trade change how you feel?

The trade was indeed TO for James Casey and the team giving up TO actually prefers Casey (so he says). So both reasons factored into the trade offer. Change anything?

That would change my opinion on what to do. If it was one of my leagues, that comment would bring the trade under review, and most likely vetoed. Of course our bylaws have rules against that kind of player dumping, I believe that it damages the integrity of the league. To me it really undermines any legitimate argument he has for the trade being made to improve his team. IMO the only acceptable reason to make a trade is if someway you believe it improves your team.

I agree. That quote tells the story and you can only be left to conclude that the trade is being made not to improve his team, but to lend a player to another team (which shouldn't be allowed). If the team trading away TO wasn't so stupid to make that comment, we would have a situation (like we did in this thread) where people could argue both sides of it since it is a dynasty league. It's pretty cut and dry now that this trade should not be permitted.

I would still allow it. I don't see how this is much different than NOT trading with someone because it might be detrimental to your team. He's just trading an extra WR but choosing the trading partner who might most benefit him. There is no 'lending' going on because there is no promise to trade TO back to the original team.The dynasty aspect keeps this from being a lopsided trade. Nobody is going to trade Fitz instead of TO because it hurts them more in the long run. So you can't create the hypothetical, 'What if it were . . .".

When I evaluate trades, I certainly consider how the trade will impact my trading partner, and how threatening a rival I consider that partner to be. I've passed on trades with strong rivals that I would consummate with other owners. That's not collusion and it isn't much different than the scenario here.

 

[Oh Yes!]

nope just unethical. im thinking of tanking this week so a weaker team will make the playoffs and increase my chances of a championship

 

[fantasyplayer]

The possible funny thing about this trade (only hindsight will tell) is that the team trading away TO to theoretically help his opponent beat someone else he needs to lose might actually backfire with TO facing likely Revis coverage all night. I am sure covering TO is more like a night off for him given the studs he has already shut down this year.

Also, habsfan ... your technical review of SSOG's post is basically saying the same thing he said but using different words. His use of sportsmanship might be vague to you, but it is exactly what you are saying with "ruthless dial" or "sniff test." There is no question it matters most what the league thinks of it and that is the reason this thread was created (b/c the OP realizes that this kind of deal is technically not against the rules, but isn't good sportsmanship or very ethical).

In a separate thought, I would be interested to see what other TEs were available (not that it matters much). If someone like Pettigrew was there (just injured and out for the season, but likely an upside guy for 2010) then I would be wondering why someone would trade a "hot" player for Casey when someone better was available for no cost on the waiver wire. I know player value is open to interpretation and everyone has a different view of it, but seeing who else is available would help me decide if this deal was even worse than it initially looks.

The guy who was trading T.O. wasn't doing so to improve at TE, he was trading him to improve the trade partner's chances of winning this week. The other TEs available is irrelevant to this conversation.

LOL ... no kidding! But it was supposedly under the guise (since this is a dynasty league) that he was improving his team (by trading a veteran near the end of his career for a TE of the future).I was basing my comment on the assumption that this league (like all others I have ever been a part of) operates with the assumption that you have to believe you are improving your team in any trade. Trading a player to another team so that team can beat someone else is in effect lending players away and should not be allowed in my opinion b/c it is not fair to the other teams in the league not involved in the deal. The question it seemed to most with this deal was whether it could be argued that the team trading away TO could have been viewed as possibly improving his team (for the future) since this is dynasty.

I may have missed it, but I didn't see anywhere in the OP that team trading away TO was arguing that having Casey improves his team. The fact that some are arguing that this trade might improve his team long-term in addition to the possible short-term playoff implications is only additional evidence that this trade is legitimate.I've also seen a couple of comments that this is an example of "lending" players, but I've seen no mention that another "compensatory trade" is to follow.

You didn't miss it, but it was presumed (based on common sense ethics) that the guy was trading to improve his team (since that is the only legit reason a team should be trading as most of us would agree).What you might have missed recently is that the OP let us know that he held back some info at first and now let us know that the guy admitted that he was trying to stack this other team to defeat another opponent. I am not sure how you don't see that action as being completely unethical and not in the best interest of the league (all 12 teams) as a whole. It makes a mockery of the integrity of the league when a team is making trades to improve other teams and not his own.

We're arguing semantics here, but I thought this was very clear in the OP. Regardless, I don't believe this is collusion or even unethical. But I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[The Iguana]

I don't think that collusion properly describes it. Unethical is probably a better word. I would frown against such a move since this type of thing doesn't happen in the real world when it comes to the NFL, MLB, NBA, etc. I just use that as my measuring stick for reasonableness.

forgetting the "real world" comment, this is a Skipping the specifics of who is involved and what their value may or may not be, collusion isn't the right word but it's definitely a "gray area" type of move from an ethical standpoint. That said, in a dynasty league, it's hard to argue against any trade. If the owner of Owens has little use for him, particularly going into next season, etc and legitimately believes the return player has some value then even arguing the ethics side is tough. If he trades Owens for a 3rd defense and then immediately drops the defense or something then it's more clear to argue that it's "dirty pool". Collusion still isn't the right word but it isn't much different than throwing a game at the end ot prevent a team from getting in the playoffs. Some would argue still argue "tactics" but to me it would be basically the equivilent of cheating.

 

[SSOG]

Hmmm.. not entirely convinced.Initially he acknowledges that "improving your team is open to interpretation" and says it makes no difference if the intended improvement is short term or long term but then says (in effect) that improving your playoff chances is not an acceptable example of short term improvement. I think those two thoughts can be viewed as contradictory.I like to wordsmith with the best of them but I think "sportsmanship" is one of those words that is sometimes trotted out as a convenient "catch all" to thwart a lot of fuzzy things simply because they don't pass someone's "sniff test". In my opinion, every league has a "ruthless dial". In some leagues it's dialed up and others it's dialed down. Set your dial wherever you collectively want it (as a league) and be governed by it. What we think of this isn't really helpful. It's what your league thinks that counts...

Yes, my league has a set of "sportsmanship" rules, and yes, they're all just convenient catch-all rules, including a nice little clause at the end saying that the commish has the power, at his discretion, to rectify any wrong which wasn't forseen in the rules (although our rules are very thorough, so it's unlikely we'll come across a wrong that needs righting that isn't already specifically outlawed). With that said, the PURPOSE of the "sportsmanship" rules is to make a level and fair playing field for everyone. This thread is the PERFECT example of an uneven playing field- team C has to compete against both team A and team B. That's not fair competition, so it gets banned under our sportsmanship rules. Easy peasy.

To me, every move should be made with a firm belief that it improves your chances of being successful (i.e. making the playoffs and winning in the playoffs). I don't have a "win at all costs" mentality, but this move seems reasonable to me. In my mind, this isn't a lot different than a team who's clinched his playoff spot making trades that might hurt his team in the short run, but improve his chances in the playoffs due to matchups, etc.

Let's use an extreme example. Let's say you join a fantasy league and have a killer draft. After two weeks, it's clear that you have the best team in the league by a country mile. Let's say everyone else in the entire league realizes they have no shot against you head-to-head, so they all start trading their reserve players to whichever team is facing you in any given week in an effort to keep you from ever reaching the playoffs. Would you consider this FAIR? Would you consider this ETHICAL? Would you consider this REASONABLE? Would you be perfectly fine with this strategy because everyone else believes that it honestly improves their chances of winning a championship?Personally, I think everyone will agree that the extreme example is complete and utter , and every single one of us would quit the league and never return. If that extreme example is , then why isn't this lesser example still , albeit to a lesser degree? How many teams need to collaborate to ensure you lose every week before it's unsportsmanlike and unfair? 5? 4? 3? 2? Or just 1?

I don't think the example above here happens, I think OP example was better. Even if you are trying to improve your enemy's opponent, it would never makes sense to give away a top notch player for a worthless player. Because the small improvement of your enemy's opponent doesn't offset the damage it would do to your team.

The *DEGREE* of lopsidedness doesn't matter. If something is wrong, then it is wrong in all instances, no matter how severe. If colluding is wrong, then a team who trades away James Casey for a promise of $1 if the other team wins is still in the wrong, no matter how small or insignificant the move might seem to be.You want a reasonable example? What if I had a dynasty team that had Fitz, Johnson, Johnson, VJax, Wayne, Roddy, Colston, Rice, Austin, MSW, Desean, and Smiff, as well as three first round draft picks next year. What if I decided to trade one of those WRs to guarantee a loss to my biggest rival? It's certainly a much more reasonable trade- I'll never even know the guy was gone. How good does the WR I trade away have to be before it's unethical? Can I trade away the #30 dynasty WR? #20? #10? #5?

I disagree completely with that statement. The team I'm trading with has a lot to do with whether I make the trade. Making a team better in my division is a HUGE factor in whether I make a trade or not. Conversely, indirectly making them worse should be a factor as well.

The way I see it, you don't need a good reason to *NOT* do something. You do need a good reason to do something. If I decide to *NOT* make a trade that I think would improve my team, then there's no need for me to justify that. If I decide to ACTIVELY MAKE A TRADE that I think would make my team worse, then yes, I need to justify that. And if that justification is that I'm intentionally trying to upset the competitive balance or intentionally trying to rob the league of an element of fair play, then my trade is unsportsmanlike and should not be allowed under any circumstances.

 

[BuckeyeArt]

To me, every move should be made with a firm belief that it improves your chances of being successful (i.e. making the playoffs and winning in the playoffs). I don't have a "win at all costs" mentality, but this move seems reasonable to me. In my mind, this isn't a lot different than a team who's clinched his playoff spot making trades that might hurt his team in the short run, but improve his chances in the playoffs due to matchups, etc.

Let's use an extreme example. Let's say you join a fantasy league and have a killer draft. After two weeks, it's clear that you have the best team in the league by a country mile. Let's say everyone else in the entire league realizes they have no shot against you head-to-head, so they all start trading their reserve players to whichever team is facing you in any given week in an effort to keep you from ever reaching the playoffs. Would you consider this FAIR? Would you consider this ETHICAL? Would you consider this REASONABLE? Would you be perfectly fine with this strategy because everyone else believes that it honestly improves their chances of winning a championship?Personally, I think everyone will agree that the extreme example is complete and utter , and every single one of us would quit the league and never return. If that extreme example is , then why isn't this lesser example still , albeit to a lesser degree? How many teams need to collaborate to ensure you lose every week before it's unsportsmanlike and unfair? 5? 4? 3? 2? Or just 1?

That's really not a very good hypothetical, even allowing for the extreme. You are ignoring two things. One, the reserve players would really have no effect in this example. And, since it is a dynasty, nobody would trade a significant player and reasonably give up all future years to disrupt one year. The dynasty aspect keeps people from trading away someone relevant enough to make a difference. Second, and more important, you are clearly describing collusion, which has nothing to do with the other examples being discussed. When people collaborate, it's collusion. It doesn't matter how extreme it is.

 

[SSOG]

That's really not a very good hypothetical, even allowing for the extreme. You are ignoring two things. One, the reserve players would really have no effect in this example. And, since it is a dynasty, nobody would trade a significant player and reasonably give up all future years to disrupt one year. The dynasty aspect keeps people from trading away someone relevant enough to make a difference. Second, and more important, you are clearly describing collusion, which has nothing to do with the other examples being discussed. When people collaborate, it's collusion. It doesn't matter how extreme it is.

I ignored neither. For the first, reserves make a big difference. In every single league I am in, there is a team whose #4 WR is better than my #3 WR, or whose #3 RB is better than my #2 RB, or whose #2 QB is better than my #1 QB. And whether anyone *WOULD* do it is irrelevant to the discussion of whether it is fair or legal. *AND*, who said I was talking about dynasty? Are you saying that unbalancing the competitive balance is fine in a dynasty league, but not in a redraft league? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.Second, it's only collusion if everyone in the league got together and agreed to the strategy. I never said that was the case. Are you saying that you'd have a problem with that hypothetical if everyone AGREED to trade with each other to screw over your team, but you'd be perfectly hunky-dory with it if everyone arrived at the strategy independently? No way- you would be pissed off if your leaguemates did that to you (and justifiably so), and you wouldn't care in the slightest whether they orchestrated it between them or whether they were all just acting in their own best self interest.As I said, any effort to upset the competitive balance of a league or to rob the league of an element of fair play should be outlawed, whether it's collusive in nature or not.

 

[DropKick]

Since Owens is matched up against Revis you have to wonder why doesn't the guy have a better WR option and is that really his best chance to win?

And, no, not "collusion" but it goes against my morals to play with that mentality.