Possible collusion, votes & opinions please (1 Viewer)

[Capella]

It's not collusion, face it.Assbagger has spoken, he's smarter than you. Listen to what he says.

 

[PoolShark]

btw, i like how all of you guys fell for the leading original post bolding certain players. not objective at all. :rotflmao:

It wasn't meant to be "objective," it was meant to highlight the higher caliber players in the deal. Perhaps if you read the post, you would have noticed that the "top TE" included in the deal is grouped with WRs in our system. After his bye this week, he will likely sit at about #35 on the WR list. That's in a 10 team league that starts a max of 30 WR/week, and usually more like 25 with the one RB/WR flex position. Mack is a joke. He was borderline RB#3 when he was the starter in Houston, and now he may or may not get a TD now and then on a few carries. He certainly isn't starter material.Hearst's rbbc has been good enough to put him at 14th in RB scoring so far, with increasing work in recent weeks. Glad we have a 3 digit like yourself "keeping tabs" though. You're insight is underwhelming.

 

[bagger]

it's just that when people complain about how unfair trades are they are taking the stance that what's happened in the past will continue to happen.i don't pretend to know so i have a hands off approach.really, this is the reason why my keeper league that i commish has a trading deadline in week 8. anything after that and you get teams who are making trades who are definitely out of the hunt.

I totally agree. And if this deal was made just a couple of weeks ago when the 2-7 team still had at least a chance of making the playoffs, then I'd be on your side of the argument. But this deal, taking place now, raises my suspicions as to the intentions of the 2-7 owner.

really where i'm coming from is a league that doesn't allow tradebacks and has an early trading deadline. as such, all trades go (plus we're a keeper league).the above 3 factors go a long way in assuring bad trades aren't made.the best way to stop "collusion" (or even unfair trades) is to have a system in place to stop it before it can occur.

 

[bagger]

btw, i like how all of you guys fell for the leading original post bolding certain players. not objective at all. :rotflmao:

It wasn't meant to be "objective," it was meant to highlight the higher caliber players in the deal. Perhaps if you read the post, you would have noticed that the "top TE" included in the deal is grouped with WRs in our system. After his bye this week, he will likely sit at about #35 on the WR list. That's in a 10 team league that starts a max of 30 WR/week, and usually more like 25 with the one RB/WR flex position. Mack is a joke. He was borderline RB#3 when he was the starter in Houston, and now he may or may not get a TD now and then on a few carries. He certainly isn't starter material.Hearst's rbbc has been good enough to put him at 14th in RB scoring so far, with increasing work in recent weeks. Glad we have a 3 digit like yourself "keeping tabs" though. You're insight is underwhelming.

search for some of my dvbd posts, that should learn you a little. <_<

 

[aaronr28]

i'll address your points:1. why should an owner be penalized for a lack of activity and then he wants to make a trade? what's sufficient activity? 2 FA moves? 5? 10? basing vetoing trades on past activity is a very dangerous precedent to set.2. that's a savvy move by that owner getting rid of one stud in exchange for another to effectively not have a stud rb bye week. that's good strategy.3. the rest of the players are slamted in owner 1's direction. but santana moss is no randy. people here have a very selective memory and if this trade happened the week before moss' blowup game there would probably be a lot less griping.is hearst better than mack? yes. will barlow beat out hearst and hearst becomes relegated to the same role as mack? perhaps, nobody knows.this is not collusion. collusion is a conspiracy, not stupidity.

1. He's not being penalized. But, why should the league believe that he is "all of a sudden" trying to improve his team in week 10 when he's made no effort to do so in the 9 weeks prior? IMO, this person has CLEARLY indicated that they don't care about the league or the team. Consider this situation: An owner says outright "My season is over so I'll trade any of my players to anybody that wants them"...wouldn't you be very likely to veto any trades after a statement like that was made? While he may not have made such a statement here, his intentions can quite clearly be inferred from his behavior and the nature of this trade.2. Agreed. If the team giving away Alexander, Hearst, and SMoss actually PROPOSED this trade, then any owner would have to be an idiot not to accept it. That owner would also be very lucky indeed if he was the one to offer this trade, and then actually saw that it was accepted. However, I would not want to be a part of a league that allowed losing teams to just give their players away once their season was finished unless this was some sort of keeper league or dynasty league in which they were improving their team for the following season in some way.3. The point is that this trade DID NOT happen the week before Santana scored 3 TDs. It happened after that, so his value has changed considerably. If he had blown out his ACL last week, his value would have dropped. Obviously, a player's value can fluctuate from week to week, and right now Santana Moss's value has never been any higher.EDIT TO ADD: Since when was collusion the only reason to veto a trade? If an owner in last place quits a league and trades all his studs away for garbage, should that be allowed? It may not technically be collusion if he is not intentionally trying to improve another team by weakening his own, but it still would go against the nature of fair competition where all owners should be given an equal opportunity to compete for the championship. I don't agree with legislating the "fairness" of trades in general, but there are too many warning signs in a deal like this to allow it. I don't think it's the trade of a stupid owner who thinks he's improving his team...I think it's the trade of an owner who just doesn't give a #####.

 

[bagger]

btw, i like how all of you guys fell for the leading original post bolding certain players. not objective at all. :rotflmao:

It wasn't meant to be "objective," it was meant to highlight the higher caliber players in the deal. Perhaps if you read the post, you would have noticed that the "top TE" included in the deal is grouped with WRs in our system. After his bye this week, he will likely sit at about #35 on the WR list. That's in a 10 team league that starts a max of 30 WR/week, and usually more like 25 with the one RB/WR flex position. Mack is a joke. He was borderline RB#3 when he was the starter in Houston, and now he may or may not get a TD now and then on a few carries. He certainly isn't starter material.Hearst's rbbc has been good enough to put him at 14th in RB scoring so far, with increasing work in recent weeks. Glad we have a 3 digit like yourself "keeping tabs" though. You're insight is underwhelming.

yes, to highlight them to steer people in your direction.just because other people don't share the same opinion as you do for the players' performance for the rest of the year doesn't make it collusion.but i forgot that i'm in the shark pool where everyone has won all of their leagues the last 20 years and has accurately projected all fantasy football players in the history of their playing.

 

[bagger]

1. He's not being penalized. But, why should the league believe that he is "all of a sudden" trying to improve his team in week 10 when he's made no effort to do so in the 9 weeks prior? IMO, this person has CLEARLY indicated that they don't care about the league or the team. Consider this situation: An owner says outright "My season is over so I'll trade any of my players to anybody that wants them"...wouldn't you be very likely to veto any trades after a statement like that was made? While he may not have made such a statement here, his intentions can quite clearly be inferred from his behavior and the nature of this trade.

2. Agreed. If the team giving away Alexander, Hearst, and SMoss actually PROPOSED this trade, then any owner would have to be an idiot not to accept it. That owner would also be very lucky indeed if he was the one to offer this trade, and then actually saw that it was accepted. However, I would not want to be a part of a league that allowed losing teams to just give their players away once their season was finished unless this was some sort of keeper league or dynasty league in which they were improving their team for the following season in some way.

3. The point is that this trade DID NOT happen the week before Santana scored 3 TDs. It happened after that, so his value has changed considerably. If he had blown out his ACL last week, his value would have dropped. Obviously, a player's value can fluctuate from week to week, and right now Santana Moss's value has never been any higher.

1. well he is penalized if the trade is not allowed to go through and he really wanted these guys. i don't know his motives. but if he wants to be active in one last gasp to squeak into the playoffs a commissioner would be negligent to not let him do so.2. this comes down to league structure and when trading deadlines occur.

3. yes, he's overvalued...which makes it a better deal for the new portis owner.

 

[Sweeper]

Big advantage for team 1 2 top RB's: the most valuable position in FF and S moss thta is 3 Starters, 3 players worth starting spots on a roster for clinton Portis ulltimately, mack only sees a few balls a game and sharp will warm teh bench agaist any wideout. so he becmes useless.if you had to play a TE position id say it is not so bad but otherwise team one gets a great deal. but collusion is a strog word, it is very hars and if you say it is collusion you are ultimately acusing the teams and owners of cheating . I personally take that seriously and personally, not to mention get furiosly mad when somone disagrees with a trade adn calls it collusion. However the Trade really makes no sense to team 2. But how do you approach that. ANd you do have to take it from thier perspective, is he trying to cover a bye, does he have the depth to give up 2 top backs and a top wr to cover a actually i cant see the logic here no matter how i look at it. I am not one to tell an owner that they are making a bad trade. and veto it, or try to impose my ranking on another owner but it does seem unusual that team 1 would give up 3 starting caliber players for one starting caliber player. you just have to try to do the right thing, mabye hear them out and if they can give you a good reason or logic behind the trade let it go, but otherwise ................i am not sure i could let it go.

 

[aaronr28]

3. yes, he's overvalued...which makes it a better deal for the new portis owner.

I forgot that you're the leader of the Portis fan club so no price for acquiring him would be too high.

 

[Johnny Ryall]

the best way to stop "collusion" (or even unfair trades) is to have a system in place to stop it before it can occur.

Very true. Many un-scrupulous fantasy owners have uttered the phrase "well, the rules don't say I CAN'T do that..."

 

[Courtjester]

btw, i like how all of you guys fell for the leading original post bolding certain players. not objective at all. :rotflmao:

It wasn't meant to be "objective," it was meant to highlight the higher caliber players in the deal. Perhaps if you read the post, you would have noticed that the "top TE" included in the deal is grouped with WRs in our system. After his bye this week, he will likely sit at about #35 on the WR list. That's in a 10 team league that starts a max of 30 WR/week, and usually more like 25 with the one RB/WR flex position. Mack is a joke. He was borderline RB#3 when he was the starter in Houston, and now he may or may not get a TD now and then on a few carries. He certainly isn't starter material.Hearst's rbbc has been good enough to put him at 14th in RB scoring so far, with increasing work in recent weeks. Glad we have a 3 digit like yourself "keeping tabs" though. You're insight is underwhelming.

No offense Pool, but you have your mind made up about this trade it is obvious, so why are you even soliciting our opinions?Other posters have come back and tried to present a disenting opinion and you do not want to hear it--that's fine.If you are mad about the trade, then let your commissioner know or better yet get out of the league next year. There are a ton of leagues looking for concerned, quality owners.....Listen, we have all been in crappy leagues where questionable things have happened. Take a step back, calm down and focus on your line up for this week. My opinion (and only my opinion) this is not a transaction that is going to cause your league to be so lopsided that it is unfair. Moss is not going to get 3 td's a week, Hearst is RBBC at best and the stud RBs are going to wash themselves out with probably Portis having a better 2nd half of the seaon.

 

[bagger]

I forgot that you're the leader of the Portis fan club so no price for acquiring him would be too high.

:rotflmao:

 

[PoolShark]

Right now, it's kinda black, with some little "twinkly" things.

Relevance?

btw, is this trade from the pyramid league?

No, the Pyramid has a system in place. From their rules...Any owner can object to a trade by sending an email with his rationale to the commissioner. The commissioner will then bring the trade up for a vote with all supporting information to the governing body of the Pyramid. The commissioner and the 3 administrators will review the trade and provide a resolution with 24 hours. It will take 3 of the 4 votes to overturn a trade. The commissioner or the administrators may ask for additional information as supporting evidence for any questioned trade.

Suspect trades

Any trade that appears to help one team and not the other will be investigated. This is a very free environment, and the governing body does not want to get into the business of policing the leagues, but competitive balance must be maintained.

You may noticie that it mentions "competitive balance," but not "there must be a smoking gun, or we stand idley by..."

 

[bagger]

Right now, it's kinda black, with some little "twinkly" things.

Relevance?

btw, is this trade from the pyramid league?

No, the Pyramid has a system in place. From their rules...Any owner can object to a trade by sending an email with his rationale to the commissioner. The commissioner will then bring the trade up for a vote with all supporting information to the governing body of the Pyramid. The commissioner and the 3 administrators will review the trade and provide a resolution with 24 hours. It will take 3 of the 4 votes to overturn a trade. The commissioner or the administrators may ask for additional information as supporting evidence for any questioned trade.

Suspect trades

Any trade that appears to help one team and not the other will be investigated. This is a very free environment, and the governing body does not want to get into the business of policing the leagues, but competitive balance must be maintained.

You may noticie that it mentions "competitive balance," but not "there must be a smoking gun, or we stand idley by..."

well, as unlucky can testify "competitive balance" is a real tricky phrase.i just knew you were in the pyramid league and that their trading window was still open. i knew they have rules in place (as i'm also in it) but i wasn't sure if they let the trade through and you were pissed.

just curious.

i should add that there is nothing in the pyramid rules that would prevent this particular trade in my eyes.

 

[PoolShark]

well, as unlucky can testify "competitive balance" is a real tricky phrase.i just knew you were in the pyramid league and that their trading window was still open. i knew they have rules in place (as i'm also in it) but i wasn't sure if they let the trade through and you were pissed.just curious.i should add that there is nothing in the pyramid rules that would prevent this particular trade in my eyes.

no, not from the pyramid league, though interestingly the guy with portis tried to get me to deal him shipp, chad j & s smith for portis this week. that was good for a laugh, since he's playing me...maybe they wouldn't overturn it, but at least there is a system in place where it's possible, and one that doesnt specify that there must be proof of cheating.

 

[Cocky Crow]

Your vote is greatly flawed. Yes, the trade greatly favors Team 1, but was it collusion is the real question, right? That is two very distinct items. Proof of collusion is extremely difficult, and I say without some proof (rare case of someone slipping up and confesses), you got to let the trade go through.Yes, I think it probably smells, let it be known you feel that way, and then drop the issue. Since it is brought out, it will be less likely to be as blatantly attempted again, and shows the other teams that not only they are being watched, but the now have clearly defined enemies to content with.

 

[Kleck]

SUBSCRIBER ONLY FEATUREHave a fantasy dispute? Bill Davies has years of service as a commissioner and has agreed to answer your private emails regarding rules, fair trades, collusion and the like. This service is free to subscribers.Email him at askthecommish@footballguys.com