Question for the Comissioners in the Shark Pool (1 Viewer)

[hotboyz]

I kno we've heard this question before but I'm asking it on behalf of my league.

How do you guys feel about a Commisioner having veto power over trades? When should a commissioner veto a trade? Under what circumstance?

This all started with a owner facing a bye wk crisis desperate for a win trading Phillip Rivers for Julian Edleman. Of course this is a horrible trade he had RGlll and Rivers he's very high on RGlll he got desperate and traded Rivers. I try to explain to the league no matter how bad I think the trade is he paid his entry fee and I have no right to judge his evaluation of players or tell him how to manage his team

Where do you guy stand on vetoing trades?

 

[KCitons]

Veto only when it involves collusion. Bad trades are only considered bad by the people that are not involved. Let each owner run his/her own team.

 

[blake]

I try to explain to the league no matter how bad I think the trade is he paid his entry fee and I have no right to judge his evaluation of players or tell him how to manage his team

You did absolutely right here. Commissioners have no business vetoing trades and certainly no owners have the right to. The only reason for a veto is collusion. Sheer desperation/stupidity does not factor in for a veto. Well done.

 

[habsfan]

I try to explain to the league no matter how bad I think the trade is he paid his entry fee and I have no right to judge his evaluation of players or tell him how to manage his team

The only reason for a veto is collusion.

... which is an animal that's almost never seen in the wild.

 

[hotboyz]

Exactly even if there is collusion short of tapping phones and hiring CSI investigators how the hell would you prove collusion

 

[KCitons]

Exactly even if there is collusion short of tapping phones and hiring CSI investigators how the hell would you prove collusion

Waterboarding

 

[Dizzy]

He had 2 QB's, you can only play 1... he had need, and traded a QB to fill that need.

Is that it? Am I missing something.

Most times in cases like this it comes down to sour grapes from other owners... "DUDE... you traded Rivers for Edleman? I would have given you <insert name here> for him!"

 

[hotboyz]

He had 2 QB's, you can only play 1... he had need, and traded a QB to fill that need.

Is that it? Am I missing something.

Most times in cases like this it comes down to sour grapes from other owners... "DUDE... you traded Rivers for Edleman? I would have given you <insert name here> for him!"

That's exactly what happens

 

[hotboyz]

Then what really sent the league off that same owner accepted a deal from me I gave him Ellington Boldin and Nate Washington for Brandon Marshall it's a 12 tm Ppr it left him with team of RGlll lynch Fred Jackson Ellington Drsean Jackson Marvin Jones Ty Hilton James Jones Boldin Washington. We start 1 Rb 1 wr 3 flex Rb/wr

Once this deal went thru I was accused of collusion all kinds of hate lol

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

I think you did right, just an absolute ridiculous trade like Peyton Manning for Vick I would veto because it's not in the leagues best interest to allow something like that. If you did, that league wouldn't be around for long but other than that, trades go thru even if you wouldn't have made the trade yourself.

 

[Craig_MiamiFL]

No one within the league itself should have the ability to overturn trades.

Swap 'Trade Ref' services with another league commissioner. 3rd party with no vested interest in the league.

 

[Sarnoff]

Veto only when it involves collusion. Bad trades are only considered bad by the people that are not involved. Let each owner run his/her own team.

I try to explain to the league no matter how bad I think the trade is he paid his entry fee and I have no right to judge his evaluation of players or tell him how to manage his team

The only reason for a veto is collusion.

... which is an animal that's almost never seen in the wild.

All trades are, by definition, collusion. A good Commissioner should veto all trades.

 

[Johnny Blood]

You did a good job.

Resist the temptation to spend lots of time responding to every last thing the complainers say. Explain it and let it go.

The funniest thing is they're all whining about a player that I'm sure none of them thought worth drafting 9 weeks ago.

 

[DropKick]

Veto only when it involves collusion. Bad trades are only considered bad by the people that are not involved. Let each owner run his/her own team.

I try to explain to the league no matter how bad I think the trade is he paid his entry fee and I have no right to judge his evaluation of players or tell him how to manage his team

The only reason for a veto is collusion.

... which is an animal that's almost never seen in the wild.

All trades are, by definition, collusion. A good Commissioner should veto all trades.

Saying so in every "trade" thread doesn't make it true.

I think the commissioner should reserve the right to veto but only do so in extreme, obvious cases. And this is NOT one of them!

 

[hotboyz]

Veto only when it involves collusion. Bad trades are only considered bad by the people that are not involved. Let each owner run his/her own team.

I try to explain to the league no matter how bad I think the trade is he paid his entry fee and I have no right to judge his evaluation of players or tell him how to manage his team

The only reason for a veto is collusion.

... which is an animal that's almost never seen in the wild.

All trades are, by definition, collusion. A good Commissioner should veto all trades.

Ok that's not true at all if it makes you feel better change it from collusion to unfair trade practices

 

[Sarnoff]

Veto only when it involves collusion. Bad trades are only considered bad by the people that are not involved. Let each owner run his/her own team.

I try to explain to the league no matter how bad I think the trade is he paid his entry fee and I have no right to judge his evaluation of players or tell him how to manage his team

The only reason for a veto is collusion.

... which is an animal that's almost never seen in the wild.

All trades are, by definition, collusion. A good Commissioner should veto all trades.

Ok that's not true at all if it makes you feel better change it from collusion to unfair trade practices

Feel free to come up with a workable definition of "collusion" that keeps trades legal but other unfair acts not.

 

[ghostguy123]

If everyone knows each other in the league, where everyone is friends, then I don't think any trades should be reversed since the stablity of the league is strong. Even the worst of the worst teams wouldn't be at much risk of leaving the league.

FFPC for example, nobody really knows each other. People are putting in thousands of dollars over the course of a few years (and in some cases each year). There absolutely HAS to be the possibility of trade reversals. It's not fair the the league to allow some team to get great players for peanuts just because that one owner isn't real bright.

 

[GregR]

Veto only when it involves collusion. Bad trades are only considered bad by the people that are not involved. Let each owner run his/her own team.

I try to explain to the league no matter how bad I think the trade is he paid his entry fee and I have no right to judge his evaluation of players or tell him how to manage his team

The only reason for a veto is collusion.

... which is an animal that's almost never seen in the wild.

All trades are, by definition, collusion. A good Commissioner should veto all trades.

Ok that's not true at all if it makes you feel better change it from collusion to unfair trade practices

Feel free to come up with a workable definition of "collusion" that keeps trades legal but other unfair acts not.

We don't need to come up with one, the dictionary definition of collusion works perfectly here. A "secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose "

Fantasy rules allow for trades so they are not illegal. To be collusion it would have to have a deceitful purpose... violating other tenets of the game like that you compete as individual teams, you try to win your team's games, etc.

 

[Coach3K]

Veto only when it involves collusion. Bad trades are only considered bad by the people that are not involved. Let each owner run his/her own team.

I try to explain to the league no matter how bad I think the trade is he paid his entry fee and I have no right to judge his evaluation of players or tell him how to manage his team

The only reason for a veto is collusion.

... which is an animal that's almost never seen in the wild.

All trades are, by definition, collusion. A good Commissioner should veto all trades.

Ok that's not true at all if it makes you feel better change it from collusion to unfair trade practices

Feel free to come up with a workable definition of "collusion" that keeps trades legal but other unfair acts not.

How about Oxford dictionary?noun

secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others

Law: illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially between ostensible opponents in a lawsuit.

Keywords: "illegal" and "cheat"

No one freely announces every trade offer they make. That would just give away a competitive advantage. Honest trades may be secret and may even involve some deception, to keep others from getting a jump on you. But crossing the line into illegal/rule-breaking/unethical/cheating territory with another player is what makes it collusion.

Two or more teams conspiring to break the rules in the course of a transaction. Fairly simple...you may not be able to put a perfect definition on it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that it's right.

Now maybe all of your leagues have no rules, written or unspoken. If that's the case, then for you, collusion wouldn't exist because there are no rules to violate, but that seems pretty unlikely.

From someone's comments above, it seems like this isn't the first time this has some up, so I may just be feeding a troll, so I'll just leave it at that.

 

[GregR]

Where do you guy stand on vetoing trades?

I think trades should only be vetoed if collusive. Which means a vetoed trade should be the first step in some sort of disciplinary matter, whether a warning, loss of future picks or voiding of victories, expulsion from the league, or whatever else is appropriate.

If a league has problems with an owner's legitimate decision making to where they think it brings down the league, then they should replace him or get him a mentor/co-owner. They shouldn't have a commish trying to oversee his actions.

 

[da_budman]

People seem to jump from step A to step Z when discussing these things, What I mean is: They see a trade that THEY consider lopsided and then ask.... should this trade be vetoed?

As commish that skips a few steps imo. The steps I go through are:

When you see what you perceive to be a lopsided trade is ask yourself: am I particularly high or low on one of these players that might be skewing my vision here?

Is there an injury involved that might make the trade make more sense?

Does the trade, even though it appears to be lopsided make some sense based on the teams rosters?

Has 1 of the players had a sudden upturn or downturn in productivity that would make the owner perceive the players values differently than yours ( or other owners)?

Does one player or the other seem to have a horrible/ particularly easy schedule that could affect their value?

These are all things I factor in when deciding, as an owner, on proposed trades and I think as commish you should as well before you even get to the point of considering a veto.

Lastly, before I would ever consider a veto, I would talk to both owners and ask them why they made the trade and why they think it makes THEIR team better. (in person preferably). In my years of commishing I have talked a couple people down off that ledge before having to veto a trade that really was collusion before it ever officially got submitted. If it is a Just deciding it is a lopsided trade is never good enough to even consider it collusion.

 

[Sarnoff]

Feel free to come up with a workable definition of "collusion" that keeps trades legal but other unfair acts not.

How about Oxford dictionary?noun

secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others

Law: illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially between ostensible opponents in a lawsuit.

Keywords: "illegal" and "cheat"

No one freely announces every trade offer they make. That would just give away a competitive advantage. Honest trades may be secret and may even involve some deception, to keep others from getting a jump on you. But crossing the line into illegal/rule-breaking/unethical/cheating territory with another player is what makes it collusion.

Two or more teams conspiring to break the rules in the course of a transaction. Fairly simple...you may not be able to put a perfect definition on it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that it's right.

Now maybe all of your leagues have no rules, written or unspoken. If that's the case, then for you, collusion wouldn't exist because there are no rules to violate, but that seems pretty unlikely.

From someone's comments above, it seems like this isn't the first time this has some up, so I may just be feeding a troll, so I'll just leave it at that.

Feel free to come up with a workable definition of "collusion" that keeps trades legal but other unfair acts not.

We don't need to come up with one, the dictionary definition of collusion works perfectly here. A "secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose "

Fantasy rules allow for trades so they are not illegal. To be collusion it would have to have a deceitful purpose... violating other tenets of the game like that you compete as individual teams, you try to win your team's games, etc.

I assume you both then define what's an "illegal" trade in your rules? Or have some sort of mindreading technology you use against your owners to see if they're being deceitful? You're just substituting one poorly defined term for two more.

 

[Griffindor]

The "secrecy" part of the definition, in the trade context, isn't about the trade itself (because trades aren't secret of course... they're announced to the league as soon as they're effective). The "secrecy" refers to the purpose of the trade. It's assumed in any competitive experience that all participants are acting in their own self-interest. If they secretly are not, then it's collusion.

So the dictionary definition fits just fine.

 

[Coach3K]

Feel free to come up with a workable definition of "collusion" that keeps trades legal but other unfair acts not.

How about Oxford dictionary?noun

secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others

Law: illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially between ostensible opponents in a lawsuit.

Keywords: "illegal" and "cheat"

No one freely announces every trade offer they make. That would just give away a competitive advantage. Honest trades may be secret and may even involve some deception, to keep others from getting a jump on you. But crossing the line into illegal/rule-breaking/unethical/cheating territory with another player is what makes it collusion.

Two or more teams conspiring to break the rules in the course of a transaction. Fairly simple...you may not be able to put a perfect definition on it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that it's right.

Now maybe all of your leagues have no rules, written or unspoken. If that's the case, then for you, collusion wouldn't exist because there are no rules to violate, but that seems pretty unlikely.

From someone's comments above, it seems like this isn't the first time this has some up, so I may just be feeding a troll, so I'll just leave it at that.

Feel free to come up with a workable definition of "collusion" that keeps trades legal but other unfair acts not.

We don't need to come up with one, the dictionary definition of collusion works perfectly here. A "secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose "Fantasy rules allow for trades so they are not illegal. To be collusion it would have to have a deceitful purpose... violating other tenets of the game like that you compete as individual teams, you try to win your team's games, etc.

I assume you both then define what's an "illegal" trade in your rules? Or have some sort of mindreading technology you use against your owners to see if they're being deceitful? You're just substituting one poorly defined term for two more.

Yes, we do address it and note examples of illegal/cheating activities, such as temporary trades to get around bye weeks or for key match-ups (with swap-backs after), tanking, dumping players, and trades involving injured players. We have a list of examples not to be an all-encompassing list of laws, but to set the "sniff" threshold...and when something doesn't "smell" right, we use common sense to work through it.

Of course, we're all logical, mature adults with respect for one another built over 15+ years of friendship and fantasy play (and these issues rarely come up at all anyway), so your mileage may vary.

Also note that I stated deception itself isn't a necessarily a vice unto itself...that can be a valid strategy. But deception doesn't have to equal illegal or cheating. I think that's evident by the fact that the play-action pass doesn't result in a penalty on the real football field (whereas faking an injury in order to circumvent the game's clock rules can). That's just one example of the distinction...I'm sure you can imagine others.

 

[DropKick]

Veto only when it involves collusion. Bad trades are only considered bad by the people that are not involved. Let each owner run his/her own team.

I try to explain to the league no matter how bad I think the trade is he paid his entry fee and I have no right to judge his evaluation of players or tell him how to manage his team

The only reason for a veto is collusion.

... which is an animal that's almost never seen in the wild.

All trades are, by definition, collusion. A good Commissioner should veto all trades.

Ok that's not true at all if it makes you feel better change it from collusion to unfair trade practices

Feel free to come up with a workable definition of "collusion" that keeps trades legal but other unfair acts not.

Two teams conspiring to cheat or deceive the rest of the league?

Trades are going to vary across the spectrum from balanced to extremely one sided. Although most trades, even the "imbalanced" ones, are legitimate - there is a point where the motive is either collusive or threatens the competitive integrity of the league. A good commissioner should be able to tell the difference based on the situation and people involved.

As other posters have stated, we don't need a collusion detector or tedious definitions. I don't even have to "prove" it. You know it when you see it.

 

[ShockTheMonkey]

I kno we've heard this question before but I'm asking it on behalf of my league.

How do you guys feel about a Commisioner having veto power over trades? When should a commissioner veto a trade? Under what circumstance?

This all started with a owner facing a bye wk crisis desperate for a win trading Phillip Rivers for Julian Edleman. Of course this is a horrible trade he had RGlll and Rivers he's very high on RGlll he got desperate and traded Rivers. I try to explain to the league no matter how bad I think the trade is he paid his entry fee and I have no right to judge his evaluation of players or tell him how to manage his team

Where do you guy stand on vetoing trades?

Last year I was in a league in which the Drew Brees owner traded Brees straight up for Peyton Manning. Think back to preseason last year with all the questions about whether Manning would be ok...that seemed like a horrible trade.

It turns out that it was a pretty even trade. Who are we to prevent other fantasy football players from showing us how smart they are?

 

[ShockTheMonkey]

Veto only when it involves collusion. Bad trades are only considered bad by the people that are not involved. Let each owner run his/her own team.

I try to explain to the league no matter how bad I think the trade is he paid his entry fee and I have no right to judge his evaluation of players or tell him how to manage his team

The only reason for a veto is collusion.

... which is an animal that's almost never seen in the wild.

All trades are, by definition, collusion. A good Commissioner should veto all trades.

Ok that's not true at all if it makes you feel better change it from collusion to unfair trade practices

Feel free to come up with a workable definition of "collusion" that keeps trades legal but other unfair acts not.

Two teams conspiring to cheat or deceive the rest of the league?

Trades are going to vary across the spectrum from balanced to extremely one sided. Although most trades, even the "imbalanced" ones, are legitimate - there is a point where the motive is either collusive or threatens the competitive integrity of the league. A good commissioner should be able to tell the difference based on the situation and people involved.

As other posters have stated, we don't need a collusion detector or tedious definitions. I don't even have to "prove" it. You know it when you see it.

It's like LOVE!

 

[cobalt_27]

Isn't Sarnoff the guy who's been chanting the "Free Aaron Hernandez" mantra for months?

I believe it's reasonable to summarily disregard anything this guy has to say and stick to the real issues/topics at hand, lest they get derailed and devolve into gobbledy####, which is I think his only intent and purpose on the boards.

 

[habsfan]

Veto only when it involves collusion. Bad trades are only considered bad by the people that are not involved. Let each owner run his/her own team.

I try to explain to the league no matter how bad I think the trade is he paid his entry fee and I have no right to judge his evaluation of players or tell him how to manage his team

The only reason for a veto is collusion.

... which is an animal that's almost never seen in the wild.

All trades are, by definition, collusion. A good Commissioner should veto all trades.

Ok that's not true at all if it makes you feel better change it from collusion to unfair trade practices

Feel free to come up with a workable definition of "collusion" that keeps trades legal but other unfair acts not.

Two teams conspiring to cheat or deceive the rest of the league?

Trades are going to vary across the spectrum from balanced to extremely one sided. Although most trades, even the "imbalanced" ones, are legitimate - there is a point where the motive is either collusive or threatens the competitive integrity of the league. A good commissioner should be able to tell the difference based on the situation and people involved.

As other posters have stated, we don't need a collusion detector or tedious definitions. I don't even have to "prove" it. You know it when you see it.

I "review" trades and exactly twice I have contacted an owner with one simple question - "Help me understand how this trade improves your team". In one instance, the person could not and did not. It became evident they were trying to help a fellow owner rather than compete against them. That owner was quietly uninvited in the off season.

 

[Second Sight]

Veto only when it involves collusion. Bad trades are only considered bad by the people that are not involved. Let each owner run his/her own team.

I try to explain to the league no matter how bad I think the trade is he paid his entry fee and I have no right to judge his evaluation of players or tell him how to manage his team

The only reason for a veto is collusion.

... which is an animal that's almost never seen in the wild.

All trades are, by definition, collusion. A good Commissioner should veto all trades.

Ok that's not true at all if it makes you feel better change it from collusion to unfair trade practices

Feel free to come up with a workable definition of "collusion" that keeps trades legal but other unfair acts not.

Two teams conspiring to cheat or deceive the rest of the league?

Trades are going to vary across the spectrum from balanced to extremely one sided. Although most trades, even the "imbalanced" ones, are legitimate - there is a point where the motive is either collusive or threatens the competitive integrity of the league. A good commissioner should be able to tell the difference based on the situation and people involved.

As other posters have stated, we don't need a collusion detector or tedious definitions. I don't even have to "prove" it. You know it when you see it.

This is the real issue in leagues these days.

We have all seen the "Brees for Fozzy Whitaker trades that make no sense to us.

We have all seen the trades that looked terribly lopsided that turned out not to be.

Either way, it is extremely difficult to act as if we know the future and intercede.

However, when you play in a keeper or dynasty format, there is another question that must be looked at regarding the long-term integrity of your league. Even if the person is desperate. Even if the person is ignorant (just meaning uninformed, not dull), when an obvious terrible trade occurs, you have to think of the league as a whole, not just the easy answer of "Who am I to run their team because they paid their money?" In this case, it goes beyond just two guys who "paid their money". It also included 10, 12, or 14 other people that paid their money across many years and nobody likes to see that get broken beyond repair in one instance.

In those instances the commissioner has an obligation to step in, as unpopular as it may seem, and keep the league going in a positive direction. Otherwise, when someone trades away Aaron Rodgers and Julio Jones today because they are hurt for a 3rd round draft pick and two players that aren't hurt, there is a long-term consequence that must be addressed. It affects the ability to recruit new owners sometimes. I have experienced leagues where I would have loved to have brought a good owner in and their reply to me was "You know, I like your rules and all but you have about three or four teams here that have all the players. Your league is too imbalanced for me to come in and give four or five years to try to get into the mix." And sometimes, its not just the immediate concerns. Sometimes people look at leagues and won't join (or stay) because they start thinking "how did this league get like this? Am I wasting my time trying to compete if there is a way for people to keep this league unbalanced?"

All in all, it is a fine line but there ARE instances where the commissioner must uphold the vision of the long-term of the league as it is written in the rules.§

 

[smapdi]

Veto only when it involves collusion. Bad trades are only considered bad by the people that are not involved. Let each owner run his/her own team.

Couldn't agree more. I will only step in if it's screaming collusion. I know everyone in my league well & what type of player they are so a rotten trade would stick out like a sore thumb to me and everyone else.

I'm not going to step in just because someone is making a bad trade. It's their money, their team; they can do what they want with it. I really don't have any guppies in my league so I won't see those truly awful trades that become borderline.

About a month ago Sept. 24th, an owner called me and wanted me to veto a trade:

Bad traded DeMarco Murray, Dal RB to ESG

ESG traded Alex Smith, KC QB to Bad

Now, that isn't the best looking trade, especially at that time. Murray was on fire and Smith really hadn't done ####. Murray's original owner was the one that wanted revoke the trade (obviously). He claimed he was too messed up when he made the trade- thought he was just reviewing it or he was trading Murray for a different player.

I told him tough banana's. I can't go around vetoing every bad trade someone makes. It's not my fault you decided to mess with your roster while heavily intoxicated/medicated. I told him his best chance was to talk to the other owner and see if he'd trade him back.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I kno we've heard this question before but I'm asking it on behalf of my league.

How do you guys feel about a Commisioner having veto power over trades? When should a commissioner veto a trade? Under what circumstance?

This all started with a owner facing a bye wk crisis desperate for a win trading Phillip Rivers for Julian Edleman. Of course this is a horrible trade he had RGlll and Rivers he's very high on RGlll he got desperate and traded Rivers. I try to explain to the league no matter how bad I think the trade is he paid his entry fee and I have no right to judge his evaluation of players or tell him how to manage his team

Where do you guy stand on vetoing trades?

My rule as commisioner is that the only trades that will be vetoed are ones where collusion is involved (pretty standard and not interested in getting into the discussion about how do you prove collusion).

Further the rules states that if there is a trade in question, both owners must give valid reasons as to why they made the trade. Seems like this one is covered here. His valid reason is bye week desperation. Maybe most owners wouldn't do something so drastic, but this guy felt the need to do so - and that's good enough for me.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Exactly even if there is collusion short of tapping phones and hiring CSI investigators how the hell would you prove collusion

circumstantial evidence can raise the allegation - and then it would take further investigation including but not limited to asking owners "what benefit did you recieve here".

generally its not going to be "proven", because generally it doesn't happen.

 

[Sarnoff]

Feel free to come up with a workable definition of "collusion" that keeps trades legal but other unfair acts not.

How about Oxford dictionary?noun

secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others

Law: illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially between ostensible opponents in a lawsuit.

Keywords: "illegal" and "cheat"

No one freely announces every trade offer they make. That would just give away a competitive advantage. Honest trades may be secret and may even involve some deception, to keep others from getting a jump on you. But crossing the line into illegal/rule-breaking/unethical/cheating territory with another player is what makes it collusion.

Two or more teams conspiring to break the rules in the course of a transaction. Fairly simple...you may not be able to put a perfect definition on it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that it's right.

Now maybe all of your leagues have no rules, written or unspoken. If that's the case, then for you, collusion wouldn't exist because there are no rules to violate, but that seems pretty unlikely.

From someone's comments above, it seems like this isn't the first time this has some up, so I may just be feeding a troll, so I'll just leave it at that.

Feel free to come up with a workable definition of "collusion" that keeps trades legal but other unfair acts not.

We don't need to come up with one, the dictionary definition of collusion works perfectly here. A "secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose "Fantasy rules allow for trades so they are not illegal. To be collusion it would have to have a deceitful purpose... violating other tenets of the game like that you compete as individual teams, you try to win your team's games, etc.

I assume you both then define what's an "illegal" trade in your rules? Or have some sort of mindreading technology you use against your owners to see if they're being deceitful? You're just substituting one poorly defined term for two more.

Yes, we do address it and note examples of illegal/cheating activities, such as temporary trades to get around bye weeks or for key match-ups (with swap-backs after), tanking, dumping players, and trades involving injured players. We have a list of examples not to be an all-encompassing list of laws, but to set the "sniff" threshold...and when something doesn't "smell" right, we use common sense to work through it.

Of course, we're all logical, mature adults with respect for one another built over 15+ years of friendship and fantasy play (and these issues rarely come up at all anyway), so your mileage may vary.

Also note that I stated deception itself isn't a necessarily a vice unto itself...that can be a valid strategy. But deception doesn't have to equal illegal or cheating. I think that's evident by the fact that the play-action pass doesn't result in a penalty on the real football field (whereas faking an injury in order to circumvent the game's clock rules can). That's just one example of the distinction...I'm sure you can imagine others.

You could have just said "we use mind-reading" and leave it at that.

And if the "sniff test" is so effective, how come there are a dozen "is this collusion or not? My Ouija board is broken" threads every week in here?

No one's put up a real definition of collusion yet that is concrete, which doesn't involve reading tea leaves or holding a seance to figure out what's going on.

 

[Sarnoff]

Veto only when it involves collusion. Bad trades are only considered bad by the people that are not involved. Let each owner run his/her own team.

I try to explain to the league no matter how bad I think the trade is he paid his entry fee and I have no right to judge his evaluation of players or tell him how to manage his team

The only reason for a veto is collusion.

... which is an animal that's almost never seen in the wild.

All trades are, by definition, collusion. A good Commissioner should veto all trades.

Ok that's not true at all if it makes you feel better change it from collusion to unfair trade practices

Feel free to come up with a workable definition of "collusion" that keeps trades legal but other unfair acts not.

Two teams conspiring to cheat or deceive the rest of the league?

Trades are going to vary across the spectrum from balanced to extremely one sided. Although most trades, even the "imbalanced" ones, are legitimate - there is a point where the motive is either collusive or threatens the competitive integrity of the league. A good commissioner should be able to tell the difference based on the situation and people involved.

As other posters have stated, we don't need a collusion detector or tedious definitions. I don't even have to "prove" it. You know it when you see it.

I "review" trades and exactly twice I have contacted an owner with one simple question - "Help me understand how this trade improves your team". In one instance, the person could not and did not. It became evident they were trying to help a fellow owner rather than compete against them. That owner was quietly uninvited in the off season.

Hypothetical question: Team A makes an obviously lopsided trade with Team B (Say it's as obvious as trading away a top-10 RB starter for his own backup). Trade, in no way, helps improve Team A's roster. However, it does dramatically improve Team B's chance of beating Team C, which would then propel Team A into the money round of the playoffs. Therefore, the trade does improve Team A significantly as a franchise. Collusion? It definitely improves team A, so by your rules, no.

Secondly, only the rare trade actually improves both teams. Most trades end up as a loss for one side. You should be vetoing most trades because the true even swap is near impossible.

 

[doyler]

Actually I believe trades should be (possibly) overturned in two cases:

1) Collusion: always, if proven

2) Trades that upset the balance of the league just out of spite/to quit. If the 0-6 team trades Brees/Forte/Gronk for Justin Blackmon it is NOT COLLUSION, but it severely throws off the balance of the league, and I'd probably reverse it in that case.

 

[Coach3K]

Feel free to come up with a workable definition of "collusion" that keeps trades legal but other unfair acts not.

How about Oxford dictionary?noun

secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others

Law: illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially between ostensible opponents in a lawsuit.

Keywords: "illegal" and "cheat"

No one freely announces every trade offer they make. That would just give away a competitive advantage. Honest trades may be secret and may even involve some deception, to keep others from getting a jump on you. But crossing the line into illegal/rule-breaking/unethical/cheating territory with another player is what makes it collusion.

Two or more teams conspiring to break the rules in the course of a transaction. Fairly simple...you may not be able to put a perfect definition on it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that it's right.

Now maybe all of your leagues have no rules, written or unspoken. If that's the case, then for you, collusion wouldn't exist because there are no rules to violate, but that seems pretty unlikely.

From someone's comments above, it seems like this isn't the first time this has some up, so I may just be feeding a troll, so I'll just leave it at that.

Feel free to come up with a workable definition of "collusion" that keeps trades legal but other unfair acts not.

We don't need to come up with one, the dictionary definition of collusion works perfectly here. A "secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose "Fantasy rules allow for trades so they are not illegal. To be collusion it would have to have a deceitful purpose... violating other tenets of the game like that you compete as individual teams, you try to win your team's games, etc.

I assume you both then define what's an "illegal" trade in your rules? Or have some sort of mindreading technology you use against your owners to see if they're being deceitful? You're just substituting one poorly defined term for two more.

Yes, we do address it and note examples of illegal/cheating activities, such as temporary trades to get around bye weeks or for key match-ups (with swap-backs after), tanking, dumping players, and trades involving injured players. We have a list of examples not to be an all-encompassing list of laws, but to set the "sniff" threshold...and when something doesn't "smell" right, we use common sense to work through it.Of course, we're all logical, mature adults with respect for one another built over 15+ years of friendship and fantasy play (and these issues rarely come up at all anyway), so your mileage may vary.

Also note that I stated deception itself isn't a necessarily a vice unto itself...that can be a valid strategy. But deception doesn't have to equal illegal or cheating. I think that's evident by the fact that the play-action pass doesn't result in a penalty on the real football field (whereas faking an injury in order to circumvent the game's clock rules can). That's just one example of the distinction...I'm sure you can imagine others.

You could have just said "we use mind-reading" and leave it at that.

And if the "sniff test" is so effective, how come there are a dozen "is this collusion or not? My Ouija board is broken" threads every week in here?

No one's put up a real definition of collusion yet that is concrete, which doesn't involve reading tea leaves or holding a seance to figure out what's going on.

Bad troll is bad. Enough of my time wasted in this thread. Good day sir!

 

[Amused to Death]

Veto only when it involves collusion. Bad trades are only considered bad by the people that are not involved. Let each owner run his/her own team.

I try to explain to the league no matter how bad I think the trade is he paid his entry fee and I have no right to judge his evaluation of players or tell him how to manage his team

The only reason for a veto is collusion.

... which is an animal that's almost never seen in the wild.

All trades are, by definition, collusion. A good Commissioner should veto all trades.

Ok that's not true at all if it makes you feel better change it from collusion to unfair trade practices

Feel free to come up with a workable definition of "collusion" that keeps trades legal but other unfair acts not.

Two teams conspiring to cheat or deceive the rest of the league?

Trades are going to vary across the spectrum from balanced to extremely one sided. Although most trades, even the "imbalanced" ones, are legitimate - there is a point where the motive is either collusive or threatens the competitive integrity of the league. A good commissioner should be able to tell the difference based on the situation and people involved.

As other posters have stated, we don't need a collusion detector or tedious definitions. I don't even have to "prove" it. You know it when you see it.

I "review" trades and exactly twice I have contacted an owner with one simple question - "Help me understand how this trade improves your team". In one instance, the person could not and did not. It became evident they were trying to help a fellow owner rather than compete against them. That owner was quietly uninvited in the off season.

Hypothetical question: Team A makes an obviously lopsided trade with Team B (Say it's as obvious as trading away a top-10 RB starter for his own backup). Trade, in no way, helps improve Team A's roster. However, it does dramatically improve Team B's chance of beating Team C, which would then propel Team A into the money round of the playoffs. Therefore, the trade does improve Team A significantly as a franchise. Collusion? It definitely improves team A, so by your rules, no.

Secondly, only the rare trade actually improves both teams. Most trades end up as a loss for one side. You should be vetoing most trades because the true even swap is near impossible.

That is a form of collusion. 2 teams are scheming to beat another by A using B against C. And you can't allow any trade-back.

 

[habsfan]

Veto only when it involves collusion. Bad trades are only considered bad by the people that are not involved. Let each owner run his/her own team.

I try to explain to the league no matter how bad I think the trade is he paid his entry fee and I have no right to judge his evaluation of players or tell him how to manage his team

The only reason for a veto is collusion.

... which is an animal that's almost never seen in the wild.

All trades are, by definition, collusion. A good Commissioner should veto all trades.

Ok that's not true at all if it makes you feel better change it from collusion to unfair trade practices

Feel free to come up with a workable definition of "collusion" that keeps trades legal but other unfair acts not.

Two teams conspiring to cheat or deceive the rest of the league?

Trades are going to vary across the spectrum from balanced to extremely one sided. Although most trades, even the "imbalanced" ones, are legitimate - there is a point where the motive is either collusive or threatens the competitive integrity of the league. A good commissioner should be able to tell the difference based on the situation and people involved.

As other posters have stated, we don't need a collusion detector or tedious definitions. I don't even have to "prove" it. You know it when you see it.

I "review" trades and exactly twice I have contacted an owner with one simple question - "Help me understand how this trade improves your team". In one instance, the person could not and did not. It became evident they were trying to help a fellow owner rather than compete against them. That owner was quietly uninvited in the off season.

Hypothetical question: Team A makes an obviously lopsided trade with Team B (Say it's as obvious as trading away a top-10 RB starter for his own backup). Trade, in no way, helps improve Team A's roster. However, it does dramatically improve Team B's chance of beating Team C, which would then propel Team A into the money round of the playoffs. Therefore, the trade does improve Team A significantly as a franchise. Collusion? It definitely improves team A, so by your rules, no.

Secondly, only the rare trade actually improves both teams. Most trades end up as a loss for one side. You should be vetoing most trades because the true even swap is near impossible.

Item #1 - If my arm was caught in a bear trap and I chewed it off to escape, the question of whether or not I've "improved" myself is a bit philosophical. You would clearly say yes. My body (or at the very least, my arm) would likely say "no".

Item #2 - How trades "end up" is irrelevant. I'm more interested in an owner's rationale for making the trade, and then only in the rare instance where I cannot come up with a potential rationale on my own. If their intent was to improve their team, they should be able to articulate how that would unfold - regardless of what I might personally think of the likelihood of that happening.

 

[Sarnoff]

Hypothetical question: Team A makes an obviously lopsided trade with Team B (Say it's as obvious as trading away a top-10 RB starter for his own backup). Trade, in no way, helps improve Team A's roster. However, it does dramatically improve Team B's chance of beating Team C, which would then propel Team A into the money round of the playoffs. Therefore, the trade does improve Team A significantly as a franchise. Collusion? It definitely improves team A, so by your rules, no.

Secondly, only the rare trade actually improves both teams. Most trades end up as a loss for one side. You should be vetoing most trades because the true even swap is near impossible.

That is a form of collusion. 2 teams are scheming to beat another by A using B against C. And you can't allow any trade-back.

I said nothing about tradebacks. Trade is permanent. It's a trade done simply to improve both participants, Team A and Team B. It's not a secret, nor is it deceitful. If it's collusion, please feel free to come up with some new definition of collusion, because it's not covered by any we've seen in the thread so far.

 

[Amused to Death]

Hypothetical question: Team A makes an obviously lopsided trade with Team B (Say it's as obvious as trading away a top-10 RB starter for his own backup). Trade, in no way, helps improve Team A's roster. However, it does dramatically improve Team B's chance of beating Team C, which would then propel Team A into the money round of the playoffs. Therefore, the trade does improve Team A significantly as a franchise. Collusion? It definitely improves team A, so by your rules, no.

Secondly, only the rare trade actually improves both teams. Most trades end up as a loss for one side. You should be vetoing most trades because the true even swap is near impossible.

That is a form of collusion. 2 teams are scheming to beat another by A using B against C. And you can't allow any trade-back.

I said nothing about tradebacks. Trade is permanent. It's a trade done simply to improve both participants, Team A and Team B. It's not a secret, nor is it deceitful. If it's collusion, please feel free to come up with some new definition of collusion, because it's not covered by any we've seen in the thread so far.

You should play in leagues that don't allow trades. Team A and Team B are colluding against team C in your hypothetical.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Hypothetical question: Team A makes an obviously lopsided trade with Team B (Say it's as obvious as trading away a top-10 RB starter for his own backup). Trade, in no way, helps improve Team A's roster. However, it does dramatically improve Team B's chance of beating Team C, which would then propel Team A into the money round of the playoffs. Therefore, the trade does improve Team A significantly as a franchise. Collusion? It definitely improves team A, so by your rules, no.

Secondly, only the rare trade actually improves both teams. Most trades end up as a loss for one side. You should be vetoing most trades because the true even swap is near impossible.

That is a form of collusion. 2 teams are scheming to beat another by A using B against C. And you can't allow any trade-back.

I said nothing about tradebacks. Trade is permanent. It's a trade done simply to improve both participants, Team A and Team B. It's not a secret, nor is it deceitful. If it's collusion, please feel free to come up with some new definition of collusion, because it's not covered by any we've seen in the thread so far.

You should play in leagues that don't allow trades. Team A and Team B are colluding against team C in your hypothetical.

Not necessarily - what if Team A just offered it to Team B with no discussion. Team A did so because he needed Team B to win. Team B accepted because it was a good deal for him.

As a commisiner I would not have a problem with this. Back when I played roto-baseball, you'd see trades like this. Team A would need Team B to pass Team C in saves in order to knock his closest competition back a bit, so he'd trade Team B a closer for a marginal return.

ETA: I do realize it's a grey area and Team C would probably raise a stink - but why wouldn't we allow Team A to act in his own best interest?

 

[Amused to Death]

Hypothetical question: Team A makes an obviously lopsided trade with Team B (Say it's as obvious as trading away a top-10 RB starter for his own backup). Trade, in no way, helps improve Team A's roster. However, it does dramatically improve Team B's chance of beating Team C, which would then propel Team A into the money round of the playoffs. Therefore, the trade does improve Team A significantly as a franchise. Collusion? It definitely improves team A, so by your rules, no.

Secondly, only the rare trade actually improves both teams. Most trades end up as a loss for one side. You should be vetoing most trades because the true even swap is near impossible.

That is a form of collusion. 2 teams are scheming to beat another by A using B against C. And you can't allow any trade-back.

I said nothing about tradebacks. Trade is permanent. It's a trade done simply to improve both participants, Team A and Team B. It's not a secret, nor is it deceitful. If it's collusion, please feel free to come up with some new definition of collusion, because it's not covered by any we've seen in the thread so far.

You should play in leagues that don't allow trades. Team A and Team B are colluding against team C in your hypothetical.

Not necessarily - what if Team A just offered it to Team B with no discussion. Team A did so because he needed Team B to win. Team B accepted because it was a good deal for him.

As a commisiner I would not have a problem with this. Back when I played roto-baseball, you'd see trades like this. Team A would need Team B to pass Team C in saves in order to knock his closest competition back a bit, so he'd trade Team B a closer for a marginal return.

ETA: I do realize it's a grey area and Team C would probably raise a stink - but why wouldn't we allow Team A to act in his own best interest?

I do recognize the gray area there and yes, it benefits A for C to lose. That's why I initially mentioned no trade-backs. A would be sacrificing a lot in this hypothetical. Assuming there's a trade deadline, there are still weeks of FFL remaining. I could see it being acceptable if A had no discussion with B and A was satisfied with just being in the money. Its bordering on roster sharing imo.

 

[Sarnoff]

Why is a trade OK with no discussion between teams, but not when they've sent an email to each other beforehand?

Now your definition of collusion has to expand dramatically.

But, you're right, it is better to play in leagues with no trades, because all trades are a form of collusion because you can't really define collusion in a way that permits them.

 

[Topes]

Mmmm... steamed hams...

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Why is a trade OK with no discussion between teams, but not when they've sent an email to each other beforehand?

Now your definition of collusion has to expand dramatically.

But, you're right, it is better to play in leagues with no trades, because all trades are a form of collusion because you can't really define collusion in a way that permits them.

I know you're just trolling this thread, but I'll explain myslef, just to make my point clear. I meant no discussion as to Team A and Team B conspiring some grand scheme to screw over Team C, not that there can't be any discussion whatsoever. Also Team B would still need to be in contention (meaning they receive a true benefit) or it would make the deal appear even shadier and lend more credence to a collusion claim.

Admittedly, like I said, this scenario is a grey area. Team A should be able to make this deal if his only hope of making the playoffs is for Team B to beat Team C, but it would certainly stir up some controversy I'm sure. Generally speaking nearly 100% of all trades should be approved, so that would favor letting this go through. Team C would just need to accept a "bad beat".

 

[Sarnoff]

Why is a trade OK with no discussion between teams, but not when they've sent an email to each other beforehand?

Now your definition of collusion has to expand dramatically.

But, you're right, it is better to play in leagues with no trades, because all trades are a form of collusion because you can't really define collusion in a way that permits them.

I know you're just trolling this thread, but I'll explain myslef, just to make my point clear. I meant no discussion as to Team A and Team B conspiring some grand scheme to screw over Team C, not that there can't be any discussion whatsoever. Also Team B would still need to be in contention (meaning they receive a true benefit) or it would make the deal appear even shadier and lend more credence to a collusion claim.

Admittedly, like I said, this scenario is a grey area. Team A should be able to make this deal if his only hope of making the playoffs is for Team B to beat Team C, but it would certainly stir up some controversy I'm sure. Generally speaking nearly 100% of all trades should be approved, so that would favor letting this go through. Team C would just need to accept a "bad beat".

I shouldn't have said "a trade", I should have said "this trade". Some are OK with Team A trading RB1 to Team B for his backup RB2. But, if an email exchange stated that it was so that Team B would have better shot at beating Team C, some are not OK with it any more. Or that, with evidence of this email exchange, it's "collusion". But if those emails are not sent, it's "not collusion".

I just want to see how many FF commishes demand access to all communications within the league, because that's now part of how you'd have to define collusion in the rules... unless we're back to mindreading to determine intent. I'm still looking for a working definition of collusion that is 1) concretely defined, without relying on other undefined terms, 2) works in all cases, and 3) has trades legal. Trades are a collusion between teams.