Should we just shut it regarding this trade? (1 Viewer)

[jobarules]

Or even, banning anyone who is eliminated from playoff contention from making any trades, because, why?

That’s in our redraft league constitution.

Eliminated teams may not make trades.

With points as a tie-breaker, a 2-8 team may not be eliminated.

 

[I Am the Stig]

Rubbish trade. If I were Commissioner, I would veto it without a second thought. If I were a team in the league and the Commissioner allowed this trade to go through, I would quit the league at the end of the season, as there is a serious lack of integrity.

No you wouldn’t.

 

[Dickies]

I am well aware that almost all trades should be allowed unless it is clear collusion. But I'm going to just throw this one out there as there are many unhappy owners in this league about this one.

Redraft, the trade is between the last place team (2-8) in a 10 team league and the first place team (9-1). They are friends.

Last place team receives: J. Connor, D. Henderson
First place team receives: Dalvin Cook, N. Harris

I admit this one rubs me the wrong way, especially since there is no realistic reason for the last place team to make the trade.

This is really a trade about Connor vs Cook.

Eno has been released so Connor has zero competition for touches and Cook always carries the risk of a separated shoulder.

Henderson for Najee is a wash. Harris is losing touches to Warren.

At first glance, yeah, this looks bad but if you dig in a little it really isn’t that terrible of a trade.

LOL

Cook > Connor
Harris > Henderson

PLUS Cook & Harris are past their bye weeks while Connor and Henderson still both have bye weeks upcoming. That might be useful info for a 2-8 team.

This is the #1 reason why this trade stinks for the 2-8 team. They really cannot afford more bye week fillers at this point in the season.

My league started paying out weekly high scores to keep the last place teams motivated to not throw in the towel. The last place team actually happened to claim it last week with Fields going off.

 

[I Am the Stig]

You want to call collusion when the reality is the 2-8 person just doesn’t care as much as we do. That’s pretty much it.

Can we assume the 9-1 team does care?

If the 2-8 team doesn’t care & the 9-1 team does care, that’s textbook collusion. Only one side stands to benefit from a trade.

In that circumstance it’s irrelevant who the players involved are. A team that can’t win shouldn’t be making trades with teams that can. It’s cut & dry.

How is that “textbook collusion”?

I’m sorry to break it to you but most players in friends and family leagues really just don’t care. They don’t care if they win much less if someone else wins.

These aren’t deep conspiracies, just a player who at 2-8, is out of it, and ready to move on with their life. They likely don’t care and at 2-8 they can’t make a case that having Cook has made their competitive experience any better.

If and only if you can prove that they are going to share the winnings then you have collusion but beyond that all you have is a lopsided trade that is within the range of outcomes of a manager who is 2-8. They just are not a good manager, period.

 

[I Am the Stig]

I am well aware that almost all trades should be allowed unless it is clear collusion. But I'm going to just throw this one out there as there are many unhappy owners in this league about this one.

Redraft, the trade is between the last place team (2-8) in a 10 team league and the first place team (9-1). They are friends.

Last place team receives: J. Connor, D. Henderson
First place team receives: Dalvin Cook, N. Harris

I admit this one rubs me the wrong way, especially since there is no realistic reason for the last place team to make the trade.

This is really a trade about Connor vs Cook.

Eno has been released so Connor has zero competition for touches and Cook always carries the risk of a separated shoulder.

Henderson for Najee is a wash. Harris is losing touches to Warren.

At first glance, yeah, this looks bad but if you dig in a little it really isn’t that terrible of a trade.

LOL

Cook > Connor
Harris > Henderson

PLUS Cook & Harris are past their bye weeks while Connor and Henderson still both have bye weeks upcoming. That might be useful info for a 2-8 team.

This is the #1 reason why this trade stinks for the 2-8 team. They really cannot afford more bye week fillers at this point in the season.

My league started paying out weekly high scores to keep the last place teams motivated to not throw in the towel. The last place team actually happened to claim it last week with Fields going off.

I was going to make a point about leagues finding ways to maintain competitive interest.

Frankly, casual players check out during the byes, don’t see how to stay competitive, get bored and lose interest. That is what leads to a trade like this.

From the 2-8 players perspective this trade has probably been the most interesting FF has been in weeks.

 

[socrates]

Rubbish trade. If I were Commissioner, I would veto it without a second thought. If I were a team in the league and the Commissioner allowed this trade to go through, I would quit the league at the end of the season, as there is a serious lack of integrity.

No you wouldn’t.

Without question I would on both counts.

 

[Gally]

I am well aware that almost all trades should be allowed unless it is clear collusion. But I'm going to just throw this one out there as there are many unhappy owners in this league about this one.

Redraft, the trade is between the last place team (2-8) in a 10 team league and the first place team (9-1). They are friends.

Last place team receives: J. Connor, D. Henderson
First place team receives: Dalvin Cook, N. Harris

I admit this one rubs me the wrong way, especially since there is no realistic reason for the last place team to make the trade.

This is really a trade about Connor vs Cook.

Eno has been released so Connor has zero competition for touches and Cook always carries the risk of a separated shoulder.

Henderson for Najee is a wash. Harris is losing touches to Warren.

At first glance, yeah, this looks bad but if you dig in a little it really isn’t that terrible of a trade.

LOL

Cook > Connor
Harris > Henderson

PLUS Cook & Harris are past their bye weeks while Connor and Henderson still both have bye weeks upcoming. That might be useful info for a 2-8 team.

Harris has been underperforming all year and is starting to lose work to Warren. Frankly, Harris is not a difference maker and is a 12 team RB2 and 10 Team flex.

All true and YET HEs still BETTER than Henderson

In your opinion, but Harris is losing work, and not for nothing but a knee injury has popped up. So, yeah, a RB with a lisfranc injury and now knee soreness who is losing touches to who appears to be a better back is just CRAZY to trade for Henderson on a team who just lost 50% of their offense with the Kupp injury.

Henderson just had 6 carries in the last game and also could be losing work to Kyren. Youre really stretching bud.

Henderson is actually sitting as a FA in my 12 team league.

I was coming in here to say the same thing. Harris >>>>> Henderson strictly on touches alone. Henderson has gone 4 touches, 12 touches, 6 touches over his last three games. Now Kyren is back and he will get a shot with the season essentially over. I don't see Henderson being a bellcow with 15+ touches every week. Harris, on the other hand, has seen 17/8/20 over his last three weeks and will continue to be involved even with Warren getting a bigger share. These two are not close in value.

All that being said as a commish it's as simple as asking the last place team for his rationale of accepting this deal. If he doesn't have one then it would be likely to overturn.

 

[TartanLion]

You want to call collusion when the reality is the 2-8 person just doesn’t care as much as we do. That’s pretty much it.

Can we assume the 9-1 team does care?

If the 2-8 team doesn’t care & the 9-1 team does care, that’s textbook collusion. Only one side stands to benefit from a trade.

In that circumstance it’s irrelevant who the players involved are. A team that can’t win shouldn’t be making trades with teams that can. It’s cut & dry.

How is that “textbook collusion”?

I’m sorry to break it to you but most players in friends and family leagues really just don’t care. They don’t care if they win much less if someone else wins.

These aren’t deep conspiracies, just a player who at 2-8, is out of it, and ready to move on with their life. They likely don’t care and at 2-8 they can’t make a case that having Cook has made their competitive experience any better.

If and only if you can prove that they are going to share the winnings then you have collusion but beyond that all you have is a lopsided trade that is within the range of outcomes of a manager who is 2-8. They just are not a good manager, period.

If the 2-8 doesn’t care and is ready to move on with their life then they simply stop logging in to their app and don’t even respond to the trade offer.

The three other players, being of a certain level, are almost inconsequential here. With the context of the team records etc this smells like nothing more than a vehicle to move a stud RB ( Cook ) to the the guy who might win, and to try and dress it up acceptably by involving some other reasonable players

Trade smells super bad

 

[I Am the Stig]

I am well aware that almost all trades should be allowed unless it is clear collusion. But I'm going to just throw this one out there as there are many unhappy owners in this league about this one.

Redraft, the trade is between the last place team (2-8) in a 10 team league and the first place team (9-1). They are friends.

Last place team receives: J. Connor, D. Henderson
First place team receives: Dalvin Cook, N. Harris

I admit this one rubs me the wrong way, especially since there is no realistic reason for the last place team to make the trade.

This is really a trade about Connor vs Cook.

Eno has been released so Connor has zero competition for touches and Cook always carries the risk of a separated shoulder.

Henderson for Najee is a wash. Harris is losing touches to Warren.

At first glance, yeah, this looks bad but if you dig in a little it really isn’t that terrible of a trade.

Connor isn't exactly an iron-man. He has a long history of injury going back to his days with the Steelers and Pitt Panthers. This is an awful trade IMO and without knowing the league rules and how this benefits a 2-8 team, it seems very fishy

Like Cook, Connor is also glass but when healthy, like Cook, he produces.

I am well aware that almost all trades should be allowed unless it is clear collusion. But I'm going to just throw this one out there as there are many unhappy owners in this league about this one.

Redraft, the trade is between the last place team (2-8) in a 10 team league and the first place team (9-1). They are friends.

Last place team receives: J. Connor, D. Henderson
First place team receives: Dalvin Cook, N. Harris

I admit this one rubs me the wrong way, especially since there is no realistic reason for the last place team to make the trade.

This is really a trade about Connor vs Cook.

Eno has been released so Connor has zero competition for touches and Cook always carries the risk of a separated shoulder.

Henderson for Najee is a wash. Harris is losing touches to Warren.

At first glance, yeah, this looks bad but if you dig in a little it really isn’t that terrible of a trade.

Sorry, but there is no sugar coating this trade.

Yup, this happens every year and often times injuries pop up. Just let the fantasy gods play things out.

The guy is 9-1 with or without this trade. It is funny how these threads NEVER show the rosters of the teams to flesh out context.

Would I accept Connor and give up Cook? Personally, probably not, but at 2-8, I also can’t say that Cook has been the difference maker for me either.

This is about brand name and not much more.

What full rosters do you need to see for context in a RB+RB for RB+RB trade?

You want to call collusion when the reality is the 2-8 person just doesn’t care as much as we do. That’s pretty much it.

Can we assume the 9-1 team does care?

If the 2-8 team doesn’t care & the 9-1 team does care, that’s textbook collusion. Only one side stands to benefit from a trade.

In that circumstance it’s irrelevant who the players involved are. A team that can’t win shouldn’t be making trades with teams that can. It’s cut & dry.

How is that “textbook collusion”?

I’m sorry to break it to you but most players in friends and family leagues really just don’t care. They don’t care if they win much less if someone else wins.

These aren’t deep conspiracies, just a player who at 2-8, is out of it, and ready to move on with their life. They likely don’t care and at 2-8 they can’t make a case that having Cook has made their competitive experience any better.

If and only if you can prove that they are going to share the winnings then you have collusion but beyond that all you have is a lopsided trade that is within the range of outcomes of a manager who is 2-8. They just are not a good manager, period.

If the 2-8 doesn’t care and is ready to move on with their life then they simply stop logging in to their app and don’t even respond to the trade offer.

The three other players, being of a certain level, are almost inconsequential here. With the context of the team records etc this smells like nothing more than a vehicle to move a stud RB ( Cook ) to the the guy who might win, and to try and dress it up acceptably by involving some other reasonable players

Trade smells super bad

I traded Joe Burrow for Kadarius Toney straight up.

Are you going to veto that and kick me out of the league?

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Or even, banning anyone who is eliminated from playoff contention from making any trades, because, why?

That’s in our redraft league constitution.

Eliminated teams may not make trades.

With points as a tie-breaker, a 2-8 team may not be eliminated.

Like I said in my other posts, “if”

If is important as part of the equation.

If 1 team is eliminated, it’s collusion. That drives this entire question, IMO.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

You want to call collusion when the reality is the 2-8 person just doesn’t care as much as we do. That’s pretty much it.

Can we assume the 9-1 team does care?

If the 2-8 team doesn’t care & the 9-1 team does care, that’s textbook collusion. Only one side stands to benefit from a trade.

In that circumstance it’s irrelevant who the players involved are. A team that can’t win shouldn’t be making trades with teams that can. It’s cut & dry.

How is that “textbook collusion”?

I’m sorry to break it to you but most players in friends and family leagues really just don’t care. They don’t care if they win much less if someone else wins.

These aren’t deep conspiracies, just a player who at 2-8, is out of it, and ready to move on with their life. They likely don’t care and at 2-8 they can’t make a case that having Cook has made their competitive experience any better.

If and only if you can prove that they are going to share the winnings then you have collusion but beyond that all you have is a lopsided trade that is within the range of outcomes of a manager who is 2-8. They just are not a good manager, period.

If one team has something to gain and the other does not, it’s collusion.

It literally defines collision.

You wrote a lot of words, but I stopped reading after 1 sentence, because it is absolutely and obviously collusion.

Two teams making a trade helping only 1 team to improve = collusion.

It’s impossible to be more collusion, if that’s the case & 1 of the teams is eliminated. It’s collusion any way you look at it.

Hope this helps to clear up your misunderstanding of the term “collusion”.

ETA, ok curiosity got the better of me and I read the rest. It doesn’t matter of anyone “cares”. It’s collusion. 100%. Has nothing to do with “conspiracy”, just the facts. 2 teams dealing to help 1 team win = collusion.

In fact, the team that’s playoff bound could even be losing the trade, and it’s STILL collusion. Because it’s collusion.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

You want to call collusion when the reality is the 2-8 person just doesn’t care as much as we do. That’s pretty much it.

Can we assume the 9-1 team does care?

If the 2-8 team doesn’t care & the 9-1 team does care, that’s textbook collusion. Only one side stands to benefit from a trade.

In that circumstance it’s irrelevant who the players involved are. A team that can’t win shouldn’t be making trades with teams that can. It’s cut & dry.

How is that “textbook collusion”?

I’m sorry to break it to you but most players in friends and family leagues really just don’t care. They don’t care if they win much less if someone else wins.

These aren’t deep conspiracies, just a player who at 2-8, is out of it, and ready to move on with their life. They likely don’t care and at 2-8 they can’t make a case that having Cook has made their competitive experience any better.

If and only if you can prove that they are going to share the winnings then you have collusion but beyond that all you have is a lopsided trade that is within the range of outcomes of a manager who is 2-8. They just are not a good manager, period.

If the 2-8 doesn’t care and is ready to move on with their life then they simply stop logging in to their app and don’t even respond to the trade offer.

The three other players, being of a certain level, are almost inconsequential here. With the context of the team records etc this smells like nothing more than a vehicle to move a stud RB ( Cook ) to the the guy who might win, and to try and dress it up acceptably by involving some other reasonable players

Trade smells super bad

This.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I am well aware that almost all trades should be allowed unless it is clear collusion. But I'm going to just throw this one out there as there are many unhappy owners in this league about this one.

Redraft, the trade is between the last place team (2-8) in a 10 team league and the first place team (9-1). They are friends.

Last place team receives: J. Connor, D. Henderson
First place team receives: Dalvin Cook, N. Harris

I admit this one rubs me the wrong way, especially since there is no realistic reason for the last place team to make the trade.

This is really a trade about Connor vs Cook.

Eno has been released so Connor has zero competition for touches and Cook always carries the risk of a separated shoulder.

Henderson for Najee is a wash. Harris is losing touches to Warren.

At first glance, yeah, this looks bad but if you dig in a little it really isn’t that terrible of a trade.

LOL

Cook > Connor
Harris > Henderson

PLUS Cook & Harris are past their bye weeks while Connor and Henderson still both have bye weeks upcoming. That might be useful info for a 2-8 team.

This is the #1 reason why this trade stinks for the 2-8 team. They really cannot afford more bye week fillers at this point in the season.

My league started paying out weekly high scores to keep the last place teams motivated to not throw in the towel. The last place team actually happened to claim it last week with Fields going off.

I was going to make a point about leagues finding ways to maintain competitive interest.

Frankly, casual players check out during the byes, don’t see how to stay competitive, get bored and lose interest. That is what leads to a trade like this.

From the 2-8 players perspective this trade has probably been the most interesting FF has been in weeks.

Which is all entirely irrelevant if that 2-8 team is eliminated.

Because then it’s collusion.

 

[I Am the Stig]

You want to call collusion when the reality is the 2-8 person just doesn’t care as much as we do. That’s pretty much it.

Can we assume the 9-1 team does care?

If the 2-8 team doesn’t care & the 9-1 team does care, that’s textbook collusion. Only one side stands to benefit from a trade.

In that circumstance it’s irrelevant who the players involved are. A team that can’t win shouldn’t be making trades with teams that can. It’s cut & dry.

How is that “textbook collusion”?

I’m sorry to break it to you but most players in friends and family leagues really just don’t care. They don’t care if they win much less if someone else wins.

These aren’t deep conspiracies, just a player who at 2-8, is out of it, and ready to move on with their life. They likely don’t care and at 2-8 they can’t make a case that having Cook has made their competitive experience any better.

If and only if you can prove that they are going to share the winnings then you have collusion but beyond that all you have is a lopsided trade that is within the range of outcomes of a manager who is 2-8. They just are not a good manager, period.

If one team has something to gain and the other does not, it’s collusion.

It literally defines collision.

You wrote a lot of words, but I stopped reading after 1 sentence, because it is absolutely and obviously collusion.

Two teams making a trade helping only 1 team to improve = collusion.

It’s impossible to be more collusion, if that’s the case & 1 of the teams is eliminated. It’s collusion any way you look at it.

Hope this helps to clear up your misunderstanding of the term “collusion”.

ETA, ok curiosity got the better of me and I read the rest. It doesn’t matter of anyone “cares”. It’s collusion. 100%. Has nothing to do with “conspiracy”, just the facts. 2 teams dealing to help 1 team win = collusion.

In fact, the team that’s playoff bound could even be losing the trade, and it’s STILL collusion. Because it’s collusion.

Collusion generally requires a quid pro quo

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

You want to call collusion when the reality is the 2-8 person just doesn’t care as much as we do. That’s pretty much it.

Can we assume the 9-1 team does care?

If the 2-8 team doesn’t care & the 9-1 team does care, that’s textbook collusion. Only one side stands to benefit from a trade.

In that circumstance it’s irrelevant who the players involved are. A team that can’t win shouldn’t be making trades with teams that can. It’s cut & dry.

How is that “textbook collusion”?

I’m sorry to break it to you but most players in friends and family leagues really just don’t care. They don’t care if they win much less if someone else wins.

These aren’t deep conspiracies, just a player who at 2-8, is out of it, and ready to move on with their life. They likely don’t care and at 2-8 they can’t make a case that having Cook has made their competitive experience any better.

If and only if you can prove that they are going to share the winnings then you have collusion but beyond that all you have is a lopsided trade that is within the range of outcomes of a manager who is 2-8. They just are not a good manager, period.

If one team has something to gain and the other does not, it’s collusion.

It literally defines collision.

You wrote a lot of words, but I stopped reading after 1 sentence, because it is absolutely and obviously collusion.

Two teams making a trade helping only 1 team to improve = collusion.

It’s impossible to be more collusion, if that’s the case & 1 of the teams is eliminated. It’s collusion any way you look at it.

Hope this helps to clear up your misunderstanding of the term “collusion”.

ETA, ok curiosity got the better of me and I read the rest. It doesn’t matter of anyone “cares”. It’s collusion. 100%. Has nothing to do with “conspiracy”, just the facts. 2 teams dealing to help 1 team win = collusion.

In fact, the team that’s playoff bound could even be losing the trade, and it’s STILL collusion. Because it’s collusion.

Collusion generally requires a quid pro quo

No, it doesn’t. At all.

That’s (ironically) called “a fair trade” - two teams dealing players of value to mutual benefit. Quid pro quo.

Unless it’s something external to the trade, e.g. cash payment, bottle of scotch, round of golf, date with a sister, etc. then we’re right back to “1 team gains in FF, the other doesn’t”, which is collusion.

All it requires is 1 team helping another team win without benefiting their own team. If a team is eliminated from playoff contention, then the contents of the trade are irrelevant - it’s collusion.

 

[I Am the Stig]

You want to call collusion when the reality is the 2-8 person just doesn’t care as much as we do. That’s pretty much it.

Can we assume the 9-1 team does care?

If the 2-8 team doesn’t care & the 9-1 team does care, that’s textbook collusion. Only one side stands to benefit from a trade.

In that circumstance it’s irrelevant who the players involved are. A team that can’t win shouldn’t be making trades with teams that can. It’s cut & dry.

How is that “textbook collusion”?

I’m sorry to break it to you but most players in friends and family leagues really just don’t care. They don’t care if they win much less if someone else wins.

These aren’t deep conspiracies, just a player who at 2-8, is out of it, and ready to move on with their life. They likely don’t care and at 2-8 they can’t make a case that having Cook has made their competitive experience any better.

If and only if you can prove that they are going to share the winnings then you have collusion but beyond that all you have is a lopsided trade that is within the range of outcomes of a manager who is 2-8. They just are not a good manager, period.

If one team has something to gain and the other does not, it’s collusion.

It literally defines collision.

You wrote a lot of words, but I stopped reading after 1 sentence, because it is absolutely and obviously collusion.

Two teams making a trade helping only 1 team to improve = collusion.

It’s impossible to be more collusion, if that’s the case & 1 of the teams is eliminated. It’s collusion any way you look at it.

Hope this helps to clear up your misunderstanding of the term “collusion”.

ETA, ok curiosity got the better of me and I read the rest. It doesn’t matter of anyone “cares”. It’s collusion. 100%. Has nothing to do with “conspiracy”, just the facts. 2 teams dealing to help 1 team win = collusion.

In fact, the team that’s playoff bound could even be losing the trade, and it’s STILL collusion. Because it’s collusion.

Collusion generally requires a quid pro quo

No, it doesn’t. At all.

That’s (ironically) called “a fair trade” - two teams dealing players of value to mutual benefit. Quid pro quo.

Unless it’s something external to the trade, e.g. cash payment, bottle of scotch, round of golf, date with a sister, etc. then we’re right back to “1 team gains in FF, the other doesn’t”, which is collusion.

All it requires is 1 team helping another team win without benefiting their own team. If a team is eliminated from playoff contention, then the contents of the trade are irrelevant - it’s collusion.

Except for when people in the Sharkpool claim that it isn’t a “fair trade”. Here, all
Trades that aren’t balanced are accused of collusion when often times they are not much more than incompetence.

There is no way that my Burrow for Toney trade is “fair”. So is it collusion?

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I am well aware that almost all trades should be allowed unless it is clear collusion. But I'm going to just throw this one out there as there are many unhappy owners in this league about this one.

Redraft, the trade is between the last place team (2-8) in a 10 team league and the first place team (9-1). They are friends.

Last place team receives: J. Connor, D. Henderson
First place team receives: Dalvin Cook, N. Harris

I admit this one rubs me the wrong way, especially since there is no realistic reason for the last place team to make the trade.

This is really a trade about Connor vs Cook.

Eno has been released so Connor has zero competition for touches and Cook always carries the risk of a separated shoulder.

Henderson for Najee is a wash. Harris is losing touches to Warren.

At first glance, yeah, this looks bad but if you dig in a little it really isn’t that terrible of a trade.

Connor isn't exactly an iron-man. He has a long history of injury going back to his days with the Steelers and Pitt Panthers. This is an awful trade IMO and without knowing the league rules and how this benefits a 2-8 team, it seems very fishy

Like Cook, Connor is also glass but when healthy, like Cook, he produces.

I am well aware that almost all trades should be allowed unless it is clear collusion. But I'm going to just throw this one out there as there are many unhappy owners in this league about this one.

Redraft, the trade is between the last place team (2-8) in a 10 team league and the first place team (9-1). They are friends.

Last place team receives: J. Connor, D. Henderson
First place team receives: Dalvin Cook, N. Harris

I admit this one rubs me the wrong way, especially since there is no realistic reason for the last place team to make the trade.

This is really a trade about Connor vs Cook.

Eno has been released so Connor has zero competition for touches and Cook always carries the risk of a separated shoulder.

Henderson for Najee is a wash. Harris is losing touches to Warren.

At first glance, yeah, this looks bad but if you dig in a little it really isn’t that terrible of a trade.

Sorry, but there is no sugar coating this trade.

Yup, this happens every year and often times injuries pop up. Just let the fantasy gods play things out.

The guy is 9-1 with or without this trade. It is funny how these threads NEVER show the rosters of the teams to flesh out context.

Would I accept Connor and give up Cook? Personally, probably not, but at 2-8, I also can’t say that Cook has been the difference maker for me either.

This is about brand name and not much more.

What full rosters do you need to see for context in a RB+RB for RB+RB trade?

You want to call collusion when the reality is the 2-8 person just doesn’t care as much as we do. That’s pretty much it.

Can we assume the 9-1 team does care?

If the 2-8 team doesn’t care & the 9-1 team does care, that’s textbook collusion. Only one side stands to benefit from a trade.

In that circumstance it’s irrelevant who the players involved are. A team that can’t win shouldn’t be making trades with teams that can. It’s cut & dry.

How is that “textbook collusion”?

I’m sorry to break it to you but most players in friends and family leagues really just don’t care. They don’t care if they win much less if someone else wins.

These aren’t deep conspiracies, just a player who at 2-8, is out of it, and ready to move on with their life. They likely don’t care and at 2-8 they can’t make a case that having Cook has made their competitive experience any better.

If and only if you can prove that they are going to share the winnings then you have collusion but beyond that all you have is a lopsided trade that is within the range of outcomes of a manager who is 2-8. They just are not a good manager, period.

If the 2-8 doesn’t care and is ready to move on with their life then they simply stop logging in to their app and don’t even respond to the trade offer.

The three other players, being of a certain level, are almost inconsequential here. With the context of the team records etc this smells like nothing more than a vehicle to move a stud RB ( Cook ) to the the guy who might win, and to try and dress it up acceptably by involving some other reasonable players

Trade smells super bad

I traded Joe Burrow for Kadarius Toney straight up.

Are you going to veto that and kick me out of the league?

Why would they? That’s just “a trade”.

Presumably you needed a WR. Presumably your trade partner needed a QB.

It’s a terrible, awful, no good, some would said “stupid” trade, but in my leagues we don’t present an IQ test for trade partners.

But if your team is mathematically eliminated from playoff contention, then yes - it’s collision. You’re giving away Burrow to a contending team and not helping your chances at making the playoffs because you can’t make the playoffs if you’re eliminated.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

You want to call collusion when the reality is the 2-8 person just doesn’t care as much as we do. That’s pretty much it.

Can we assume the 9-1 team does care?

If the 2-8 team doesn’t care & the 9-1 team does care, that’s textbook collusion. Only one side stands to benefit from a trade.

In that circumstance it’s irrelevant who the players involved are. A team that can’t win shouldn’t be making trades with teams that can. It’s cut & dry.

How is that “textbook collusion”?

I’m sorry to break it to you but most players in friends and family leagues really just don’t care. They don’t care if they win much less if someone else wins.

These aren’t deep conspiracies, just a player who at 2-8, is out of it, and ready to move on with their life. They likely don’t care and at 2-8 they can’t make a case that having Cook has made their competitive experience any better.

If and only if you can prove that they are going to share the winnings then you have collusion but beyond that all you have is a lopsided trade that is within the range of outcomes of a manager who is 2-8. They just are not a good manager, period.

If one team has something to gain and the other does not, it’s collusion.

It literally defines collision.

You wrote a lot of words, but I stopped reading after 1 sentence, because it is absolutely and obviously collusion.

Two teams making a trade helping only 1 team to improve = collusion.

It’s impossible to be more collusion, if that’s the case & 1 of the teams is eliminated. It’s collusion any way you look at it.

Hope this helps to clear up your misunderstanding of the term “collusion”.

ETA, ok curiosity got the better of me and I read the rest. It doesn’t matter of anyone “cares”. It’s collusion. 100%. Has nothing to do with “conspiracy”, just the facts. 2 teams dealing to help 1 team win = collusion.

In fact, the team that’s playoff bound could even be losing the trade, and it’s STILL collusion. Because it’s collusion.

Collusion generally requires a quid pro quo

No, it doesn’t. At all.

That’s (ironically) called “a fair trade” - two teams dealing players of value to mutual benefit. Quid pro quo.

Unless it’s something external to the trade, e.g. cash payment, bottle of scotch, round of golf, date with a sister, etc. then we’re right back to “1 team gains in FF, the other doesn’t”, which is collusion.

All it requires is 1 team helping another team win without benefiting their own team. If a team is eliminated from playoff contention, then the contents of the trade are irrelevant - it’s collusion.

Except for when people in the Sharkpool claim that it isn’t a “fair trade”. Here, all
Trades that aren’t balanced are accused of collusion when often times they are not much more than incompetence.

There is no way that my Burrow for Toney trade is “fair”. So is it collusion?

I literally just addressed this.

Trades don’t have to be “fair”. They just have to not be collusion.

 

[Cjw_55106]

My only conclusion:
@I Am the Stig is 2-8
@Dr. Octopus is 9-1

 

[socrates]

Trades don’t have to be “fair”. They just have to not be collusion.

I suppose it depends upon your definition of "collusion". I would argue that even if there is no cheating intended, a clearly lopsided ("unfair") trade can affect the competitive fairness and integrity of the league, and should therefore be vetoed.

 

[ghostguy123]

Well, Harris sucks and might be the backup soon, and cooks been meh.
I wouldn't do the trade but it's not the worst that's for sure.
However, if a team is mathematically eliminated, no trades allowed

 

[Stinkin Ref]

good example of why you should have an earlier trade deadline in leagues....it takes a lot of the noise about records/playoffs out of the equation.....if everybody is still technically "in the hunt" things like this rarely happen....

 

[I Am the Stig]

You want to call collusion when the reality is the 2-8 person just doesn’t care as much as we do. That’s pretty much it.

Can we assume the 9-1 team does care?

If the 2-8 team doesn’t care & the 9-1 team does care, that’s textbook collusion. Only one side stands to benefit from a trade.

In that circumstance it’s irrelevant who the players involved are. A team that can’t win shouldn’t be making trades with teams that can. It’s cut & dry.

How is that “textbook collusion”?

I’m sorry to break it to you but most players in friends and family leagues really just don’t care. They don’t care if they win much less if someone else wins.

These aren’t deep conspiracies, just a player who at 2-8, is out of it, and ready to move on with their life. They likely don’t care and at 2-8 they can’t make a case that having Cook has made their competitive experience any better.

If and only if you can prove that they are going to share the winnings then you have collusion but beyond that all you have is a lopsided trade that is within the range of outcomes of a manager who is 2-8. They just are not a good manager, period.

If one team has something to gain and the other does not, it’s collusion.

It literally defines collision.

You wrote a lot of words, but I stopped reading after 1 sentence, because it is absolutely and obviously collusion.

Two teams making a trade helping only 1 team to improve = collusion.

It’s impossible to be more collusion, if that’s the case & 1 of the teams is eliminated. It’s collusion any way you look at it.

Hope this helps to clear up your misunderstanding of the term “collusion”.

ETA, ok curiosity got the better of me and I read the rest. It doesn’t matter of anyone “cares”. It’s collusion. 100%. Has nothing to do with “conspiracy”, just the facts. 2 teams dealing to help 1 team win = collusion.

In fact, the team that’s playoff bound could even be losing the trade, and it’s STILL collusion. Because it’s collusion.

Collusion generally requires a quid pro quo

No, it doesn’t. At all.

That’s (ironically) called “a fair trade” - two teams dealing players of value to mutual benefit. Quid pro quo.

Unless it’s something external to the trade, e.g. cash payment, bottle of scotch, round of golf, date with a sister, etc. then we’re right back to “1 team gains in FF, the other doesn’t”, which is collusion.

All it requires is 1 team helping another team win without benefiting their own team. If a team is eliminated from playoff contention, then the contents of the trade are irrelevant - it’s collusion.

Except for when people in the Sharkpool claim that it isn’t a “fair trade”. Here, all
Trades that aren’t balanced are accused of collusion when often times they are not much more than incompetence.

There is no way that my Burrow for Toney trade is “fair”. So is it collusion?

I literally just addressed this.

Trades don’t have to be “fair”. They just have to not be collusion.

You want to call collusion when the reality is the 2-8 person just doesn’t care as much as we do. That’s pretty much it.

Can we assume the 9-1 team does care?

If the 2-8 team doesn’t care & the 9-1 team does care, that’s textbook collusion. Only one side stands to benefit from a trade.

In that circumstance it’s irrelevant who the players involved are. A team that can’t win shouldn’t be making trades with teams that can. It’s cut & dry.

How is that “textbook collusion”?

I’m sorry to break it to you but most players in friends and family leagues really just don’t care. They don’t care if they win much less if someone else wins.

These aren’t deep conspiracies, just a player who at 2-8, is out of it, and ready to move on with their life. They likely don’t care and at 2-8 they can’t make a case that having Cook has made their competitive experience any better.

If and only if you can prove that they are going to share the winnings then you have collusion but beyond that all you have is a lopsided trade that is within the range of outcomes of a manager who is 2-8. They just are not a good manager, period.

If one team has something to gain and the other does not, it’s collusion.

It literally defines collision.

You wrote a lot of words, but I stopped reading after 1 sentence, because it is absolutely and obviously collusion.

Two teams making a trade helping only 1 team to improve = collusion.

It’s impossible to be more collusion, if that’s the case & 1 of the teams is eliminated. It’s collusion any way you look at it.

Hope this helps to clear up your misunderstanding of the term “collusion”.

ETA, ok curiosity got the better of me and I read the rest. It doesn’t matter of anyone “cares”. It’s collusion. 100%. Has nothing to do with “conspiracy”, just the facts. 2 teams dealing to help 1 team win = collusion.

In fact, the team that’s playoff bound could even be losing the trade, and it’s STILL collusion. Because it’s

Trades don’t have to be “fair”. They just have to not be collusion.

I suppose it depends upon your definition of "collusion". I would argue that even if there is no cheating intended, a clearly lopsided ("unfair") trade can affect the competitive fairness and integrity of the league, and should therefore be vetoed.

Is Burrow for Toney clearly not lopsided?

 

[Stinkin Ref]

all the last place guy has to say is that I think Connor and Henderson may outperform Cooks and Harris the rest of the way.....he may be wrong, but he may be right.....nobody knows for sure...as commish, you are just the commish, not some some expert fantasy rest of season predictor....its also not your job to factor in bye weeks, etc....

 

[Instinctive]

Unless a team is still playing for something (losers bracket influences next years draft, punishment, etc) or it's got a keeper element, no leagues I am in allow eliminated teams to make trades.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

You want to call collusion when the reality is the 2-8 person just doesn’t care as much as we do. That’s pretty much it.

Can we assume the 9-1 team does care?

If the 2-8 team doesn’t care & the 9-1 team does care, that’s textbook collusion. Only one side stands to benefit from a trade.

In that circumstance it’s irrelevant who the players involved are. A team that can’t win shouldn’t be making trades with teams that can. It’s cut & dry.

How is that “textbook collusion”?

I’m sorry to break it to you but most players in friends and family leagues really just don’t care. They don’t care if they win much less if someone else wins.

These aren’t deep conspiracies, just a player who at 2-8, is out of it, and ready to move on with their life. They likely don’t care and at 2-8 they can’t make a case that having Cook has made their competitive experience any better.

If and only if you can prove that they are going to share the winnings then you have collusion but beyond that all you have is a lopsided trade that is within the range of outcomes of a manager who is 2-8. They just are not a good manager, period.

If one team has something to gain and the other does not, it’s collusion.

It literally defines collision.

You wrote a lot of words, but I stopped reading after 1 sentence, because it is absolutely and obviously collusion.

Two teams making a trade helping only 1 team to improve = collusion.

It’s impossible to be more collusion, if that’s the case & 1 of the teams is eliminated. It’s collusion any way you look at it.

Hope this helps to clear up your misunderstanding of the term “collusion”.

ETA, ok curiosity got the better of me and I read the rest. It doesn’t matter of anyone “cares”. It’s collusion. 100%. Has nothing to do with “conspiracy”, just the facts. 2 teams dealing to help 1 team win = collusion.

In fact, the team that’s playoff bound could even be losing the trade, and it’s STILL collusion. Because it’s collusion.

Collusion generally requires a quid pro quo

No, it doesn’t. At all.

That’s (ironically) called “a fair trade” - two teams dealing players of value to mutual benefit. Quid pro quo.

Unless it’s something external to the trade, e.g. cash payment, bottle of scotch, round of golf, date with a sister, etc. then we’re right back to “1 team gains in FF, the other doesn’t”, which is collusion.

All it requires is 1 team helping another team win without benefiting their own team. If a team is eliminated from playoff contention, then the contents of the trade are irrelevant - it’s collusion.

Except for when people in the Sharkpool claim that it isn’t a “fair trade”. Here, all
Trades that aren’t balanced are accused of collusion when often times they are not much more than incompetence.

There is no way that my Burrow for Toney trade is “fair”. So is it collusion?

I literally just addressed this.

Trades don’t have to be “fair”. They just have to not be collusion.

You want to call collusion when the reality is the 2-8 person just doesn’t care as much as we do. That’s pretty much it.

Can we assume the 9-1 team does care?

If the 2-8 team doesn’t care & the 9-1 team does care, that’s textbook collusion. Only one side stands to benefit from a trade.

In that circumstance it’s irrelevant who the players involved are. A team that can’t win shouldn’t be making trades with teams that can. It’s cut & dry.

How is that “textbook collusion”?

I’m sorry to break it to you but most players in friends and family leagues really just don’t care. They don’t care if they win much less if someone else wins.

These aren’t deep conspiracies, just a player who at 2-8, is out of it, and ready to move on with their life. They likely don’t care and at 2-8 they can’t make a case that having Cook has made their competitive experience any better.

If and only if you can prove that they are going to share the winnings then you have collusion but beyond that all you have is a lopsided trade that is within the range of outcomes of a manager who is 2-8. They just are not a good manager, period.

If one team has something to gain and the other does not, it’s collusion.

It literally defines collision.

You wrote a lot of words, but I stopped reading after 1 sentence, because it is absolutely and obviously collusion.

Two teams making a trade helping only 1 team to improve = collusion.

It’s impossible to be more collusion, if that’s the case & 1 of the teams is eliminated. It’s collusion any way you look at it.

Hope this helps to clear up your misunderstanding of the term “collusion”.

ETA, ok curiosity got the better of me and I read the rest. It doesn’t matter of anyone “cares”. It’s collusion. 100%. Has nothing to do with “conspiracy”, just the facts. 2 teams dealing to help 1 team win = collusion.

In fact, the team that’s playoff bound could even be losing the trade, and it’s STILL collusion. Because it’s

Trades don’t have to be “fair”. They just have to not be collusion.

I suppose it depends upon your definition of "collusion". I would argue that even if there is no cheating intended, a clearly lopsided ("unfair") trade can affect the competitive fairness and integrity of the league, and should therefore be vetoed.

Is Burrow for Toney clearly not lopsided?

It doesn’t matter. Read my post again. Then read it again. And again if necessary.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Trades don’t have to be “fair”. They just have to not be collusion.

I suppose it depends upon your definition of "collusion". I would argue that even if there is no cheating intended, a clearly lopsided ("unfair") trade can affect the competitive fairness and integrity of the league, and should therefore be vetoed.

That’s what a league vote is for.

It’s not up to a commish to decide that.

My league has voted down dramatically imbalanced deals for that reason.

We’ve never had a vote go to commish that didn’t get voted down, is another way to put that. If 6/10 teams not involved (12 team league) think it’s that bad that competitive balance is disrupted, it gets voted down.

But that’s not collusion.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Unless a team is still playing for something (losers bracket influences next years draft, punishment, etc) or it's got a keeper element, no leagues I am in allow eliminated teams to make trades.

We don’t allow it for loser bowl either.

In my (redraft) leagues If a team is mathematically eliminated from the playoffs, they can’t trade.

 

[I Am the Stig]

You want to call collusion when the reality is the 2-8 person just doesn’t care as much as we do. That’s pretty much it.

Can we assume the 9-1 team does care?

If the 2-8 team doesn’t care & the 9-1 team does care, that’s textbook collusion. Only one side stands to benefit from a trade.

In that circumstance it’s irrelevant who the players involved are. A team that can’t win shouldn’t be making trades with teams that can. It’s cut & dry.

How is that “textbook collusion”?

I’m sorry to break it to you but most players in friends and family leagues really just don’t care. They don’t care if they win much less if someone else wins.

These aren’t deep conspiracies, just a player who at 2-8, is out of it, and ready to move on with their life. They likely don’t care and at 2-8 they can’t make a case that having Cook has made their competitive experience any better.

If and only if you can prove that they are going to share the winnings then you have collusion but beyond that all you have is a lopsided trade that is within the range of outcomes of a manager who is 2-8. They just are not a good manager, period.

If one team has something to gain and the other does not, it’s collusion.

It literally defines collision.

You wrote a lot of words, but I stopped reading after 1 sentence, because it is absolutely and obviously collusion.

Two teams making a trade helping only 1 team to improve = collusion.

It’s impossible to be more collusion, if that’s the case & 1 of the teams is eliminated. It’s collusion any way you look at it.

Hope this helps to clear up your misunderstanding of the term “collusion”.

ETA, ok curiosity got the better of me and I read the rest. It doesn’t matter of anyone “cares”. It’s collusion. 100%. Has nothing to do with “conspiracy”, just the facts. 2 teams dealing to help 1 team win = collusion.

In fact, the team that’s playoff bound could even be losing the trade, and it’s STILL collusion. Because it’s collusion.

Collusion generally requires a quid pro quo

No, it doesn’t. At all.

That’s (ironically) called “a fair trade” - two teams dealing players of value to mutual benefit. Quid pro quo.

Unless it’s something external to the trade, e.g. cash payment, bottle of scotch, round of golf, date with a sister, etc. then we’re right back to “1 team gains in FF, the other doesn’t”, which is collusion.

All it requires is 1 team helping another team win without benefiting their own team. If a team is eliminated from playoff contention, then the contents of the trade are irrelevant - it’s collusion.

Except for when people in the Sharkpool claim that it isn’t a “fair trade”. Here, all
Trades that aren’t balanced are accused of collusion when often times they are not much more than incompetence.

There is no way that my Burrow for Toney trade is “fair”. So is it collusion?

I literally just addressed this.

Trades don’t have to be “fair”. They just have to not be collusion.

You want to call collusion when the reality is the 2-8 person just doesn’t care as much as we do. That’s pretty much it.

Can we assume the 9-1 team does care?

If the 2-8 team doesn’t care & the 9-1 team does care, that’s textbook collusion. Only one side stands to benefit from a trade.

In that circumstance it’s irrelevant who the players involved are. A team that can’t win shouldn’t be making trades with teams that can. It’s cut & dry.

How is that “textbook collusion”?

I’m sorry to break it to you but most players in friends and family leagues really just don’t care. They don’t care if they win much less if someone else wins.

These aren’t deep conspiracies, just a player who at 2-8, is out of it, and ready to move on with their life. They likely don’t care and at 2-8 they can’t make a case that having Cook has made their competitive experience any better.

If and only if you can prove that they are going to share the winnings then you have collusion but beyond that all you have is a lopsided trade that is within the range of outcomes of a manager who is 2-8. They just are not a good manager, period.

If one team has something to gain and the other does not, it’s collusion.

It literally defines collision.

You wrote a lot of words, but I stopped reading after 1 sentence, because it is absolutely and obviously collusion.

Two teams making a trade helping only 1 team to improve = collusion.

It’s impossible to be more collusion, if that’s the case & 1 of the teams is eliminated. It’s collusion any way you look at it.

Hope this helps to clear up your misunderstanding of the term “collusion”.

ETA, ok curiosity got the better of me and I read the rest. It doesn’t matter of anyone “cares”. It’s collusion. 100%. Has nothing to do with “conspiracy”, just the facts. 2 teams dealing to help 1 team win = collusion.

In fact, the team that’s playoff bound could even be losing the trade, and it’s STILL collusion. Because it’s

Trades don’t have to be “fair”. They just have to not be collusion.

I suppose it depends upon your definition of "collusion". I would argue that even if there is no cheating intended, a clearly lopsided ("unfair") trade can affect the competitive fairness and integrity of the league, and should therefore be vetoed.

Is Burrow for Toney clearly not lopsi

Unless a team is still playing for something (losers bracket influences next years draft, punishment, etc) or it's got a keeper element, no leagues I am in allow eliminated teams to make trades.

1. The argument that the 2-8 team is “eliminated “ hasn’t been argued by the OP.

2. Nobody in any of my leagues is anyone eliminated yet.

3. Roster locks for eliminated players is a league choice and usually only kicks in during the playoffs.

Let people play the fake football the way they want to play.

Every year like clockwork a thread like this pops up with wild accusations of great collusion and every year they are nothing more than an emotional reaction from someone who is whining because their season just went down the drain and they just don’t like it.

It’s the same thing every year about how only collusion could be the invisible hand behind this lopsided trade.

I mean, the Colts were clearly tanking when they hired Jeff Saturday because we are all clairvoyant experts here.

Bottom line, worry about your team and let people worry about theirs. Collusion can almost never be proven so create rules that mitigate its occurrence. Keep people motivated in their own self interest, make good guidepost rules and then leave people alone.

 

[JohnnyU]

Collusion bullusion, trades that ruin leagues have to be seriously looked at and scrutinized.

 

[I Am the Stig]

Trades don’t have to be “fair”. They just have to not be collusion.

I suppose it depends upon your definition of "collusion". I would argue that even if there is no cheating intended, a clearly lopsided ("unfair") trade can affect the competitive fairness and integrity of the league, and should therefore be vetoed.

That’s what a league vote is for.

It’s not up to a commish to decide that.

My league has voted down dramatically imbalanced deals for that reason.

We’ve never had a vote go to commish that didn’t get voted down, is another way to put that. If 6/10 teams not involved (12 team league) think it’s that bad that competitive balance is disrupted, it gets voted down.

But that’s not collusion.

Would Burrow for Toney be downvoted?

 

[socrates]

Well, Harris sucks and might be the backup soon, and cooks been meh.
I wouldn't do the trade but it's not the worst that's for sure.
However, if a team is mathematically eliminated, no trades allowed

Cook is coming off of a 146-yard performance against the Bills, and he is currently RB8 in PPR. For comparison, Henderson is RB37. Henderson has 3 total TDs, and he hasn't flirted with a 100-yard game. Cook >>>>> Henderson, and Cook's potential upside is similarly considerably higher than Henderson's.

Najee Harris is RB23. He has yet to tally a 100-yard game, but he is coming off a 99 yard rushing effort. Conner is RB36, and while he is coming off a 2-TD game (2 of his 3 TDs on the season), he also has yet to put up 100 combined yards in a game. He has been pretty much on par, I suppose, with Najee Harris, although I would personally prefer Harris' potential upside. That part of the trade (Conner for Harris) to me is pretty much a wash, however.

 

[I Am the Stig]

Collusion bullusion, trades that ruin leagues have to be seriously looked at and scrutinized.

What are you gonna do, Supena their texts?

 

[JohnnyU]

Collusion bullusion, trades that ruin leagues have to be seriously looked at and scrutinized.

What are you gonna do, Supena their texts?

If a trade threatens league competitive integrity then it should be denied. Collusion bedamned. Kind of like porn, you know it when you see it.

 

[socrates]

Collusion bullusion, trades that ruin leagues have to be seriously looked at and scrutinized.

What are you gonna do, Supena their texts?

I think you may be focusing too much on intent and not enough on the effect on competitive fairness

 

[I Am the Stig]

Collusion bullusion, trades that ruin leagues have to be seriously looked at and scrutinized.

What are you gonna do, Supena their texts?

I think you may be focusing too much on intent and not enough on the effect on competitive fairness

Intent is the backbone of collusion.

How was the competitive balance of the league affected? The last place team is 2-8 and will stay in last place. The first place team is 9-1 and will likely remain in first place.

Should my Burrow for Toney trade be vetoed?

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Trades don’t have to be “fair”. They just have to not be collusion.

I suppose it depends upon your definition of "collusion". I would argue that even if there is no cheating intended, a clearly lopsided ("unfair") trade can affect the competitive fairness and integrity of the league, and should therefore be vetoed.

That’s what a league vote is for.

It’s not up to a commish to decide that.

My league has voted down dramatically imbalanced deals for that reason.

We’ve never had a vote go to commish that didn’t get voted down, is another way to put that. If 6/10 teams not involved (12 team league) think it’s that bad that competitive balance is disrupted, it gets voted down.

But that’s not collusion.

Would Burrow for Toney be downvoted?

I have no idea. Join my league, acquire Burrow then offer him for Toney & we’ll find out.

I operate in reality, not a hypothetical world of endless possibility to waste everyone’s time.

Back on topic, and for the 4th time, the context of this trade is what’s relevant to me as a commish, not the players involved.

Anything else is a non-starter, and a total waste of time.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

1. The argument that the 2-8 team is “eliminated “ hasn’t been argued by the OP.

Which, again, for the 5th time, is why I used that word “if”.

Starting to think this is a reading issue.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Collusion bullusion, trades that ruin leagues have to be seriously looked at and scrutinized.

Which is why my league has a voting process.

 

[I Am the Stig]

1. The argument that the 2-8 team is “eliminated “ hasn’t been argued by the OP.

Which, again, for the 5th time, is why I used that word “if”.

Starting to think this is a reading issue.

Since they aren’t eliminated then perhaps don’t use “if” and deal with the actual scenario and not hypotheticals.

 

[Moniker]

Collusion bullusion, trades that ruin leagues have to be seriously looked at and scrutinized.

What are you gonna do, Supena their texts?

I think you may be focusing too much on intent and not enough on the effect on competitive fairness

Intent is the backbone of collusion.

How was the competitive balance of the league affected? The last place team is 2-8 and will stay in last place. The first place team is 9-1 and will likely remain in first place.

Should my Burrow for Toney trade be vetoed?

How in the world do you not yet understand that your Burrow for Toney trade has nothing to do with this?

 

[I Am the Stig]

Trades don’t have to be “fair”. They just have to not be collusion.

I suppose it depends upon your definition of "collusion". I would argue that even if there is no cheating intended, a clearly lopsided ("unfair") trade can affect the competitive fairness and integrity of the league, and should therefore be vetoed.

That’s what a league vote is for.

It’s not up to a commish to decide that.

My league has voted down dramatically imbalanced deals for that reason.

We’ve never had a vote go to commish that didn’t get voted down, is another way to put that. If 6/10 teams not involved (12 team league) think it’s that bad that competitive balance is disrupted, it gets voted down.

But that’s not collusion.

Would Burrow for Toney be downvoted?

I have no idea. Join my league, acquire Burrow then offer him for Toney & we’ll find out.

I operate in reality, not a hypothetical world of endless possibility to waste everyone’s time.

Back on topic, and for the 4th time, the context of this trade is what’s relevant to me as a commish, not the players involved.

Anything else is a non-starter, and a total waste of time.

I’m asking you if YOU would veto the trade.

 

[socrates]

Intent is the backbone of collusion.

How was the competitive balance of the league affected? The last place team is 2-8 and will stay in last place. The first place team is 9-1 and will likely remain in first place.

Should my Burrow for Toney trade be vetoed?

A trade does not need to be "collusion" to upset the competitive integrity of the league.

I agree that it makes little difference to the 2-8 team. Who it makes a difference to are the teams challenging the 9-1 team for the league title.

As for Burrow vs. Toney, we are talking apples and oranges. There would be a litany of factors which would need to be considered, and most of those do not apply in the present case; therefore, it would be an exercise in futility to consider it.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Trades don’t have to be “fair”. They just have to not be collusion.

I suppose it depends upon your definition of "collusion". I would argue that even if there is no cheating intended, a clearly lopsided ("unfair") trade can affect the competitive fairness and integrity of the league, and should therefore be vetoed.

That’s what a league vote is for.

It’s not up to a commish to decide that.

My league has voted down dramatically imbalanced deals for that reason.

We’ve never had a vote go to commish that didn’t get voted down, is another way to put that. If 6/10 teams not involved (12 team league) think it’s that bad that competitive balance is disrupted, it gets voted down.

But that’s not collusion.

Would Burrow for Toney be downvoted?

I have no idea. Join my league, acquire Burrow then offer him for Toney & we’ll find out.

I operate in reality, not a hypothetical world of endless possibility to waste everyone’s time.

Back on topic, and for the 4th time, the context of this trade is what’s relevant to me as a commish, not the players involved.

Anything else is a non-starter, and a total waste of time.

I’m asking you if YOU would veto the trade.

If the league I’m in had that trade go down I’d be absolutely shocked, because it’s a 25+ year league & our members tend to make closer deals than that.

But IF it went down, it would be up to the league to vote for or against it. Like I said.

And IF it was voted down and went to commish, the Co-commish & I would discuss it.

Burrow has been wildly inconsistent but is capable of 50+ any given Sunday. Toney is a marginal WR who *could* elevate to KC’s WR1 if the right set of circumstances presented, but he’s not there yet.

So I would be inclined to agree with the 6 who voted against it and kill the deal. The trade partners could then work to alter it so it’s balanced enough for the league to not vote it down.

But it’s not as simple a question as you make it. That series of events would have to transpire before it even got to me, and it’s possible the co-commish would talk me into letting it pass.

I’d have to be in that position to answer it, and thankfully, I’m not.

Now - add the context of one of the teams being eliminated? Automatic veto.

 

[I Am the Stig]

Intent is the backbone of collusion.

How was the competitive balance of the league affected? The last place team is 2-8 and will stay in last place. The first place team is 9-1 and will likely remain in first place.

Should my Burrow for Toney trade be vetoed?

A trade does not need to be "collusion" to upset the competitive integrity of the league.

I agree that it makes little difference to the 2-8 team. Who it makes a difference to are the teams challenging the 9-1 team for the league title.

As for Burrow vs. Toney, we are talking apples and oranges. There would be a litany of factors which would need to be considered, and most of those do not apply in the present case; therefore, it would be an exercise in futility to consider it.

Why would it futile to scrutinize it? It is as real a trade as the one presented and you’ve had no issue passing judgement on that? We don’t know their rosters only their standings and they are friends.

 

[socrates]

Why would it futile Tom’s scrutinize it? It is as real a trade as the one presented and you’ve had no issue passing judgement on that? We don’t know their rosters only their standings and they are friends.

First, in the Burrow vs. Toney scenario, we are talking different positions (QB for WR, as opposed to RB for RB). That brings about many factors that must be considered, such as: what is the scoring format? what are the teams' depth charts at each position? If you have Burrow and another top QB, but you lack depth at receiver, and your opponent has Russell Wilson at QB, and little behind him, but strong depth at WR, such a trade may be perfectly logical for both teams. Is it SF? Start 1 QB? What is positional scarcity in this particular league at both QB and WR? What are the teams' records? Obviously, a much different calculus factors in if it is dynasty, also.

If your analysis of the trade, however, is as simple as Cook vs. Henderson, and the "losing" side of the trade is on the team who is not playing for the fantasy postseason (and it is redraft), then it is pretty easy to determine the unfairness of the deal.

 

[I Am the Stig]

Trades don’t have to be “fair”. They just have to not be collusion.

I suppose it depends upon your definition of "collusion". I would argue that even if there is no cheating intended, a clearly lopsided ("unfair") trade can affect the competitive fairness and integrity of the league, and should therefore be vetoed.

That’s what a league vote is for.

It’s not up to a commish to decide that.

My league has voted down dramatically imbalanced deals for that reason.

We’ve never had a vote go to commish that didn’t get voted down, is another way to put that. If 6/10 teams not involved (12 team league) think it’s that bad that competitive balance is disrupted, it gets voted down.

But that’s not collusion.

Would Burrow for Toney be downvoted?

I have no idea. Join my league, acquire Burrow then offer him for Toney & we’ll find out.

I operate in reality, not a hypothetical world of endless possibility to waste everyone’s time.

Back on topic, and for the 4th time, the context of this trade is what’s relevant to me as a commish, not the players involved.

Anything else is a non-starter, and a total waste of time.

I’m asking you if YOU would veto the trade.

If the league I’m in had that trade go down I’d be absolutely shocked, because it’s a 25+ year league & our members tend to make closer deals than that.

But IF it went down, it would be up to the league to vote for or against it. Like I said.

And IF it was voted down and went to commish, the Co-commish & I would discuss it.

Burrow has been wildly inconsistent but is capable of 50+ any given Sunday. Toney is a marginal WR who *could* elevate to KC’s WR1 if the right set of circumstances presented, but he’s not there yet.

So I would be inclined to agree with the 6 who voted against it and kill the deal. The trade partners could then work to alter it so it’s balanced enough for the league to not vote it down.

But it’s not as simple a question as you make it. That series of events would have to transpire before it even got to me, and it’s possible the co-commish would talk me into letting it pass.

I’d have to be in that position to answer it, and thankfully, I’m not.

Now - add the context of one of the teams being eliminated? Automatic veto.

The bolded above is why you should never be given the ability to veto ever.

Burrow’s floor has been extremely consistent, only his “boom” games have been “inconsistent” but nobody complains about those.

Wow, “Burrow is wildly inconsistent”. Gees.

 

[I Am the Stig]

Why would it futile Tom’s scrutinize it? It is as real a trade as the one presented and you’ve had no issue passing judgement on that? We don’t know their rosters only their standings and they are friends.

First, in the Burrow vs. Toney scenario, we are talking different positions (QB for WR, as opposed to RB for RB). That brings about many factors that must be considered, such as: what is the scoring format? what are the teams' depth charts at each position? If you have Burrow and another top QB, but you lack depth at receiver, and your opponent has Russell Wilson at QB, and little behind him, but strong depth at WR, such a trade may be perfectly logical for both teams. Is it SF? Start 1 QB? What is positional scarcity in this particular league at both QB and WR? What are the teams' records? Obviously, a much different calculus factors in if it is dynasty, also.

If your analysis of the trade, however, is as simple as Cook vs. Henderson, and the "losing" side of the trade is on the team who is not playing for the fantasy postseason (and it is redraft), then it is pretty easy to determine the unfairness of the deal.

So, you are honestly going to defend Burrow for Toney as possibly “fair” because they are different positions?

Even on CBS trade chart I paid 2 for one for Toney. In fact he is valued lower than Henderson.

Now I know you are just talking out of your ***.

The only difference here is in the case of the Burrow trade you are talking to the person who made the trade and in the other case you are talking to the person who is complaining about the trade.

I could spin a great narrative about the Burrow trade and you would all scream collusion and #notinmyleague.

Perspective is what really matters and that’s why these arguments never go anywhere.

I’ve never seen a thread where a person came on and just complained about getting fleeced. Why? Because they always think they did the best they could at the time.

It isn’t for us to determine how someone runs their team or manages their trades because it might negatively impact ourselves. Of course it negatively impacts the league, that’s why the 9-1 team made the the trade. Why make a trade that doesn’t upset the competitive balance as much in your favor as possible? I’m not playing to make my league mates happy.

 

[socrates]

So, you are honestly going to defend Burrow for Toney as possibly “fair” because they are different positions?

Even on CBS trade chart I paid 2 for one for Toney. In fact he is valued lower than Henderson.

Now I know you are just talking out of your ***.

I have made no assessment as to whether such a trade is fair. I have merely identified that there are different factors at play.

 

[I Am the Stig]

So, you are honestly going to defend Burrow for Toney as possibly “fair” because they are different positions?

Even on CBS trade chart I paid 2 for one for Toney. In fact he is valued lower than Henderson.

Now I know you are just talking out of your ***.

I have made no assessment as to whether such a trade is fair. I have merely identified that there are different factors at play.

But you made an assessment on the other trade. Why can’t you make an assessment on mine?