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

[Leroy Hoard]

Should we just shut it regarding this trade??​

After reading all of this stuff?

Yes

 

[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.

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

As I have pointed out, these are apples and oranges. In the present case, we are talking about a RB vs. RB. I cannot fathom a scoring scheme exists which favors the Henderson side of the deal, but if you believe such an argument exists, then make that argument. I am open to considering such an argument, but I don't believe it exists. This is a lopsided trade which upsets the competitive fairness of the league. Easy Veto

 

[JohnnyU]

These types of threads rarely end well. You have the collusion side vs the the competitive balance side……..ALWAYS, thus making these threads difficult and not having a lot of value unfortunately.

 

[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.

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.

So I was right: it is a reading issue with you.

1. There were 2 sets of criteria that would have to be met to even get to me.
2. You completely disregard Toney’s questionable value in that hypothetical.
3. I said I’d have to discuss with the Co-commish.
4. At this point it would have *already been voted down* by 6/10 league members.

But thank you to casting judgement on my qualifications for vetoing a deal as commish based on your poor reading comprehension.

This is the last I’ll engage with you here, as it’s apparently that you’re just trolling this topic with nonsense.

 

[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?

As I have pointed out, these are apples and oranges. In the present case, we are talking about a RB vs. RB. I cannot fathom a scoring scheme exists which favors the Henderson side of the deal, but if you believe such an argument exists, then make that argument. I am open to considering such an argument, but I don't believe it exists. This is a lopsided trade which upsets the competitive fairness of the league. Easy Veto

The scoring system matters now? Jesus.

Burrow is the 9th highest scoring player in my league and Toney has played two games. What scoring system lives in your head that makes that more fair than RB for RB?

 

[I Am the Stig]

These types of threads rarely end well. You have the collusion side vs the the competitive balance side……..ALWAYS, thus making these threads difficult and not having a lot of value unfortunately.

God bless you.

 

[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.

So I was right: it is a reading issue with you.

1. There were 2 sets of criteria that would have to be met to even get to me.
2. You completely disregard Toney’s questionable value in that hypothetical.
3. I said I’d have to discuss with the Co-commish.
4. At this point it would have *already been voted down* by 6/10 league members.

But thank you to casting judgement on my qualifications for vetoing a deal as commish based on your poor reading comprehension.

This is the last I’ll engage with you here, as it’s apparently that you’re just trolling this topic with nonsense.

I am asking YOU If YOU would veto or vote against the trade. I don’t care about your league process. I’m asking YOU if you would vote against Burrow for Toney.

It is you who has a reading problem. I didn’t ask how this little trade would come across your big giant commissioners desk.

 

[socrates]

These types of threads rarely end well. You have the collusion side vs the the competitive balance side……..ALWAYS, thus making these threads difficult and not having a lot of value unfortunately.

There are those in the camp of "as long as you cannot prove intent to cheat, a trade should stand" and those who believe that the competitive integrity of the league matters. I would not participate in a league which adheres to the former.

 

[I Am the Stig]

These types of threads rarely end well. You have the collusion side vs the the competitive balance side……..ALWAYS, thus making these threads difficult and not having a lot of value unfortunately.

There are those in the camp of "as long as you cannot prove intent to cheat, a trade should stand" and those who believe that the competitive integrity of the league matters. I would not participate in a league which adheres to the former.

And wouldn’t play in a league that vetos trades and scrutinizes my moves.

Run your team and let me run mine. Make the rules you need to make and as long as they aren’t objectively broken then stay the eff out of my business.

 

[Ilov80s]

Our league doesn’t allow trading between teams that have more than 4 wins separating them

That’s a little extreme imo. For example, what's wrong with a 4-0 team and 0-4 team trading?

 

[wgoldsph]

Hey, I know this post is about something completely different, but what if I traded Johnny Hecker for Boston Scott? Would you veto it then? WOULD YOU?????

 

[Boston]

Hey, I know this post is about something completely different, but what if I traded Johnny Hecker for Boston Scott? Would you veto it then? WOULD YOU?????

Don't make this so difficult...still trying to figure out the Burrow for Toney trade before it is brought up for the 15th time.

 

[Ilov80s]

I am team all trades should go through without a vote or commissioner approval. Prove collusion or get out. I am also fine with teams mathematically eliminated being locked though.

 

[Boston]

I am team all trades should go through without a vote or commissioner approval. Prove collusion or get out. I am also fine with teams mathematically eliminated being locked though.

How would you prove collusion? Seems to me it's a lot like the Supreme Court Judge who said he could tell it was porn when he saw it.

 

[ghostguy123]

I think league votes are stupid. I have always enjoyed leagues where the commish had the final and ONLY say stuff like this.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Our league doesn’t allow trading between teams that have more than 4 wins separating them

That’s a little extreme imo. For example, wrong with a 4-0 team and 0-4 team trading?

Yeah, I’m not with that at all. Especially in leagues that have divisions. In my current redraft league, one division leader has eight wins, another division leader has eight wins, and the third division is a bunch of 3, 4 and 5 game winners.

The 3-win teams are 2 out with 5 to go. To say they can’t trade with the 8-game winners would be preposterous.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I am team all trades should go through without a vote or commissioner approval. Prove collusion or get out. I am also fine with teams mathematically eliminated being locked though.

It’s tricky, since both the commish & Co-commish can also be involved in trades.

Heck, they could make a trade with each other.

Just sayin.

 

[Ilov80s]

I am team all trades should go through without a vote or commissioner approval. Prove collusion or get out. I am also fine with teams mathematically eliminated being locked though.

It’s tricky, since both the commish & Co-commish can also be involved in trades.

Heck, they could make a trade with each other.

Just sayin.

LOL I suppose the commissioner should have to approve a trade of one of their own players.

 

[I Am the Stig]

I am team all trades should go through without a vote or commissioner approval. Prove collusion or get out. I am also fine with teams mathematically eliminated being locked though.

How would you prove collusion? Seems to me it's a lot like the Supreme Court Judge who said he could tell it was porn when he saw it.

This is kinda the point. You can’t prove collusion so don’t make the accusation.

 

[I Am the Stig]

Hey, I know this post is about something completely different, but what if I traded Johnny Hecker for Boston Scott? Would you veto it then? WOULD YOU?????

Don't make this so difficult...still trying to figure out the Burrow for Toney trade before it is brought up for the 15th time.

I know, Cook for Conner and it is objectively “COLLUSION” but Burrow for Toney, and you are all “well with the right quantum realities it could be even. It isn’t apples to apples so I would need to know the birth sign of the grandmother on the fathers side of each party involved before I can possibly rule on something so complex”.

 

[JohnnyU]

I am team all trades should go through without a vote or commissioner approval. Prove collusion or get out. I am also fine with teams mathematically eliminated being locked though.

How would you prove collusion? Seems to me it's a lot like the Supreme Court Judge who said he could tell it was porn when he saw it.

This is kinda the point. You can’t prove collusion so don’t make the accusation

Just leave leagues that allow one moron to ruin a league

 

[Cowboysfan8]

If they are friends and collusion is suspected, I would put it to a League Vote. If the League By Laws don't have that provision, ADD IT.
Or the league will suffer and collapse.

Nope
You play by the rules that everyone agreed to before the season started. If you want to add that rule before next season…fine

And I don’t think that trade is vetoable in a league that lets owners veto (which I would never play in)

 

[Ilov80s]

This is kinda the point. You can’t prove collusion so don’t make the accusation.

I've seen collusion proven twice. Once was a similar situation with a hopeless team giving away a good player for too cheap to a contender. A bunch of people in the league were texting and calling the guy asking him WTF he was doing and he finally "admitted" collusion. He sort of covered himself by saying his team sucked so he just accepted the trade without really looking close because he's given up on the year. We all took it as his way of admitting collusion without actually admitting it.

In another league there was a very one sided trade between 2 brothers. One of them thought they could tell their cousin (also in the league) about their plan to make a super team between the 2 of them. The cousin ratted them out to the league, texts and all.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

i have not read a single word BUT to make it out to Page 3 in a single day, you must have hit a chord or quite a note to have this many posts.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

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.

OMG, that's horrible
I wanted to work a trade with a person who was failing and had CMC, I overpaid for the simple reason that he was almost dead last although right now we have 3-4 teams at 4-6/3-7 fighting it out for that last playoff spot.
I overpaid so we didn't have a problem with anyone claiming unfair, RB plus D.Adams for CMC, most folks are not going to cry foul
But what you are presenting is simply bull honkey, last place team unloads the best parts
What's in it for the 1-100 team? Nothing, right? SO that's why that needs to be 86'd quickly

 

[I Am the Stig]

This is kinda the point. You can’t prove collusion so don’t make the accusation.

I've seen collusion proven twice. Once was a similar situation with a hopeless team giving away a good player for too cheap to a contender. A bunch of people in the league were texting and calling the guy asking him WTF he was doing and he finally "admitted" collusion. He sort of covered himself by saying his team sucked so he just accepted the trade without really looking close because he's given up on the year. We all took it as his way of admitting collusion without actually admitting it.

In another league there was a very one sided trade between 2 brothers. One of them thought they could tell their cousin (also in the league) about their plan to make a super team between the 2 of them. The cousin ratted them out to the league, texts and all.

So you badgered the guy to “admit” collusion when he said what I and others have said, “he really just didn’t care about the season anymore”. That’s not a crime and he doesn’t need to be held accountable to some “higher calling” of league competitive balance. His team sucked, he knew his team sucked so he made a trade that pissed people off.

Your league badgering him via text I’m sure rekindled his love of the game.

Leagues need to find ways to incentivize people to compete till the end otherwise this sort of thing is going to happen. You can call it collusion all you want but what it really is a league mate who is nothing more than bored. You don’t even need to kick the guy out because I’m sure he left willingly.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

If they are friends and collusion is suspected, I would put it to a League Vote. If the League By Laws don't have that provision, ADD IT.
Or the league will suffer and collapse.

Nope
You play by the rules that everyone agreed to before the season started. If you want to add that rule before next season…fine

And I don’t think that trade is vetoable in a league that lets owners veto (which I would never play in)

I mean, does "cheating" actually need to be spelled out as a rule?

Let's say the 2-8 team *is eliminated* from post season contention. They're colluding to improve the team that is contending.

You're saying that's ok if the rules don't explicitly call it out? What about trade-backs? Or hey, what if the 2-8 team decided to bench all of their best players because their friend the 9-1 team needed a W to be the 1-seed? Is tanking to help your buddy ok, so long as there's no rule against it?

Those would all be considered no-brainer collusion in my league, and while we don't have every one of those spelled out, it is well understood as taboo behavior.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

i have not read a single word BUT to make it out to Page 3 in a single day, you must have hit a chord or quite a note to have this many posts.

Nah, 1 whole page was 1 member throwing out off-topic hypotheticals, derailing the topic.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

there was a very one sided trade between 2 brothers. One of them thought they could tell their cousin (also in the league) about their plan to make a super team between the 2 of them. The cousin ratted them out to the league, texts and all.

This was the same scenario as in my redraft league a decade ago. A 2-12 team made a deal with a 10-4 team (his half-brother) to send their 4 best players over for 4 of the half-brother's worst.

Never mind a veto - we voted to kick them out of the league, and commish-managed their rosters until they could be replaced the following season.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

i have not read a single word BUT to make it out to Page 3 in a single day, you must have hit a chord or quite a note to have this many posts.

Nah, 1 whole page was 1 member throwing out off-topic hypotheticals, derailing the topic.

And people wonder why Joe shuts down entire forums...
Just talking out loud, pay no attention to me

 

[Ilov80s]

So you badgered the guy to “admit” collusion when he said what I and others have said, “he really just didn’t care about the season anymore”. That’s not a crime and he doesn’t need to be held accountable to some “higher calling” of league competitive balance. His team sucked, he knew his team sucked so he made a trade that pissed people off.

Your league badgering him via text I’m sure rekindled his love of the game.

Leagues need to find ways to incentivize people to compete till the end otherwise this sort of thing is going to happen. You can call it collusion all you want but what it really is a league mate who is nothing more than bored. You don’t even need to kick the guy out because I’m sure he left willingly.

This was like 12 years ago, most of the league was probably 25-30 years old. We didn't really care about kindling or rekindling anyone's love. We were just pissed one guy basically gave away a stud (likely got some cash to do it on the side). I don't remember the exact deal but it was the equivalent of CeeDee Lamb for a handcuff RB and a 2nd defense. The bottom placed team never played again with us. I think it was his 1st or 2nd year in the league. That league didn't last much longer anyway, we were all drifting different directions in life by that point. Was pretty short lived.

 

[Ilov80s]

there was a very one sided trade between 2 brothers. One of them thought they could tell their cousin (also in the league) about their plan to make a super team between the 2 of them. The cousin ratted them out to the league, texts and all.

This was the same scenario as in my redraft league a decade ago. A 2-12 team made a deal with a 10-4 team (his half-brother) to send their 4 best players over for 4 of the half-brother's worst.

Never mind a veto - we voted to kick them out of the league, and commish-managed their rosters until they could be replaced the following season.

Yeah it got vetoed and I just didn't rejoin the next year so I have no idea what happened. I barely knew anyone in the league, I was kind of a last minute replacement for someone who quit a day before the draft.

 

[Wrigley]

Our league doesn’t allow trading between teams that have more than 4 wins separating them

That’s a little extreme imo. For example, what's wrong with a 4-0 team and 0-4 team trading?

Maybe, but it prevents the kinds of trades this thread is about.

 

[Kevrunner]

I wouldn’t be happy if this trade went thru in my league, Conner hasn’t even had his bye yet plus he’s got one of the toughest rest of the season schedule for RBs. The trade makes no sense other than trying to help the 9-1 team get a title, I guess that’s what friends are for. Anyway, teams that are eliminated for the playoffs still might have incentives to keep trying if the league gives weekly high points $$$ out, don’t know if this league does that or not, but I can understand eliminated teams still doing trades if they do.

 

[Ilov80s]

Our league doesn’t allow trading between teams that have more than 4 wins separating them

That’s a little extreme imo. For example, what's wrong with a 4-0 team and 0-4 team trading?

Maybe, but it prevents the kinds of trades this thread is about.

True. I might be more on board if we said the rule didn't go into effect until week 9 or 10.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Anyway, teams that are eliminated for the playoffs still might have incentives to keep trying if the league gives weekly high points $$$ out, don’t know if this league does that or not, but I can understand eliminated teams still doing trades if they do.

I don’t see side-prizes as valid incentive to making a trade. Loser bowl, weekly high score, etc are nice to keep folks interested. But making blockbuster deals for a minor prize compared with teams competing for an LCG? Yeah, no. I don’t see that at all.

 

[I Am the Stig]

If they are friends and collusion is suspected, I would put it to a League Vote. If the League By Laws don't have that provision, ADD IT.
Or the league will suffer and collapse.

Nope
You play by the rules that everyone agreed to before the season started. If you want to add that rule before next season…fine

And I don’t think that trade is vetoable in a league that lets owners veto (which I would never play in)

I mean, does "cheating" actually need to be spelled out as a rule?

Let's say the 2-8 team *is eliminated* from post season contention. They're colluding to improve the team that is contending.

You're saying that's ok if the rules don't explicitly call it out? What about trade-backs? Or hey, what if the 2-8 team decided to bench all of their best players because their friend the 9-1 team needed a W to be the 1-seed? Is tanking to help your buddy ok, so long as there's no rule against it?

Those would all be considered no-brainer collusion in my league, and while we don't have every one of those spelled out, it is well understood as taboo behavior.

If the rule is that once eliminated they can’t make trades then that is the rule. The trade is simply denied because they are no longer eligible to make a trade.

How hard is that?

However, that is not the argument being made. Also, in all of my leagues there no players mathematically eliminated yet. So it is possible that the 2-8 team is still mathematically alive.

If a last place player benches their squad, then again, it is a failing of the league that de-incentivize poor performing teams from competing. They can’t make trades, they can’t make waiver claims and then you’re surprised when they bench their players?

If you don’t give them a reason to care, after 13-14 weeks of crappy results they won’t care. It isn’t always “collusion” as much as it is apathy.

 

[I Am the Stig]

Anyway, teams that are eliminated for the playoffs still might have incentives to keep trying if the league gives weekly high points $$$ out, don’t know if this league does that or not, but I can understand eliminated teams still doing trades if they do.

I don’t see side-prizes as valid incentive to making a trade. Loser bowl, weekly high score, etc are nice to keep folks interested. But making blockbuster deals for a minor prize compared with teams competing for an LCG? Yeah, no. I don’t see that at all.

Then why don’t you just run their teams for them? That’s what you want. What a fun league you must run. If you’re losing tough luck, just lock the roster and stop playing so the worthy ones can play.

 

[Boston]

84.6% for collusion and 15.4% for apathy

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Our league doesn’t allow trading between teams that have more than 4 wins separating them

That’s a little extreme imo. For example, what's wrong with a 4-0 team and 0-4 team trading?

Maybe, but it prevents the kinds of trades this thread is about.

True. I might be more on board if we said the rule didn't go into effect until week 9 or 10.

I just don’t see what the “romeo & Juliette” rule, as it were, does to help that it doesn’t hurt far more.

Theoretically, bottom 6 teams can become top 6 teams by trading.

Usually top 6 teams are the ones with valuable players & excess of riches.

This rule just kind of destroys trading in general.

 

[Todem]

Horse **** trade of the highest degree.

 

[ghostguy123]

This is kinda the point. You can’t prove collusion so don’t make the accusation.

I've seen collusion proven twice. Once was a similar situation with a hopeless team giving away a good player for too cheap to a contender. A bunch of people in the league were texting and calling the guy asking him WTF he was doing and he finally "admitted" collusion. He sort of covered himself by saying his team sucked so he just accepted the trade without really looking close because he's given up on the year. We all took it as his way of admitting collusion without actually admitting it.

In another league there was a very one sided trade between 2 brothers. One of them thought they could tell their cousin (also in the league) about their plan to make a super team between the 2 of them. The cousin ratted them out to the league, texts and all.

So you badgered the guy to “admit” collusion when he said what I and others have said, “he really just didn’t care about the season anymore”. That’s not a crime and he doesn’t need to be held accountable to some “higher calling” of league competitive balance. His team sucked, he knew his team sucked so he made a trade that pissed people off.

Your league badgering him via text I’m sure rekindled his love of the game.

Leagues need to find ways to incentivize people to compete till the end otherwise this sort of thing is going to happen. You can call it collusion all you want but what it really is a league mate who is nothing more than bored. You don’t even need to kick the guy out because I’m sure he left willingly.

If he made some dumb trade cause he doesn't care about the season anymore, that almost as bad as collusion

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Playing detective, the key piece of evidence is they are friends and one's season is already over...if they were both contenders, I would be OK with it but that is definitely not the case...the fact they did not try harder to disguise it bothers me as well.

This is sound from a very sound and logical poster

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Horse **** trade of the highest degree.

Not happening in the 3-0-5, *****!

 

[I Am the Stig]

This is kinda the point. You can’t prove collusion so don’t make the accusation.

I've seen collusion proven twice. Once was a similar situation with a hopeless team giving away a good player for too cheap to a contender. A bunch of people in the league were texting and calling the guy asking him WTF he was doing and he finally "admitted" collusion. He sort of covered himself by saying his team sucked so he just accepted the trade without really looking close because he's given up on the year. We all took it as his way of admitting collusion without actually admitting it.

In another league there was a very one sided trade between 2 brothers. One of them thought they could tell their cousin (also in the league) about their plan to make a super team between the 2 of them. The cousin ratted them out to the league, texts and all.

So you badgered the guy to “admit” collusion when he said what I and others have said, “he really just didn’t care about the season anymore”. That’s not a crime and he doesn’t need to be held accountable to some “higher calling” of league competitive balance. His team sucked, he knew his team sucked so he made a trade that pissed people off.

Your league badgering him via text I’m sure rekindled his love of the game.

Leagues need to find ways to incentivize people to compete till the end otherwise this sort of thing is going to happen. You can call it collusion all you want but what it really is a league mate who is nothing more than bored. You don’t even need to kick the guy out because I’m sure he left willingly.

If he made some dumb trade cause he doesn't care about the season anymore, that almost as bad as collusion

And he won’t care about the “punishment” either. So have your little fantasy league hearing for all its worth and accept that not everyone takes it as seriously as people here do.

Because we are on this site, listen to podcasts do our own research we tend to think everyone we play against is just as invested. And that when “dumb or lopsided” trades are made we assume it must be collusion or something nefarious. The reality is more grounded than that, they are essentially telling you and us to get a friggin life. It’s fake football and their buy in is already burned. They don’t care who wins, all they know is they won’t win.

When you scrutinize these things it tends ruin the league anyways.

Make good bylaws and have good incentives and you won’t have these problems. But what you can’t legislate is that people care as much about it as you do.

 

[JohnnyU]

This is kinda the point. You can’t prove collusion so don’t make the accusation.

I've seen collusion proven twice. Once was a similar situation with a hopeless team giving away a good player for too cheap to a contender. A bunch of people in the league were texting and calling the guy asking him WTF he was doing and he finally "admitted" collusion. He sort of covered himself by saying his team sucked so he just accepted the trade without really looking close because he's given up on the year. We all took it as his way of admitting collusion without actually admitting it.

In another league there was a very one sided trade between 2 brothers. One of them thought they could tell their cousin (also in the league) about their plan to make a super team between the 2 of them. The cousin ratted them out to the league, texts and all.

So you badgered the guy to “admit” collusion when he said what I and others have said, “he really just didn’t care about the season anymore”. That’s not a crime and he doesn’t need to be held accountable to some “higher calling” of league competitive balance. His team sucked, he knew his team sucked so he made a trade that pissed people off.

Your league badgering him via text I’m sure rekindled his love of the game.

Leagues need to find ways to incentivize people to compete till the end otherwise this sort of thing is going to happen. You can call it collusion all you want but what it really is a league mate who is nothing more than bored. You don’t even need to kick the guy out because I’m sure he left willingly.

If he made some dumb trade cause he doesn't care about the season anymore, that almost as bad as collusion

And he won’t care about the “punishment” either. So have your little fantasy league hearing for all its worth and accept that not everyone takes it as seriously as people here do.

Because we are on this site, listen to podcasts do our own research we tend to think everyone we play against is just as invested. And that when “dumb or lopsided” trades are made we assume it must be collusion or something nefarious. The reality is more grounded than that, they are essentially telling you and us to get a friggin life. It’s fake football and their buy in is already burned. They don’t care who wins, all they know is they won’t win.

When you scrutinize these things it tends ruin the league anyways.

Make good bylaws and have good incentives and you won’t have these problems. But what you can’t legislate is that people care as much about it as you do.

I don’t want people who aren’t into it in my dynasty league. People like that are usually weeded out eventually anyway.

 

[I Am the Stig]

This is kinda the point. You can’t prove collusion so don’t make the accusation.

I've seen collusion proven twice. Once was a similar situation with a hopeless team giving away a good player for too cheap to a contender. A bunch of people in the league were texting and calling the guy asking him WTF he was doing and he finally "admitted" collusion. He sort of covered himself by saying his team sucked so he just accepted the trade without really looking close because he's given up on the year. We all took it as his way of admitting collusion without actually admitting it.

In another league there was a very one sided trade between 2 brothers. One of them thought they could tell their cousin (also in the league) about their plan to make a super team between the 2 of them. The cousin ratted them out to the league, texts and all.

So you badgered the guy to “admit” collusion when he said what I and others have said, “he really just didn’t care about the season anymore”. That’s not a crime and he doesn’t need to be held accountable to some “higher calling” of league competitive balance. His team sucked, he knew his team sucked so he made a trade that pissed people off.

Your league badgering him via text I’m sure rekindled his love of the game.

Leagues need to find ways to incentivize people to compete till the end otherwise this sort of thing is going to happen. You can call it collusion all you want but what it really is a league mate who is nothing more than bored. You don’t even need to kick the guy out because I’m sure he left willingly.

If he made some dumb trade cause he doesn't care about the season anymore, that almost as bad as collusion

And he won’t care about the “punishment” either. So have your little fantasy league hearing for all its worth and accept that not everyone takes it as seriously as people here do.

Because we are on this site, listen to podcasts do our own research we tend to think everyone we play against is just as invested. And that when “dumb or lopsided” trades are made we assume it must be collusion or something nefarious. The reality is more grounded than that, they are essentially telling you and us to get a friggin life. It’s fake football and their buy in is already burned. They don’t care who wins, all they know is they won’t win.

When you scrutinize these things it tends ruin the league anyways.

Make good bylaws and have good incentives and you won’t have these problems. But what you can’t legislate is that people care as much about it as you do.

I don’t want people who aren’t into it in my dynasty league. People like that are usually weeded out eventually anyway.

Of course, but none of US do. We’re the weird ones. Fantasy is incredibly popular but it is still very casual for most people.

It doesn’t hurt to develop a league with the more casual fan in mind. There have been a couple of threads this season about long time players who just don’t find fantasy to be as fun anymore. I think daily, and more gambling sites have eroded the game. But the increase of casual players mixing with serious players makes for a bad mix as well.

Personally, I found that this year I’m making trades almost just to do it. I’ve been playing for over 20 years and I’m literally spamming offers mostly just to feel engaged.

I’ve been on this site for years and I always get into these debates because I’ve always been the type to just let people play the way they want to within the known and objective rules. No vetos, no league votes, no big league oversight. When the buy in is low you’ll find the folks who are in it for the fun versus those who just want to win money.

 

[Mark Football]

I would not want to be in any league that has either of these 2 guys in it.

 

[DropKick]

I think people are conflating "name value" with production here.
Cook is averaging 16.5 ppg
Connor is averaging 12.2 ppg (and that's including a game he left early)

Harris v Henderson is a wash.

If you're 8-2, do you give up Cook and Harris (even this season's version) for Connor and Henderson? Really?

ETA: If it makes no sense for the 8-2 team... how does it make sense for the basement dweller?

 

[I Am the Stig]

I would not want to be in any league that has either of these 2 guys in it.

I’m really hurt.