Trade Issue - Strategy (1 Viewer)

[Instinctive]

Actually read this ESPN article about trading and had an interesting thought pop into my head about the pros, cons, and ethical questions surrounding a certain strategy at this point in the year. Here was the point that I thought entered a grey area both strategically and (for some, potentially) ethically:

9. It is better to give than receive: Would you ever consider trading Ben Roethlisberger and getting only Kendall Hunter in return? Perhaps not, and such a deal may well be vetoed for being "unfair." However, let the league make that call. If Big Ben is your backup but is a better quarterback than the one on the team playing "the team you need to lose in order to make the playoffs," why not at least make the offer?

Aside from the veto crap - I don't play in veto leagues because of the typical "not collusion means it's ok" commish blanket approval mandate - what do people think of this? Here is my situation as an example (I don't need advice on whether or not I specifically ought to do it, I can make that decision myself).I have Ray Rice, SJax, and MJD. I am in 3rd place, by one game, but hold the tiebreaker of total points over every team (I lead by around 150, 200 total points). I believe that I will win out at this point, looking at my schedule - but I want to make sure I get a bye by ensuring the other team ahead of me loses - with Brees on bye this week, this is the best chance for somebody else to beat him.

As is suggested by the article quote above, is it an acceptable thing for me to trade (for example) my Steven Jackson for another guy's Shonn Greene so that he will be practically ensured of beating the guy that I need to get a loss so I can potentially secure a bye? My thoughts are that I probably won't be using Jackson in the playoffs anyway except as a flex. In this case, Greene could be a monster in those crucial weeks with his cupcake schedule.

So there's a couple questions here about strategy, and one about ethics that I think merit discussion:

1. I think trading a player who is clearly better for a lesser guy in order to play matchups is dangerous, but could definitely pay off. Do you think the risk is worth the potential reward? Or do you think that it isn't worth trading a stud like SJax for a matchups guy just because the matchups guy has GREAT matchups?

2. Do you choose a trade partner at this point not just to make your points better, but to maximize your chance at the title? If enabling another owner to beat a team you are in competition with could give you a playoff advantage, do you consider it?

3 (ethical). Is it acceptable to take the bad end of a deal on purpose to try and cause another owner a loss? I feel like the two sides here are: A) It maximizes your chance at a title, therefore it is best for your team. B) It doesn't maximize your weekly score, therefore it is wrong.

And I thought of the possibility that it is collusion, but if the guy you are trading with (in this example, the Greene owner playing the second place team) doesn't know what you are doing and simply thinks he's gettign a great deal because you must love Greene...then it isn't collusion.

ETA:

Collusion: A secret agreement between two or more parties (emphasis added) for a fraudulent, illegal, or deceitful purpose.

 

[shnikies]

Actually read this ESPN article about trading and had an interesting thought pop into my head about the pros, cons, and ethical questions surrounding a certain strategy at this point in the year. Here was the point that I thought entered a grey area both strategically and (for some, potentially) ethically:

9. It is better to give than receive: Would you ever consider trading Ben Roethlisberger and getting only Kendall Hunter in return? Perhaps not, and such a deal may well be vetoed for being "unfair." However, let the league make that call. If Big Ben is your backup but is a better quarterback than the one on the team playing "the team you need to lose in order to make the playoffs," why not at least make the offer?

Aside from the veto crap - I don't play in veto leagues because of the typical "not collusion means it's ok" commish blanket approval mandate - what do people think of this? Here is my situation as an example (I don't need advice on whether or not I specifically ought to do it, I can make that decision myself).I have Ray Rice, SJax, and MJD. I am in 3rd place, by one game, but hold the tiebreaker of total points over every team (I lead by around 150, 200 total points). I believe that I will win out at this point, looking at my schedule - but I want to make sure I get a bye by ensuring the other team ahead of me loses - with Brees on bye this week, this is the best chance for somebody else to beat him.

As is suggested by the article quote above, is it an acceptable thing for me to trade (for example) my Steven Jackson for another guy's Shonn Greene so that he will be practically ensured of beating the guy that I need to get a loss so I can potentially secure a bye? My thoughts are that I probably won't be using Jackson in the playoffs anyway except as a flex. In this case, Greene could be a monster in those crucial weeks with his cupcake schedule.

So there's a couple questions here about strategy, and one about ethics that I think merit discussion:

1. I think trading a player who is clearly better for a lesser guy in order to play matchups is dangerous, but could definitely pay off. Do you think the risk is worth the potential reward? Or do you think that it isn't worth trading a stud like SJax for a matchups guy just because the matchups guy has GREAT matchups?

2. Do you choose a trade partner at this point not just to make your points better, but to maximize your chance at the title? If enabling another owner to beat a team you are in competition with could give you a playoff advantage, do you consider it?

3 (ethical). Is it acceptable to take the bad end of a deal on purpose to try and cause another owner a loss? I feel like the two sides here are: A) It maximizes your chance at a title, therefore it is best for your team. B) It doesn't maximize your weekly score, therefore it is wrong.

And I thought of the possibility that it is collusion, but if the guy you are trading with (in this example, the Greene owner playing the second place team) doesn't know what you are doing and simply thinks he's gettign a great deal because you must love Greene...then it isn't collusion.

That's what trade deadlines are for. Trading a player to a team for the simple fact to help beat your competition is collusion. It's hard to prove but it is collusion. Having a trade deadline at least three weeks before the playoffs helps prevent this from happening.

 

[Instinctive]

That's what trade deadlines are for. Trading a player to a team for the simple fact to help beat your competition is collusion. It's hard to prove but it is collusion. Having a trade deadline at least three weeks before the playoffs helps prevent this from happening.

It isn't collusion though. Did you read all of it?

Collusion: A secret agreement between two or more parties for a fraudulent, illegal, or deceitful purpose.

This is just you offering another guy a deal. You don't tell him why. You don't discuss your reasons. Hell, your reason, in this case, is "I like how this helps my team."

 

[FUBAR]

I wouldn't call it collusion, but trading your backup QB for less than he's worth is a bad plan unless you have a good 3rd.

Say you had Schaub and Ben. You traded Ben using this strategy. Now Schaub is out.

 

[Instinctive]

I wouldn't call it collusion, but trading your backup QB for less than he's worth is a bad plan unless you have a good 3rd. Say you had Schaub and Ben. You traded Ben using this strategy. Now Schaub is out.

So you would disagree with the strategy because you don't like the risk? That's definitely a point to consider. Does it change if you have say, Brady, Stafford, and Newton?

 

[imagroid]

not collusion, but probably not that smart either

 

[glong989]

Don't really see anything ethical about it unless you can predict the future. Who is to say Jackson doesn't lay eggs the rest of the year and Greene ends up being a stud. You would actually hurt your chances of a bye if that happens. I also think it weakens your team for the playoffs by starting Greene even if you like the matchups so in the long run I don't like this actual situation for you.

However, the Big Ben for Hunter trade situation from the article I don't really mind at all if you are doing it to ensure a loss of another team in your league. No one knows your motives except you and no one has any clue what the production of each player will be going forward so screw em.

 

[RUSF18]

The other side to this is when you are a top team with not only a great starting roster but talented players on your bench. It may not make sense for you to package your WR2 and your top reserve RB for another WR1 if in doing so, you're giving your trading partner enough of an upgrade at RB where he now has a team that could knock you off in the playoffs.

I also sort of dealt with this when attempting to fill my QB spot with Schaub out. I was more willing to give talent to a team that I don't expect to see as an obstacle in the playoffs.

 

[Hoosier16]

The only point when it becomes unethical is when your trading partner is already out of the playoffs. At that point, he shouldn't be making trades. Other than that, the threat that you are making him too good is enough to keep the trade legitimate.

 

[shnikies]

That's what trade deadlines are for. Trading a player to a team for the simple fact to help beat your competition is collusion. It's hard to prove but it is collusion. Having a trade deadline at least three weeks before the playoffs helps prevent this from happening.

It isn't collusion though. Did you read all of it?

Collusion: A secret agreement between two or more parties for a fraudulent, illegal, or deceitful purpose.

This is just you offering another guy a deal. You don't tell him why. You don't discuss your reasons. Hell, your reason, in this case, is "I like how this helps my team."

Just because you keep it a secret and only one side is aware of the collusion, it's still collusion. You're asking for less in return from a team in order to help them beat someone for your own gain. It's might not be text book but it's definitely unethical.

 

[Road Warriors]

I don't think its collusion as you've described it, but I don't like it. There's something about trading in a way that doesn't improve your own roster that I find "wrong". I use quotes here because this is more of a gut feel thing than a black and white, right and wrong situation.

In fact, as commish, I have always done my trade reviews with an eye to how each roster can reasonably be seen as improving from a trade ( reasonably meaning I try not to use my own valuation of a player as a hard measuring stick ). The deal you've proposed would probably pass muster in this review system, because it's reasonable that an owner may believe Greene has more upside down the stretch or something like that.

If you were to do something similar, but only were getting back an obvious scrub, I would probably question your motives as to how the trade improves your roster. I'd be curious how you'd answer that question if posed by the commish.

In the end, I don't mind trading for non-equal value, provided you are working to improve your roster. I struggle with trading to only improve someone else's roster.

 

[Instinctive]

I don't think its collusion as you've described it, but I don't like it. There's something about trading in a way that doesn't improve your own roster that I find "wrong". I use quotes here because this is more of a gut feel thing than a black and white, right and wrong situation.In fact, as commish, I have always done my trade reviews with an eye to how each roster can reasonably be seen as improving from a trade ( reasonably meaning I try not to use my own valuation of a player as a hard measuring stick ). The deal you've proposed would probably pass muster in this review system, because it's reasonable that an owner may believe Greene has more upside down the stretch or something like that.If you were to do something similar, but only were getting back an obvious scrub, I would probably question your motives as to how the trade improves your roster. I'd be curious how you'd answer that question if posed by the commish.In the end, I don't mind trading for non-equal value, provided you are working to improve your roster. I struggle with trading to only improve someone else's roster.

So you see a difference between improving your chances at winning a title and improving you roster, and you draw a line there? Not saying that's right/wrong, just want to get a handle on it.

 

[spodog]

The only point when it becomes unethical is when your trading partner is already out of the playoffs. At that point, he shouldn't be making trades.

I don't think it's that simple. In our main $ league, every single regular season game can net you some $'s from the prize pool if you win it, or cost you if you lose it. Losing cost twice as many $'s as what you recieve from a win. So a team that is out of the playoff picture in Week 10, for example, but still a week or so short of the trade deadline, may have a legitimate reason to be doing a trade, possibly even with another team with no playoff hope. Thier reason would be to attempt to improve their team, win their remaining games, and save some $'s.

 

[pittstownkiller]

I certainly could see this as not being collusion, as only one party would have to know what is going on, but it is certainly Machiavellian and lends itself to roster sharing. The only problem I see is that I didn't think of it first.

 

[imagroid]

Collusion requires two or more parties to be in agreement.

 

[Nugget]

No issue with this at all. My goal is not to maximize my roster - it is to finish as high as possible at the end of the season. You can't have collusion with only one party.

This is similar to the idea of possibly playing a less than optimum starting line up to hedge risk. If I'm favored over my opponent, have Big Ben and Tom Brady, and my oppenent is starting Heath Miller, Mike Wallace, and Antonio Brown, I'm suiting up Big Ben, even if I have predicted him to score 5-10 points less than Brady. The goal isn't always to score the most points - it is to win the game/league.

 

[FUBAR]

The only point when it becomes unethical is when your trading partner is already out of the playoffs. At that point, he shouldn't be making trades. Other than that, the threat that you are making him too good is enough to keep the trade legitimate.

Not allowing a team that's out of the playoffs to make trades helps that team's opponents secure easier wins.

 

[Agent575]

I would consider it collusion based on the simple fact that you are not trying to improve your team. I get what it is you are saying but at the very least you should be doing a trade where you give an upgrade at QB but receive and upgrade elsewhere which may still achieve the secondary part of your goal. Thats my opinion anyway.

I think its funny that an ESPN article talks about trade vetos as if that system is acceptable.

 

[kellumsboys]

another good reason not to read FF articles by ESPN

 

[shnikies]

Collusion requires two or more parties to be in agreement.

Technically the agreement is the trade. Just because one side doesn't hear from the other side in words doesn't mean the collusion isn't inferred You're going to give me Roethlisberger for Reggie Wayne the week I play the team you're tied with, that seems fair to me (wink, wink).

 

[FUBAR]

I wouldn't call it collusion, but trading your backup QB for less than he's worth is a bad plan unless you have a good 3rd. Say you had Schaub and Ben. You traded Ben using this strategy. Now Schaub is out.

So you would disagree with the strategy because you don't like the risk? That's definitely a point to consider. Does it change if you have say, Brady, Stafford, and Newton?

I think so. At least there's an argument that Greene or Hunter could start if things break right.

 

[FUBAR]

Collusion requires two or more parties to be in agreement.

Technically the agreement is the trade. Just because one side doesn't hear from the other side in words doesn't mean the collusion isn't inferred You're going to give me Roethlisberger for Reggie Wayne the week I play the team you're tied with, that seems fair to me (wink, wink).

Collusion: A secret agreement between two or more parties for a fraudulent, illegal, or deceitful purpose.

the trade isn't secret.

 

[GregR]

Making a trade that you believe worsens your overall gametime efforts and your roster in order to stack another team, is unethical. If you do it and you already knew it was unethical, which your posting here shows that you do, you deserve to be kicked out of your league.

Please don't dissemble over the dictionary definition of "collusion". The dictionary defines the term based more on the legal definition than it does on the looser way it is commonly used in fantasy football to refer to unethical acts.

That the other team isn't a party to cheating with you so it doesn't fit the legal definition of the term doesn't change that you're still trying to cheat. There is an understood spirit in fantasy football and sports in general that you compete as an individual in your own games using your own roster.

It doesn't matter if the benefit of you worsening your team is cash paid to you by another cheating owner, or whether it's then watching a clueless owner take the unfair advantage you gave him and go beat your rival. It's unethical, it's against the spirit of the game.

Don't be cheap. You came here and posted because inside you know it's wrong, but if other people who don't have any stake in the situation tell you it's ok, then you can convince yourself it is alright. You already know better or you wouldn't have felt the need to make this thread. Do the right thing.

 

[DoubleG]

Here is the problem (ethically) -

Team A (the team you are trading with) has an unfair advantage that it didn't have when it played other teams earlier in the year (and probably when he played your team). As such it IS unfair...but not technically collusion or against the rules. The advantage that Team A has is that he has gotten better at a position (the one you traded him) without getting proportionally weaker at another (the way he would had a "normal" trade taken place).

This is similar (although not exactly the same) when NFL teams rest starters at the end of the season. Often times, the teams that face them have an unfair advantage. HOWEVER in FF, there is nothing to be gained by such a practice, which is why the NFL example differs (in that there is a legit reason to rest players - injury) and thus is not as clear cut as right or wrong.

 

[shnikies]

Collusion requires two or more parties to be in agreement.

Technically the agreement is the trade. Just because one side doesn't hear from the other side in words doesn't mean the collusion isn't inferred You're going to give me Roethlisberger for Reggie Wayne the week I play the team you're tied with, that seems fair to me (wink, wink).

Collusion: A secret agreement between two or more parties for a fraudulent, illegal, or deceitful purpose.

the trade isn't secret.

I never said the trade is secret. I was saying just because the agreement isn't spoken, it can be inferred.

 

[imagroid]

Collusion requires two or more parties to be in agreement.

Technically the agreement is the trade. Just because one side doesn't hear from the other side in words doesn't mean the collusion isn't inferred You're going to give me Roethlisberger for Reggie Wayne the week I play the team you're tied with, that seems fair to me (wink, wink).

Collusion: A secret agreement between two or more parties for a fraudulent, illegal, or deceitful purpose.

the trade isn't secret.

I never said the trade is secret. I was saying just because the agreement isn't spoken, it can be inferred.

Ok, well then you don't understand the definition. For it to be collusion they have to be in cahoots. If accepting an offer that is real good for you is collusion, well then we're all colluders.

 

[Instinctive]

Making a trade that you believe worsens your overall gametime efforts and your roster in order to stack another team, is unethical. If you do it and you already knew it was unethical, which your posting here shows that you do, you deserve to be kicked out of your league.Please don't dissemble over the dictionary definition of "collusion". The dictionary defines the term based more on the legal definition than it does on the looser way it is commonly used in fantasy football to refer to unethical acts.That the other team isn't a party to cheating with you so it doesn't fit the legal definition of the term doesn't change that you're still trying to cheat. There is an understood spirit in fantasy football and sports in general that you compete as an individual in your own games using your own roster.It doesn't matter if the benefit of you worsening your team is cash paid to you by another cheating owner, or whether it's then watching a clueless owner take the unfair advantage you gave him and go beat your rival. It's unethical, it's against the spirit of the game.Don't be cheap. You came here and posted because inside you know it's wrong, but if other people who don't have any stake in the situation tell you it's ok, then you can convince yourself it is alright. You already know better or you wouldn't have felt the need to make this thread. Do the right thing.

I felt the first sentence deserved that. Give me a break - the fact that it seems as though you actually believe that the goal is to "stack another team" is laughable. The goal is to maximize your chances of making the playoffs.Don't give me the "you know it's wrong" bull####. It's only wrong if the goal is to maximize your score in any/every given week.That's not my goal. My goal is to win the league. I am competing as an individual, to win the league. I'm not tanking. I'm taking a big risk in losing a stud for the future in order to try and pull this off. And no, collusion is not used to refer to unethical acts. It's used to refer to collusion. Period. On top of that, the main question is about whether or not you think it is a good strategy for your team (quite a few posters seem to have understood this). Are you saying that it is wrong to sell a company one of your products at a loss for a time in order to drive one of your competitors out of business? Because it's acceptable as far as I know.Should you sell certain food items at a loss in order to maximize your restaurant's overall success and revenue? That seems like the same principle as well.Or, answer the principle question: Do you think this is a risk worth taking for your team?ETA: The trade benefits both trade partners. Just not necessarily by giving both rosters more points. So the other question you have is: Do you look at trades correctly? Should it be a question of "points for each roster" or a question of "benefit to each team"? I would posit the latter.

 

[Instinctive]

Here is the problem (ethically) -

Team A (the team you are trading with) has an unfair advantage that it didn't have when it played other teams earlier in the year (and probably when he played your team). As such it IS unfair...but not technically collusion or against the rules. The advantage that Team A has is that he has gotten better at a position (the one you traded him) without getting proportionally weaker at another (the way he would had a "normal" trade taken place).

This is similar (although not exactly the same) when NFL teams rest starters at the end of the season. Often times, the teams that face them have an unfair advantage. HOWEVER in FF, there is nothing to be gained by such a practice, which is why the NFL example differs (in that there is a legit reason to rest players - injury) and thus is not as clear cut as right or wrong.

If you make a trade with any team that makes both squads better, isn't that what happens? When I overpaid somebody three starters for Brady because they were on my bench and I had a QB weakness...his team was much better than ti was against other opponents earlier in the season. This seems like a poor argument because it points to ALL trading as thus being unfair.The bottom line here is that this trade BENEFITS both teams, but does not necessarily make both teams score more points.

 

[shnikies]

Collusion requires two or more parties to be in agreement.

Technically the agreement is the trade. Just because one side doesn't hear from the other side in words doesn't mean the collusion isn't inferred You're going to give me Roethlisberger for Reggie Wayne the week I play the team you're tied with, that seems fair to me (wink, wink).

Collusion: A secret agreement between two or more parties for a fraudulent, illegal, or deceitful purpose.

the trade isn't secret.

I never said the trade is secret. I was saying just because the agreement isn't spoken, it can be inferred.

Ok, well then you don't understand the definition. For it to be collusion they have to be in cahoots. If accepting an offer that is real good for you is collusion, well then we're all colluders.

Nevermind. My explanation is obviously going over your head.

 

[RJS113]

Whether or not you want to call it collusion, it's cheating. What if My QBs are Brady, Stafford, and Cam Newton. I want to make sure another team loses to help me get into the playoffs, so I trade a team Stafford for a kicker. I sent the offer, and there was no secret agreement with the other team. Still think it's ok?

 

[shnikies]

Whether or not you want to call it collusion, it's cheating. What if My QBs are Brady, Stafford, and Cam Newton. I want to make sure another team loses to help me get into the playoffs, so I trade a team Stafford for a kicker. I sent the offer, and there was no secret agreement with the other team. Still think it's ok?

Exactly what I said but apparently unless both parties tell each other in writing that they're colluding with each other it can not possibly be colluding. People don't understand the word "implied".

 

[GregR]

You completely missed my point so let me try to say it clearer. I probably wasn't the clearest as when I wrote my post I was a bit pissed that ESPN would post an article with that crap in it, where they don't clearly delineate where something becomes unethical. And in fact they basically espoused trying whatever an owner can slip through, without bothering to think about if it is unethical.Any trade that you do should stand alone on the merits of how it is likely to improve your gametime efforts. Not any other team's game. Your games. You ask is it ok trading an overall better player (SJax) for an overall worse player (Greene), when you expect Greene to be the better player the weeks you would actually use him. Since you are improving the player you'll actually start, then clearly the answer is yes according to our criteria for a trade, and there is nothing ethically wrong there.So that is one situation. Now let's talk about your points 2 and 3.

2. Do you choose a trade partner at this point not just to make your points better, but to maximize your chance at the title? If enabling another owner to beat a team you are in competition with could give you a playoff advantage, do you consider it?3 (ethical). Is it acceptable to take the bad end of a deal on purpose to try and cause another owner a loss? I feel like the two sides here are: A) It maximizes your chance at a title, therefore it is best for your team. B) It doesn't maximize your weekly score, therefore it is wrong.

On #2... if the trade(s) you would do improve your own gametime efforts on their own merits regardless of who the other teams are, I don't see much of an ethics issue in the selection of who to trade with. If you prefer that the consequences of you doing an ethical trade not help your big rival, or does not help the owner who pisses you off by making lopsided offers all the time, or even prefer it goes to a team who plays teams in contention with you, I don't see a problem there because that is a CONSEQUENCE of your trade, not a MOTIVATION for it.The problem is when we get to #3 and the trade's improvement of your team's gametime efforts is not able to stand on its own merits. If it requires "my trade partner doing better against his opponents" for you to consider the trade a benefit, then it is unethical to do it.FF is based on a spirit of individual competition. Teams should have to face a lineup each week that came from every owner trying to maximize his own lineup. Not from an owner attempting to stack another team to hurt his rivals.If you don't agree with this, let me give you an example. You're regarded as far and away the best owner in the league, and if you make the playoffs the other owners don't think they have a chance of winning the championship. So the rest of the other owners trade each week to your opponent any bench player that would improve their chances against you. They don't meet and agree to it. People just see the first team do it and start doing the same on their own.Would you consider that unfair? Their goal "is to win the league" and seeing you lose helps their chances. They "are not tanking". They are doing the same thing as you, worsening their team in order to do so. The degree doesn't matter.Where they would be wrong to do so is where you are wrong in your statement. You are NOT competing as an individual if you conduct trades to improve other teams at no improvement to your roster, anymore than they would be. Thus my answer which was focused on your point #3. If you make a trade that can't stand on its own merits for improving your roster... then you are no longer competing as an individual team. You are working to give another team benefits he could not achieve competing on his own. It doesn't matter that it helps your chances to win a championship. So does paying someone $50 for Arian Foster. It still violates the spirit of individual competition.

 

[mtyson]

Whether or not you want to call it collusion, it's cheating. What if My QBs are Brady, Stafford, and Cam Newton. I want to make sure another team loses to help me get into the playoffs, so I trade a team Stafford for a kicker. I sent the offer, and there was no secret agreement with the other team. Still think it's ok?

Exactly what I said but apparently unless both parties tell each other in writing that they're colluding with each other it can not possibly be colluding. People don't understand the word "implied".

Pretty much this. There is collusion AND cheating, both viable options for a veto. Player dumping isnt considered collusion, but its cheating. If a bottom rank team traded his stud player for peanuts to a playoff team people agree its CHEATING but not collusion, since both teams aren't working together to make an unfair trade. It goes both ways, a top team can't dump a player to a bottom rank team to help eliminate potential playoff threats.

 

[FUBAR]

Just curious, for those who would veto this, would you also veto a bad trade in which neither team hopes to gain anything "suspicious", but one owner just makes a somewhat bad trade?

 

[Instinctive]

Whether or not you want to call it collusion, it's cheating. What if My QBs are Brady, Stafford, and Cam Newton. I want to make sure another team loses to help me get into the playoffs, so I trade a team Stafford for a kicker. I sent the offer, and there was no secret agreement with the other team. Still think it's ok?

Yes, I think it's ok. It's stupid, because I think you can get more, but it's ok.

Whether or not you want to call it collusion, it's cheating. What if My QBs are Brady, Stafford, and Cam Newton. I want to make sure another team loses to help me get into the playoffs, so I trade a team Stafford for a kicker. I sent the offer, and there was no secret agreement with the other team. Still think it's ok?

Exactly what I said but apparently unless both parties tell each other in writing that they're colluding with each other it can not possibly be colluding. People don't understand the word "implied".

Pretty much this. There is collusion AND cheating, both viable options for a veto. Player dumping isnt considered collusion, but its cheating. If a bottom rank team traded his stud player for peanuts to a playoff team people agree its CHEATING but not collusion, since both teams aren't working together to make an unfair trade. It goes both ways, a top team can't dump a player to a bottom rank team to help eliminate potential playoff threats.

It still isn't collusion. shnikies is wrong on that point. It absolutely, 100%, is not collusion. You could consider it cheating, but calling it collusion is wrong. Period. That's not what collusion is.In dynasty - top teams dump picks or players all the time. Bottom teams dump a top player for a prospect and picks. It totally changes the playoffs for others teams, but it's ok.Player dumping has a rule against it in most leagues (in mine at least). Trading does not. Colluding does. Making a trade that others may not think is so great is not.

 

[Instinctive]

FF is based on a spirit of individual competition. Teams should have to face a lineup each week that came from every owner trying to maximize his own lineup. Not from an owner attempting to stack another team to hurt his rivals.

If you don't agree with this, let me give you an example. You're regarded as far and away the best owner in the league, and if you make the playoffs the other owners don't think they have a chance of winning the championship. So the rest of the other owners trade each week to your opponent any bench player that would improve their chances against you. They don't meet and agree to it. People just see the first team do it and start doing the same on their own.

Would you consider that unfair? Their goal "is to win the league" and seeing you lose helps their chances. They "are not tanking". They are doing the same thing as you, worsening their team in order to do so. The degree doesn't matter.

Where they would be wrong to do so is where you are wrong in your statement. You are NOT competing as an individual if you conduct trades to improve other teams at no improvement to your roster, anymore than they would be.

I agree that this would suck. I also would say it's unlikely that this stays away from becoming collusion. I'd also say that if it was another owner, and people were doing that, I would gladly accept a trade offer greatly in my favor when I played the guy, but I would not trade away to that guy's next opponent.I also don't think it's illegal. I think it's dumb, because I don't think it benefits any given team enough, but I don't think it's wrong if it stays within the rules of the league. If people just happen to be doing it, then that's tough luck for me, but those other people are, at the same time, hurting their chances of winning because they are giving up useful players to other teams.

Thus my answer which was focused on your point #3. If you make a trade that can't stand on its own merits for improving your roster... then you are no longer competing as an individual team. You are working to give another team benefits he could not achieve competing on his own. It doesn't matter that it helps your chances to win a championship. So does paying someone $50 for Arian Foster. It still violates the spirit of individual competition.

I disagree then. I think the goal (ETA: week in and week out) is to maximize your chance at winning it all. Anything within the rules that is aimed at that goal is acceptable and, in my mind, encouraged. And I'm not giving another team benefits - I'm benefitting my team, and it happens to also benefit another (just like in a typical trade). If me sitting down Arian Foster, Greg Jennings and Tom Brady and taking a loss in week 13 improves my chances at winning it all - then I'm ok with it. On the other hand, in many (all I think) of my dynasty leagues there is a "no tanking for draft position rule," which I would not be ok with violating. If no rule was there and I was 1-7, I'd definitely be trading away any older guys I had for picks and young guys, and potentially sitting certain players at times as well.

Finally, there's a difference between this and paying someone money for a player. You know that. And once again, in my leagues at least, that's against the rules.

 

[Topes]

Only read halfway through the first post.

Overthinking and over-assuming.

OP did, though, get to the crux of it: "I think trading a player who is clearly better for a lesser guy in order to play matchups is dangerous, but could definitely pay off. Do you think the risk is worth the potential reward?"

Generally speaking, no.

In your specific scenario, hells no.

The odds of your gambit working perfectly are way, way low.

I've seen all sorts of overwonkery over the years. Most often, it's an owner trying to fix his playoff matchup by losing a late season game to merit a seed he believes to be more desirable. More often than not, it seems, such owners are thinking too many steps ahead, and karma bites them in the nards.

 

[GregR]

If you actually decide to do this.... I mean specifically make a trade that you don't think benefits your own roster and games... I'm curious if you would email your league and tell them openly that this was your motivation for making the trade?

Or will you be reluctant to do so because others in your league will think it's cheating?

 

[glumpy]

That's what trade deadlines are for. Trading a player to a team for the simple fact to help beat your competition is collusion. It's hard to prove but it is collusion. Having a trade deadline at least three weeks before the playoffs helps prevent this from happening.

It isn't collusion though. Did you read all of it?

Collusion: A secret agreement between two or more parties for a fraudulent, illegal, or deceitful purpose.

This is just you offering another guy a deal. You don't tell him why. You don't discuss your reasons. Hell, your reason, in this case, is "I like how this helps my team."

In the example given I agree with this take. After reading the OP I looked it up based on my league's scoring, and the benefit is pretty huge. We're talking about a flex player to begin with, and the ppg differential between those two is only 4+ points. Meanwhile the difference in playoff schedules is much larger. He's already confident that he's in, and working for the bye. I see no problem with the concept. Whether it flies within the league is another question entirely as they may see the same benefit he's looking at--but it's not collusion.

 

[Instinctive]

If you actually decide to do this.... I mean specifically make a trade that you don't think benefits your own roster and games... I'm curious if you would email your league and tell them openly that this was your motivation for making the trade?Or will you be reluctant to do so because others in your league will think it's cheating?

If I was asked "Wow, why'd you send SJax for Greene?" My response would be, word for word, "I love Greene's week 15 and 16 and I need ______(name)'s team to get a loss so I can get the bye. It could cost me week 12 or 13, but I gotta have him lose and with Brees out, this is the opportunity."Now, the motivation of the historical emergence of a RB2 or worse player every year that sends people to titles helps - but I would not make this offer (I still haven't decided if I would actually play Greene over SJax yet) to a random team. The fact that this team plays the team ahead of me is part of my motivation.

 

[Road Warriors]

Just curious, for those who would veto this, would you also veto a bad trade in which neither team hopes to gain anything "suspicious", but one owner just makes a somewhat bad trade?

Does each owner believe he's making a move to improve his team? The term "bad trade" implies some known future value of the players involved. Trades that look bad ( based on draft position or consensus valuation ) often turn out differently than expectation. If each owner involved in the trade thinks he is improving his own team, I have no problem allowing "bad" trades.

 

[Cookiemonster]

I say, go for it... but karma is a beiotch. I have seen things like this come back to bite someone in the keester too many times.

 

[Road Warriors]

I don't think its collusion as you've described it, but I don't like it. There's something about trading in a way that doesn't improve your own roster that I find "wrong". I use quotes here because this is more of a gut feel thing than a black and white, right and wrong situation.In fact, as commish, I have always done my trade reviews with an eye to how each roster can reasonably be seen as improving from a trade ( reasonably meaning I try not to use my own valuation of a player as a hard measuring stick ). The deal you've proposed would probably pass muster in this review system, because it's reasonable that an owner may believe Greene has more upside down the stretch or something like that.If you were to do something similar, but only were getting back an obvious scrub, I would probably question your motives as to how the trade improves your roster. I'd be curious how you'd answer that question if posed by the commish.In the end, I don't mind trading for non-equal value, provided you are working to improve your roster. I struggle with trading to only improve someone else's roster.

So you see a difference between improving your chances at winning a title and improving you roster, and you draw a line there? Not saying that's right/wrong, just want to get a handle on it.

I do see a line there, but its fuzzy at best. I get the overall objective is to win the title. But trading to give an opponent a better chance to beat another opponent feels wrong, IMO. If the only tangible benefit to Team A from a deal with Team B is that Team B gets stronger and has a better chance to beat Team C, which helps Team A's playoff positioning, then yes, I would have a problem with that. If I was given that as an explanation for a trade, I would disallow it as Commish.

 

[Road Warriors]

If you actually decide to do this.... I mean specifically make a trade that you don't think benefits your own roster and games... I'm curious if you would email your league and tell them openly that this was your motivation for making the trade?Or will you be reluctant to do so because others in your league will think it's cheating?

If I was asked "Wow, why'd you send SJax for Greene?" My response would be, word for word, "I love Greene's week 15 and 16 and I need ______(name)'s team to get a loss so I can get the bye. It could cost me week 12 or 13, but I gotta have him lose and with Brees out, this is the opportunity."Now, the motivation of the historical emergence of a RB2 or worse player every year that sends people to titles helps - but I would not make this offer (I still haven't decided if I would actually play Greene over SJax yet) to a random team. The fact that this team plays the team ahead of me is part of my motivation.

In my "commish review" view, this explanation would be good enough to allow the trade. The key element of the explanation is the first part. Truthful or not, you've provided a reasonable explanation of why you feel you've improved your roster.Without that part, it reads like this...

I need ______(name)'s team to get a loss so I can get the bye. It could cost me week 12 or 13, but I gotta have him lose and with Brees out, this is the opportunity.

If this alone was the explanation, I would disallow the trade.

 

[Instinctive]

If you actually decide to do this.... I mean specifically make a trade that you don't think benefits your own roster and games... I'm curious if you would email your league and tell them openly that this was your motivation for making the trade?Or will you be reluctant to do so because others in your league will think it's cheating?

If I was asked "Wow, why'd you send SJax for Greene?" My response would be, word for word, "I love Greene's week 15 and 16 and I need ______(name)'s team to get a loss so I can get the bye. It could cost me week 12 or 13, but I gotta have him lose and with Brees out, this is the opportunity."Now, the motivation of the historical emergence of a RB2 or worse player every year that sends people to titles helps - but I would not make this offer (I still haven't decided if I would actually play Greene over SJax yet) to a random team. The fact that this team plays the team ahead of me is part of my motivation.

In my "commish review" view, this explanation would be good enough to allow the trade. The key element of the explanation is the first part. Truthful or not, you've provided a reasonable explanation of why you feel you've improved your roster.Without that part, it reads like this...

I need ______(name)'s team to get a loss so I can get the bye. It could cost me week 12 or 13, but I gotta have him lose and with Brees out, this is the opportunity.

If this alone was the explanation, I would disallow the trade.

That's an interesting take. I wouldn't do one without the other. I wouldn't trade Jackson for Greene without the peripheral benefit - but I also wouldn't trade to this guy if I didn't really love Greene's playoff schedule.So the fact that I also want Greene makes the other part acceptable? I kind of want to create a general principle to rule by here, a la what the Supreme Court (typically) tries to do with it's cases on the First amendment (and others I am sure, but I lack knowledge outside of that arena).

 

[Hoosier16]

The only point when it becomes unethical is when your trading partner is already out of the playoffs. At that point, he shouldn't be making trades.

I don't think it's that simple. In our main $ league, every single regular season game can net you some $'s from the prize pool if you win it, or cost you if you lose it. Losing cost twice as many $'s as what you recieve from a win. So a team that is out of the playoff picture in Week 10, for example, but still a week or so short of the trade deadline, may have a legitimate reason to be doing a trade, possibly even with another team with no playoff hope. Thier reason would be to attempt to improve their team, win their remaining games, and save some $'s.

It is really pretty simple.You are concentrating on the 1% and ignoring the 99%. The majority or leagues don't have payouts for every single game. it's easy to come up with a hypothetical that can circumvent any rule or idea. In general, a team who is out of the playoffs shouldn't have any legitimate reason for making a trade.

 

[Hoosier16]

The only point when it becomes unethical is when your trading partner is already out of the playoffs. At that point, he shouldn't be making trades. Other than that, the threat that you are making him too good is enough to keep the trade legitimate.

Not allowing a team that's out of the playoffs to make trades helps that team's opponents secure easier wins.

Obviously there shouldn't be any league that allows trading for some teams and not others. I would think this would be self-evident.

 

[Road Warriors]

If you actually decide to do this.... I mean specifically make a trade that you don't think benefits your own roster and games... I'm curious if you would email your league and tell them openly that this was your motivation for making the trade?

Or will you be reluctant to do so because others in your league will think it's cheating?

If I was asked "Wow, why'd you send SJax for Greene?" My response would be, word for word, "I love Greene's week 15 and 16 and I need ______(name)'s team to get a loss so I can get the bye. It could cost me week 12 or 13, but I gotta have him lose and with Brees out, this is the opportunity."Now, the motivation of the historical emergence of a RB2 or worse player every year that sends people to titles helps - but I would not make this offer (I still haven't decided if I would actually play Greene over SJax yet) to a random team. The fact that this team plays the team ahead of me is part of my motivation.

In my "commish review" view, this explanation would be good enough to allow the trade. The key element of the explanation is the first part. Truthful or not, you've provided a reasonable explanation of why you feel you've improved your roster.Without that part, it reads like this...

I need ______(name)'s team to get a loss so I can get the bye. It could cost me week 12 or 13, but I gotta have him lose and with Brees out, this is the opportunity.

If this alone was the explanation, I would disallow the trade.

That's an interesting take. I wouldn't do one without the other. I wouldn't trade Jackson for Greene without the peripheral benefit - but I also wouldn't trade to this guy if I didn't really love Greene's playoff schedule.So the fact that I also want Greene makes the other part acceptable? I kind of want to create a general principle to rule by here, a la what the Supreme Court (typically) tries to do with it's cases on the First amendment (and others I am sure, but I lack knowledge outside of that arena).

I don't know that you can build a general rule out of this, but that's how I've administered my trade review process as commissioner, although i don't recall ever having to rule on something like this. To me, the fact that you want Greene ( regardless of the peripheral benefit ) makes your trade scenario OK, IMO. The fact that you see a side benefit as well is nice for you, but irrelevant to deciding the legitimacy of the trade. The general rule we use is " trades must be made with the objective of improving your team." And this is in a keeper league, so we often have trades that clearly help one team this year and the other team the following year. But the premise is the same, you're making the transaction to improve your team.

I consider the bolded to be the important aspect.