Unethical or Collusion? Yes/No poll (1 Viewer)

[Interseptopus]

why does this thread have to be about fantasycurse##'s situation? The poll is worthwhile on it's own, regardless of any drama that is getting brought in from another thread. There is a serious problem with people who don't understand that this is collusion. money changing hands is not a prerequisite for collusion. this seems to be a sticking point with some people who say that the team getting the short end of the trade 'gains nothing' therefore it's not collusion.

This situation is an agreement made between two players, expressly intended to give one team an unfair advantage. we don't need to know both teams rosters because we're not trying to determine if the trade was 'fair' or whether it somehow made sense for both trade partners; in this situation it has been admitted that the trade was not designed to improve both teams. even if you could find some argument where the trade did make sense, it would be a moot point because of the admitted intent of the traders.

the bottom line for me is that i think everyone agrees that what happened shouldn't happen in FF, and the vast vast majority i think would agree that this trade should be considered illegal in FF; but there are some rules lawyers who would like to semantically differentiate this as unethical behavior rather than collusion. I don't know WHY they feel the need to do this (perhaps to justify different levels of punishment?), but it is incorrect. This was collusion, plain and simple.

I'm not sure I agree.

In my league, I am worried about one of the teams on the bubble. He could be very dangerous in the playoffs. I have made trades with three teams who he is in direct competition with to help try and push him out. I sold my players on pennies for the dollar so to speak, but I did get some decent keeper options and I was able to nab Rodgers for the playoffs.

This could be something similar

Bottom line is that the OP tried to cherry pick available info to skew the results. Now that we know who these players are, it looks less like collusion and more like a bad trade.

Collusion is trading Matt Shaub for Peyton manning.

I think when you are talking about throwing two players out of a league because of collusion, semantics and definitions become quite important. These two were removed for completing a bad trade. Maybe it had poor intentions, but it wasn't collusion. Who could argue about this forever, so this is just my opinion.

 

[KCitons]

why does this thread have to be about fantasycurse##'s situation? The poll is worthwhile on it's own, regardless of any drama that is getting brought in from another thread. There is a serious problem with people who don't understand that this is collusion. money changing hands is not a prerequisite for collusion. this seems to be a sticking point with some people who say that the team getting the short end of the trade 'gains nothing' therefore it's not collusion.

This situation is an agreement made between two players, expressly intended to give one team an unfair advantage. we don't need to know both teams rosters because we're not trying to determine if the trade was 'fair' or whether it somehow made sense for both trade partners; in this situation it has been admitted that the trade was not designed to improve both teams. even if you could find some argument where the trade did make sense, it would be a moot point because of the admitted intent of the traders.

the bottom line for me is that i think everyone agrees that what happened shouldn't happen in FF, and the vast vast majority i think would agree that this trade should be considered illegal in FF; but there are some rules lawyers who would like to semantically differentiate this as unethical behavior rather than collusion. I don't know WHY they feel the need to do this (perhaps to justify different levels of punishment?), but it is incorrect. This was collusion, plain and simple.

I'm sure you have me lumped into the "lawyers". But I think it's important to point at that 16 people (approx 1/3) of those voting have said it's not collusion.

Collusion has never been a cut and dry thing. Yes this case is unique because one team admitted to making the trade because his season was over. But it also shows that other owners in a league often can't make an accurate decision when it comes to collusion. They are just to close to the situation to be impartial. What would happen if the owner attempted to defend his trades. Simply stating that he is a Cardinals fan. And, if his season is over he would rather root for his Cardinals as he plays out the season.

 

[Mario Kart]

I still see no reason to steal each participants $400 from them. That oaths true crime from this.

 

[Interseptopus]

why does this thread have to be about fantasycurse##'s situation? The poll is worthwhile on it's own, regardless of any drama that is getting brought in from another thread. There is a serious problem with people who don't understand that this is collusion. money changing hands is not a prerequisite for collusion. this seems to be a sticking point with some people who say that the team getting the short end of the trade 'gains nothing' therefore it's not collusion.

This situation is an agreement made between two players, expressly intended to give one team an unfair advantage. we don't need to know both teams rosters because we're not trying to determine if the trade was 'fair' or whether it somehow made sense for both trade partners; in this situation it has been admitted that the trade was not designed to improve both teams. even if you could find some argument where the trade did make sense, it would be a moot point because of the admitted intent of the traders.

the bottom line for me is that i think everyone agrees that what happened shouldn't happen in FF, and the vast vast majority i think would agree that this trade should be considered illegal in FF; but there are some rules lawyers who would like to semantically differentiate this as unethical behavior rather than collusion. I don't know WHY they feel the need to do this (perhaps to justify different levels of punishment?), but it is incorrect. This was collusion, plain and simple.

I'm sure you have me lumped into the "lawyers". But I think it's important to point at that 16 people (approx 1/3) of those voting have said it's not collusion. Collusion has never been a cut and dry thing. Yes this case is unique because one team admitted to making the trade because his season was over. But it also shows that other owners in a league often can't make an accurate decision when it comes to collusion. They are just to close to the situation to be impartial. What would happen if the owner attempted to defend his trades. Simply stating that he is a Cardinals fan. And, if his season is over he would rather root for his Cardinals as he plays out the season.

Good point. I hate it when people think they know what's better for me on how to run my team. It is hard for me not to do that for others, especially in my league where people reject trades that help them ridiculously just because they want to cheer for their guy. I had someone reject a very fair offer for Rodgers before his injury basically because the guy is a homer and has stars in his eyes with Rodgers. (I have since completed a better trade for myself with him for Rodgers after the injury).

I had a guy in our league one year who loved the bears. Naturally he was just awful. He made a trade for jay cutler and gave up a lot in return. All of us said it was a terrible trade and we discussed it on the message board. He defended it saying he didn't care if it was a bad trade and just wanted his bears team. I took note and used that to my advantage in a future year.

Too many people think they know what's best. This trade was just a bad deal. Would I have done it? No. But I probably would have sold Russell Wilson cheaper than most people, just because I can't stand him and I do think he will fall apart at some point. Am I right in thinking that. Maybe not, but it's my team and my opinion

 

[Johnny Blood]

why does this thread have to be about fantasycurse##'s situation? The poll is worthwhile on it's own, regardless of any drama that is getting brought in from another thread. There is a serious problem with people who don't understand that this is collusion.

don't you think, just maybe, there'd be less arguing and resistance if the poll options didn't amount to: "I'm right because X or I'm right because Y"?

Everything about both threads is presented in a secretive and biased manner where the conclusion is taken as a given and the participants are just supposed to describe the various ways the OP could be right.

 

[Interseptopus]

I still see no reason to steal each participants $400 from them. That oaths true crime from this.

I agreeThat's the biggest crime of this whole situation.

 

[Johnny Blood]

I still see no reason to steal each participants $400 from them. That oaths true crime from this.

I agreeThat's the biggest crime of this whole situation.

Or screwing some uninvolved party out of a playoff spot.

 

[drummer]

What the hell in going on in here?

 

[Interseptopus]

What the hell in going on in here?

I'm just waiting for fantasy curse to tell me his personal accomplishments in life in an endless rant

 

[fantasycurse42]

I still see no reason to steal each participants $400 from them. That oaths true crime from this.

Added more info to the other thread you might have missed... After admitting to tanking the commish gave both players the option to take their money and leave the league or leave it in and stay next year. 3-7 is staying and leaving his money in. 6-4 is silent so far.

BTW, just bc we went to HS together doesn't mean we all still see each other, sure we are friends, but there are 3 or 4 GMs in this league that I haven't seen in 2-3 years.

You can add all the hypotheticals you want, player A tanked & gave his pal a deal they both knew to be wrong, that they both knew it wasn't for the benefit of team A... This has been admitted! Textbook.

If you were sitting at a poker game with friends & someone passes their buddy 3 aces under the table, just to be a good friend, the result remains the same. He was ####### the league, & you have to be foolish to argue against.

 

[Interseptopus]

I still see no reason to steal each participants $400 from them. That oaths true crime from this.

Added more info to the other thread you might have missed... After admitting to tanking the commish gave both players the option to take their money and leave the league or leave it in and stay next year. 3-7 is staying and leaving his money in. 6-4 is silent so far.

BTW, just bc we went to HS together doesn't mean we all still see each other, sure we are friends, but there are 3 or 4 GMs in this league that I haven't seen in 2-3 years.

You can add all the hypotheticals you want, player A tanked & gave his pal a deal they both knew to be wrong, that they both knew it wasn't for the benefit of team A... This has been admitted! Textbook.

If you were sitting at a poker game with friends & someone passes their buddy 3 aces under the table, just to be a good friend, the result remains the same. He was ####### the league, & you have to be foolish to argue against.

I still see no reason to steal each participants $400 from them. That oaths true crime from this.

Added more info to the other thread you might have missed... After admitting to tanking the commish gave both players the option to take their money and leave the league or leave it in and stay next year. 3-7 is staying and leaving his money in. 6-4 is silent so far.

BTW, just bc we went to HS together doesn't mean we all still see each other, sure we are friends, but there are 3 or 4 GMs in this league that I haven't seen in 2-3 years.

You can add all the hypotheticals you want, player A tanked & gave his pal a deal they both knew to be wrong, that they both knew it wasn't for the benefit of team A... This has been admitted! Textbook.

If you were sitting at a poker game with friends & someone passes their buddy 3 aces under the table, just to be a good friend, the result remains the same. He was ####### the league, & you have to be foolish to argue against.

That was a much better solution to the situation than taking the money. I missed that as well.

I am with you on the hs buddies- I had a league for several years with hs buddies and we went from live drafts to online to losing a few. We had a few that stayed in touch with each other but most of us didn't see much of each other and fantasy kept us in contact.

If I was sitting at a poker game, and my friend gave me 3 aces and I gave him a 2 3 and 5, what's to say that I didn't just give him a straight flush to beat my full house?

 

[Interseptopus]

What the hell in going on in here?

I'm just waiting for fantasy curse to tell me his personal accomplishments in life in an endless rant

Go choke on the eggs genius, you're clearly not the brightest.

Don't get mad at me because you flew off the handle a while ago.Not the brightest... If you want to go there I can list my degrees, my publications, and the impact I've made to the medical world. However, I won't stoop to your level. I don't need others to know how important I am to make me feel good

 

[ragnarok628]

why does this thread have to be about fantasycurse##'s situation? The poll is worthwhile on it's own, regardless of any drama that is getting brought in from another thread. There is a serious problem with people who don't understand that this is collusion. money changing hands is not a prerequisite for collusion. this seems to be a sticking point with some people who say that the team getting the short end of the trade 'gains nothing' therefore it's not collusion.

This situation is an agreement made between two players, expressly intended to give one team an unfair advantage. we don't need to know both teams rosters because we're not trying to determine if the trade was 'fair' or whether it somehow made sense for both trade partners; in this situation it has been admitted that the trade was not designed to improve both teams. even if you could find some argument where the trade did make sense, it would be a moot point because of the admitted intent of the traders.

the bottom line for me is that i think everyone agrees that what happened shouldn't happen in FF, and the vast vast majority i think would agree that this trade should be considered illegal in FF; but there are some rules lawyers who would like to semantically differentiate this as unethical behavior rather than collusion. I don't know WHY they feel the need to do this (perhaps to justify different levels of punishment?), but it is incorrect. This was collusion, plain and simple.

I'm sure you have me lumped into the "lawyers". But I think it's important to point at that 16 people (approx 1/3) of those voting have said it's not collusion.

Collusion has never been a cut and dry thing. Yes this case is unique because one team admitted to making the trade because his season was over. But it also shows that other owners in a league often can't make an accurate decision when it comes to collusion. They are just to close to the situation to be impartial. What would happen if the owner attempted to defend his trades. Simply stating that he is a Cardinals fan. And, if his season is over he would rather root for his Cardinals as he plays out the season.

Well then you wouldn't have a very good case for collusion. i agree collusion isn't always cut and dried... but this time it is. Just because these situations *can be* very sticky doesn't meanwe shouldn't call a spade a spade.

I'm now seeing some logic along the lines of: well if X is collusion, then Y would be collusion and i don't think Y is collusion therefore X isn't collusion. well, it's not always clear that because X is, Y is. In fact it's often VERY debateable. a lot of that has to do with the fact that collusion vs. bad trades is most of the time merely a matter of motive. Is keeping a 3rd team out of the playoffs factors in to your decision on whether or not to take a trade that you might not normally take collusion? THAT is an interesting question. what we have here, well it's just not that nuanced. textbook collusion.

i think the only thing that the poll tells me is that at least 16 people think collusion must involve some physical reward changing hands. It ain't so.

 

[Mario Kart]

The ultimatum is stupid. If both are out of contention for this year due to "being disqualified", then they should have their money returned. I hope the one team takes his money and goes. There are plenty of leagues in America and for you guys to dictate the way you have, go pound sand.

 

[KCitons]

What the hell in going on in here?

I'm just waiting for fantasy curse to tell me his personal accomplishments in life in an endless rant

Go choke on the eggs genius, you're clearly not the brightest.

Don't get mad at me because you flew off the handle a while ago.Not the brightest... If you want to go there I can list my degrees, my publications, and the impact I've made to the medical world. However, I won't stoop to your level. I don't need others to know how important I am to make me feel good

Hey Dr, if you're not going to use those accomplisjments , can I? I need all the help I can get.

 

[fantasycurse42]

The ultimatum is stupid. If both are out of contention for this year due to "being disqualified", then they should have their money returned. I hope the one team takes his money and goes. There are plenty of leagues in America and for you guys to dictate the way you have, go pound sand.

Hopefully they land in your league & cheat you...

Go pound sand? Okay grandpa, NP

 

[Interseptopus]

What the hell in going on in here?

I'm just waiting for fantasy curse to tell me his personal accomplishments in life in an endless rant

Go choke on the eggs genius, you're clearly not the brightest.

Don't get mad at me because you flew off the handle a while ago.Not the brightest... If you want to go there I can list my degrees, my publications, and the impact I've made to the medical world. However, I won't stoop to your level. I don't need others to know how important I am to make me feel good

Hey Dr, if you're not going to use those accomplisjments , can I? I need all the help I can get.

This actually made me chuckle.

 

[fantasycurse42]

I feel bad arguing with KC, another poster hit it on the head - clearly on meds. It is wrong, & I apologize... I'm being sincere, mental illness is major problem in this country.

 

[Phenix]

@

 

[KCitons]

I feel bad arguing with KC, another poster hit it on the head - clearly on meds. It is wrong, & I apologize... I'm being sincere, mental illness is major problem in this country.

Can't seem to take enough Tylenol to fix a pain in the ###. Maybe I should switch to ibuprofen?

BTW where is that link?

 

[tone1oc]

A huge part of fantasy is taking advantage of people that are out of it. This works great right after a deflating loss.

This is clearly not collusion. This is one savvy owner taking advantage of another downtrodden owner.

Further, just because you say someone is better than someone doesn't in fact make it true. You have no idea what will happen with Jay Cutler and Russell Wilson. Perhaps in one week it is RW who is on the injury report and Cutler who is announced as week 12 starter again. This is not even factoring in any possible performance. Its certainly possible that Cutler could light it up and its not like Russell Wilson is Brees, Rodgers or Manning.

What if Fitzgerald is finally healthy and starts clicking with Carson Palmer and returns to his HOF form? Or as someone else said, they are simply a Cardinals fan?

You sound like a bitter owner who is #####ing about someone doing what they could for their own self interest, for your own self interest.

Get over yourself, if you were so great at fantasy you should be able to beat them regardless.

 

[KCitons]

Here comes the link......... To the 9-0 thread.

 

[Mario Kart]

The funny thing is this could have all been prevented with an appropriate trade deadline. So, the league should not be upset when the league, all of them, are partially to blame. Thus, returning the money without the option of being kicked out is a complete asisine option to even have.

 

[Interseptopus]

A huge part of fantasy is taking advantage of people that are out of it. This works great right after a deflating loss.

This is clearly not collusion. This is one savvy owner taking advantage of another downtrodden owner.

Further, just because you say someone is better than someone doesn't in fact make it true. You have no idea what will happen with Jay Cutler and Russell Wilson. Perhaps in one week it is RW who is on the injury report and Cutler who is announced as week 12 starter again. This is not even factoring in any possible performance. Its certainly possible that Cutler could light it up and its not like Russell Wilson is Brees, Rodgers or Manning.

What if Fitzgerald is finally healthy and starts clicking with Carson Palmer and returns to his HOF form? Or as someone else said, they are simply a Cardinals fan?

You sound like a bitter owner who is #####ing about someone doing what they could for their own self interest, for your own self interest.

Get over yourself, if you were so great at fantasy you should be able to beat them regardless.

I always laugh when people protest these kinds of trades and then the team they all thought was getting the better end of the deal actually ends up getting the worse end

 

[Johnny Blood]

I don't think there's anything wrong with trades still being allowed at this time. In my league we don't even go back to divisional play until next week. 1 of 12 teams are eliminated now.

 

[JHuber77]

Appropriate trade deadline and locking of rosters for anyone not in the playoffs. Seems to work just fine in all my leagues

 

[Interseptopus]

Appropriate trade deadline and locking of rosters for anyone not in the playoffs. Seems to work just fine in all my leagues

Mine too.

This sounds an awful lot like sour grapes. People who didn't think of it first and are ticked off

 

[tone1oc]

A huge part of fantasy is taking advantage of people that are out of it. This works great right after a deflating loss.

This is clearly not collusion. This is one savvy owner taking advantage of another downtrodden owner.

Further, just because you say someone is better than someone doesn't in fact make it true. You have no idea what will happen with Jay Cutler and Russell Wilson. Perhaps in one week it is RW who is on the injury report and Cutler who is announced as week 12 starter again. This is not even factoring in any possible performance. Its certainly possible that Cutler could light it up and its not like Russell Wilson is Brees, Rodgers or Manning.

What if Fitzgerald is finally healthy and starts clicking with Carson Palmer and returns to his HOF form? Or as someone else said, they are simply a Cardinals fan?

You sound like a bitter owner who is #####ing about someone doing what they could for their own self interest, for your own self interest.

Get over yourself, if you were so great at fantasy you should be able to beat them regardless.

I always laugh when people protest these kinds of trades and then the team they all thought was getting the better end of the deal actually ends up getting the worse end

I know, I'm trying to find the email from a few years ago.. But there was a trade that went down in a dynasty that involved DMC for Jamaal Charles, this was when DMC was consensus top 5 back and Charles was hurt. There were more pieces involved but I can't remember. (It's a yahoo league so no historical data) This trade caused tremendous uproar and a few were crying collusion.

Anyways, Charles has been the linchpin in his team the past two seasons where he went 11-2 last season and is 7-3 this year.

The same owner just pulled off a trade for Gore while giving Ray Rice and Lamar Miller (whom he probably wont keep due to our keeper rules) to the other owner, who started hot and has faded out of contention. This other owner I don't really know and is friends with and lives in the same city as the other.

Does it irritate me he was able to get it done? A little

Is all that just selfish condemnation? Yes

You just never know how these things turn out, and I think anyone that has played fantasy long enough has seen this.

 

[Interseptopus]

A huge part of fantasy is taking advantage of people that are out of it. This works great right after a deflating loss.

This is clearly not collusion. This is one savvy owner taking advantage of another downtrodden owner.

Further, just because you say someone is better than someone doesn't in fact make it true. You have no idea what will happen with Jay Cutler and Russell Wilson. Perhaps in one week it is RW who is on the injury report and Cutler who is announced as week 12 starter again. This is not even factoring in any possible performance. Its certainly possible that Cutler could light it up and its not like Russell Wilson is Brees, Rodgers or Manning.

What if Fitzgerald is finally healthy and starts clicking with Carson Palmer and returns to his HOF form? Or as someone else said, they are simply a Cardinals fan?

You sound like a bitter owner who is #####ing about someone doing what they could for their own self interest, for your own self interest.

Get over yourself, if you were so great at fantasy you should be able to beat them regardless.

I always laugh when people protest these kinds of trades and then the team they all thought was getting the better end of the deal actually ends up getting the worse end

I know, I'm trying to find the email from a few years ago.. But there was a trade that went down in a dynasty that involved DMC for Jamaal Charles, this was when DMC was consensus top 5 back and Charles was hurt. There were more pieces involved but I can't remember. (It's a yahoo league so no historical data) This trade caused tremendous uproar and a few were crying collusion.Anyways, Charles has been the linchpin in his team the past two seasons where he went 11-2 last season and is 7-3 this year.

The same owner just pulled off a trade for Gore while giving Ray Rice and Lamar Miller (whom he probably wont keep due to our keeper rules) to the other owner, who started hot and has faded out of contention. This other owner I don't really know and is friends with and lives in the same city as the other.

Does it irritate me he was able to get it done? A little

Is all that just selfish condemnation? Yes

You just never know how these things turn out, and I think anyone that has played fantasy long enough has seen this.

At the start of one of my leagues, a guy had absolutely no QB in the draft, and trade bush for Kaep. I was ticked and thought he was getting a huge deal. I didn't protest, let it go. Turns out he got the raw end

 

[MoveToSkypager]

I don't think I've posted on this page yet, but I should. I like the improvement so far.

 

[fantasycurse42]

I don't think I've posted on this page yet, but I should. I like the improvement so far.

Movetotheskytroller is here, let the debate begin

 

[KCitons]

I don't think I've posted on this page yet, but I should. I like the improvement so far.

Movetotheskytroller is here, let the debate begin

Shouldn't you start another thread for that?

 

[davearm]

Well then you wouldn't have a very good case for collusion. i agree collusion isn't always cut and dried... but this time it is. Just because these situations *can be* very sticky doesn't meanwe shouldn't call a spade a spade.

I'm now seeing some logic along the lines of: well if X is collusion, then Y would be collusion and i don't think Y is collusion therefore X isn't collusion. well, it's not always clear that because X is, Y is. In fact it's often VERY debateable. a lot of that has to do with the fact that collusion vs. bad trades is most of the time merely a matter of motive. Is keeping a 3rd team out of the playoffs factors in to your decision on whether or not to take a trade that you might not normally take collusion? THAT is an interesting question. what we have here, well it's just not that nuanced. textbook collusion.

i think the only thing that the poll tells me is that at least 16 people think collusion must involve some physical reward changing hands. It ain't so.

This is a textbook case of tanking.Tanking is different than collusion.

If out of the blue, with zero communication, 3-7 guy had offered this trade, and 6-4 guy had accepted, would you still be yelling collusion?

If you say yes, then I give, we're miles apart on a conceptual level.

If no, then why does 6-4 guy's begging change the narrative in any meaningful way?

 

[monk]

No convo, just a yes/no poll to put a raging argument to bed.

Redraft league - Team A is 3-7 and season is just about over. He makes a trade with his best friend Team B who is 6-4.

Player A trades 3 top 10 guys to player B for an injured guy, a backup, & a number 2 guy. After commissioner disqualifies both teams, player A comes clean to commissioner that he tanked and A & B made the deal to make Player B's team better. Supposedly no money is exchanged between the two of them & it was just done out of friendship.

Team A traded away AJ Green, Moreno, & R Wilson

Team B traded away Larry Fitzgerald, BJGE, Cutler

No convo, just a yes/no poll to put a raging argument to bed.

Redraft league - Team A is 3-7 and season is just about over. He makes a trade with his best friend Team B who is 6-4.

Player A trades 3 top 10 guys to player B for an injured guy, a backup, & a number 2 guy. After commissioner disqualifies both teams, player A comes clean to commissioner that he tanked and A & B made the deal to make Player B's team better. Supposedly no money is exchanged between the two of them & it was just done out of friendship.

Team A traded away AJ Green, Moreno, & R Wilson

Team B traded away Larry Fitzgerald, BJGE, Cutler

Collusion - Secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose ...I dunno?

Terrible Trade that is bad for the integrity of the League? I would think so and if the rest of your league agrees ... bust the trade.

 

[KCitons]

No convo, just a yes/no poll to put a raging argument to bed.

Redraft league - Team A is 3-7 and season is just about over. He makes a trade with his best friend Team B who is 6-4.

Player A trades 3 top 10 guys to player B for an injured guy, a backup, & a number 2 guy. After commissioner disqualifies both teams, player A comes clean to commissioner that he tanked and A & B made the deal to make Player B's team better. Supposedly no money is exchanged between the two of them & it was just done out of friendship.

Team A traded away AJ Green, Moreno, & R Wilson

Team B traded away Larry Fitzgerald, BJGE, Cutler

No convo, just a yes/no poll to put a raging argument to bed.

Redraft league - Team A is 3-7 and season is just about over. He makes a trade with his best friend Team B who is 6-4.

Player A trades 3 top 10 guys to player B for an injured guy, a backup, & a number 2 guy. After commissioner disqualifies both teams, player A comes clean to commissioner that he tanked and A & B made the deal to make Player B's team better. Supposedly no money is exchanged between the two of them & it was just done out of friendship.

Team A traded away AJ Green, Moreno, & R Wilson

Team B traded away Larry Fitzgerald, BJGE, Cutler

Collusion - Secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose ...I dunno?

Terrible Trade that is bad for the integrity of the League? I would think so and if the rest of your league agrees ... bust the trade.

I posted this in the other thread, but I think it needs to be posted here. (and any time some uses integrity of league as an excuse to overturn trades)

Should the same apply to every teams draft pick in a startup draft? If someone was to take Jay Cutler with the 10th overall pick, would you stop the draft, demand the owner be removed from the league and keep his fees?

As the teams move through the season, should you monitor everyone teams waivers? If an owner acquires the wrong player, should you kick him out of the league and keep his fees?

Lastly, should you monitor every owners starting lineup to make sure they are starting the players you would start? What if they end up losing the game and it becomes obvious that the players you would have started would have earn him the win? Should this owner be removed from the league and his fees kept?

Bottom line. It's your league, but it's not your team. If NFL owners acted like this, they would have kicked the Browns, Jags and Raiders out of the league years ago. Without specific rules on how to handle things, there is only one agreement between owners and the league. The owner pays a fee and in return he manages a team.

 

[Interseptopus]

No convo, just a yes/no poll to put a raging argument to bed.

Redraft league - Team A is 3-7 and season is just about over. He makes a trade with his best friend Team B who is 6-4.

Player A trades 3 top 10 guys to player B for an injured guy, a backup, & a number 2 guy. After commissioner disqualifies both teams, player A comes clean to commissioner that he tanked and A & B made the deal to make Player B's team better. Supposedly no money is exchanged between the two of them & it was just done out of friendship.

Team A traded away AJ Green, Moreno, & R Wilson

Team B traded away Larry Fitzgerald, BJGE, Cutler

No convo, just a yes/no poll to put a raging argument to bed.

Redraft league - Team A is 3-7 and season is just about over. He makes a trade with his best friend Team B who is 6-4.

Player A trades 3 top 10 guys to player B for an injured guy, a backup, & a number 2 guy. After commissioner disqualifies both teams, player A comes clean to commissioner that he tanked and A & B made the deal to make Player B's team better. Supposedly no money is exchanged between the two of them & it was just done out of friendship.

Team A traded away AJ Green, Moreno, & R Wilson

Team B traded away Larry Fitzgerald, BJGE, Cutler

Collusion - Secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose ...I dunno? Terrible Trade that is bad for the integrity of the League? I would think so and if the rest of your league agrees ... bust the trade.

I posted this in the other thread, but I think it needs to be posted here. (and any time some uses integrity of league as an excuse to overturn trades)Should the same apply to every teams draft pick in a startup draft? If someone was to take Jay Cutler with the 10th overall pick, would you stop the draft, demand the owner be removed from the league and keep his fees?

As the teams move through the season, should you monitor everyone teams waivers? If an owner acquires the wrong player, should you kick him out of the league and keep his fees?

Lastly, should you monitor every owners starting lineup to make sure they are starting the players you would start? What if they end up losing the game and it becomes obvious that the players you would have started would have earn him the win? Should this owner be removed from the league and his fees kept?

Bottom line. It's your league, but it's not your team. If NFL owners acted like this, they would have kicked the Browns, Jags and Raiders out of the league years ago. Without specific rules on how to handle things, there is only one agreement between owners and the league. The owner pays a fee and in return he manages a team.

Valid points

Last year someone took mcgahee with the 6th overall pick in one of my drafts.

Every year someone makes a boneheaded draft or WW pick up or start.

What if I started Tavon Austin last week over Dez Bryant because I had a feeling. If I had posted that in these forums people would be laughing in my face. What if I was playing a team on the bubble for the playoffs and I was out, and he was a buddy of mine? Des that make it collusion that I am throwing a game to let him make the playoffs? But wait, Austin had an awesome game.

No one knows it all. Kick someone out and take their hundreds of dollars worth of fees over silly things like that and you lose your league real fast

 

[ragnarok628]

Well then you wouldn't have a very good case for collusion. i agree collusion isn't always cut and dried... but this time it is. Just because these situations *can be* very sticky doesn't meanwe shouldn't call a spade a spade.

I'm now seeing some logic along the lines of: well if X is collusion, then Y would be collusion and i don't think Y is collusion therefore X isn't collusion. well, it's not always clear that because X is, Y is. In fact it's often VERY debateable. a lot of that has to do with the fact that collusion vs. bad trades is most of the time merely a matter of motive. Is keeping a 3rd team out of the playoffs factors in to your decision on whether or not to take a trade that you might not normally take collusion? THAT is an interesting question. what we have here, well it's just not that nuanced. textbook collusion.

i think the only thing that the poll tells me is that at least 16 people think collusion must involve some physical reward changing hands. It ain't so.

This is a textbook case of tanking.Tanking is different than collusion.

If out of the blue, with zero communication, 3-7 guy had offered this trade, and 6-4 guy had accepted, would you still be yelling collusion?

If you say yes, then I give, we're miles apart on a conceptual level.

If no, then why does 6-4 guy's begging change the narrative in any meaningful way

no i would not be 'yelling' collusion because that is not collusion. but that's not what happened. what happened was collusion, and i don't understand what that has to do with this. This isn't 'tanking'. I doubt we can all agree on a definition for tanking, but every time i've ever seen the word used it is as a strategy to somehow improve your situation by losing. i.e., tank for higher draft pick, tank a game to get a different team in the playoffs. This is redraft and he's out of the playoff picture, so no possible advantage to his team can be had by losing games. So, no, this isn't tanking to me. He just gave up. just because you've given up doesn't mean you can't collude. Indeed, giving up would IMO be a mandatory precondition for colluding, certainly not a state that absolves this guy of collusion.

6-4 guy begging is neither here nor there and i don't believe i ever said it was.(?) it is collusion because the two teams agreed to work together to give one of the teams an unfair advantage. which is not the same as two teams working to their own perceived advantage.

 

[Interseptopus]

His thread is getting too long. Can we start another? See if the outcome is any different?

 

[davearm]

Ok then, we agree that tanking is different than colluding. Hooray for progress!

Any chance we can also agree that just giving up is different than colluding?

Because we also agree that what 3-7 guy did was give up.

What he did after he gave up was definitely wrong, and should be reversed. Look at all this agreeing!

We just don't agree on the appropriate label for it. Absent a secret agreement, absent any demonstrated interest in what happens to 6-4 guy's team, and absent any sort of payoff, collusion isn't the right label. There ought to be one, but collusion is already taken.

 

[Johnny Blood]

no i would not be 'yelling' collusion because that is not collusion. but that's not what happened. what happened was collusion, and i don't understand what that has to do with this. This isn't 'tanking'. I doubt we can all agree on a definition for tanking, but every time i've ever seen the word used it is as a strategy to somehow improve your situation by losing. i.e., tank for higher draft pick, tank a game to get a different team in the playoffs. This is redraft and he's out of the playoff picture, so no possible advantage to his team can be had by losing games. So, no, this isn't tanking to me. He just gave up. just because you've given up doesn't mean you can't collude. Indeed, giving up would IMO be a mandatory precondition for colluding, certainly not a state that absolves this guy of collusion.

Collusion requires the intention of two or more people to collude. We have absolutely no evidence indicating that happened. All we have are the selective bits of information doled out by someone who can be bothered to post literally thousands of words and multiple threads, but not to spend two seconds copying and pasting the rosters that have been asked for a dozen times.

One guy giving up, deciding "screw it" or "i'll help this guy" and choosing to accept a standing offer that most people think is bad is not collusion. Collusion requires two people intending to collude. Maybe that happened, how would we know?

"it is collusion because the two teams agreed to work together to give one of the teams an unfair advantage." Even if you believe everything the OP says, you only have evidence that one team intended to give another team an advantage. Maybe something illegal happened, but there's not a shred of evidence *we've been given* that it was collusion.

People are arguing the point because the thread title of the first post just assumed it was collusion, this poll is a compete joke, and he doesn't give out basic information that any sane person would want when answering these questions. Add on to that the ludicrous resolution to the problem and you've really got something to waste time on the internet about!

 

[ragnarok628]

We just don't agree on the appropriate label for it. Absent a secret agreement, absent any demonstrated interest in what happens to 6-4 guy's team, and absent any sort of payoff, collusion isn't the right label. There ought to be one, but collusion is already taken.

I think you have a strangely narrow way of defining collusion. or maybe just a narrow definition of 'secret' and 'payoff', i'm not sure. I think we agree that collusion does mean a very specific thing and that it gets applied to a lot of things that are *not* collusion, but i don't see anything about this case that makes it not collusion. the conversation leading to this trade was 'secret' insofar as only they two were privy to it at the time, the very act of the trade being accepted demonstrates interest in the 6-4 guys team (else why do anything?) and the payoff is whatever 3-7 felt he got out of doing it. we can't know exactly what that was, whether it be to spite the rest of the league, to help a friend, to get an annoying guy to leave you alone, whatever. so by what your definition seems to be, i think it fits. furthermore i disagree about the 'payoff' part of your definition. collusion is about intentionally furthering another teams interest at the expense of your own team's interest. whether there is some kind of reciprocation involved is not a defining aspect of the arrangement. I also would not necessarily consider whether 3-7 wants 6-4 to succeed or not relevant to whether this is collusion. either way he engaged in collusive activity.

@johnny blood,

my points are all made on the assumption that the fact we have are complete and correct. that this is unassumable in the real world is not germane to my position. If you would like to make your own position on the assumption that we know nothing for sure, i think the only thing you'll be able to show is that we know nothing for sure. sounds useful.

 

[KCitons]

Is there a possibility of one website being the go to source for evaluation of trades? Maybe somewhere that can take every variable into account and spit out an accurate valuation. I know there are some, but they seem to be based partly in stats and partly on human rankings.

If it could build a reliable reputation of say 70% accuracy, then I think it would be a valuable tool for fantasy leagues and even individual owners that would want to pay for the service.

 

[Mr.Pack]

Textbook stupidity for a "serious league" to have their trade deadline not over already.

You reap what you sow

 

[Johnny Blood]

@johnny blood,

my points are all made on the assumption that the fact we have are complete and correct. that this is unassumable in the real world is not germane to my position. If you would like to make your own position on the assumption that we know nothing for sure, i think the only thing you'll be able to show is that we know nothing for sure. sounds useful.

Everything we have is compatible with the "winner" of this trade following one of the methods you see every single year in the trade strategy forums: send lowball offers.

In fact everything we are told is compatible with the "winner" having a lowball offer out to every team in the league, and with the "best" of those offers being to the 3-7 team. So how on earth does the "winner" become guilty of collusion (and lose $400!) if someone accepts one of those trades for the wrong reason?

You're the one who said you wanted the thread to be about the general problem presented in the OP. Well, that's precisely what I'm talking about. You keep affirming that they colluded and I don't see how you can reach that conclusion. It sounds more like dumping, but you invented a definition of dumping that I've never heard of and doesn't make sense to me.

The distinction is vital since dumping is a solo crime, collusion is a multiple party crime. Yet here even if the obviously biased OP, who refuses to hand out the most introductory level facts one needs in these cases, is telling the truth, we only have evidence of dumping while two players have lost $400 and been DQ'ed.

 

[Pantherz]

1) This is redraft, right? So can we get past the "who's the backup", "need to see the rest of the roster" stuff. All three positions were upgrades for one team based on current market value on any site, anywhere.

2) In all likelihood, these two teams tried to make a trade they both knew was wrong. Call it colluding, cheating, or detrimental to the league. Pick your own words, but in this case it's more likely all of the above.

3) If 3-7 team wants to give up, that's fine. He screwed up by making a trade that affected every other team in the league, and he has no viable argument to say that he didn't. In fact he admitted it. Lesson to the rest of the league: The fact that you are out of real contention does not give you the right to screw the rest of the league. There is money involved and integrity matters. I also expect you to put out a viable lineup each week, without bye week players. You owe that to the rest of the league.

4) The "winning" team has been silent right? Their response would determine my actions with them if I was Commish. There could be a scenario I see where they remain in the league. It would be something like: Dude, they sent the offer on the website, I hit accept because it was a great offer. We never talked at all.

If this happened I go back to the 3-7 team and ask them. If they say they offered the trade with without telling the other owner they were throwing in the towel and sending him help, then the winning team is partly off the hook. I would not boot them, but would ask for a little more common sense in the future. The trade is just too lopsided to be taken without questioning it.

5) It was mentioned earlier that this is not like like a Peyton Manning for Matt Shaub trade. My feeling is that it is in fact worse when you look at the projected point differential. I was going to load this one into my league's trade evaluator, but it's past our trade deadline and not available. In my league I'm guessing it would be a 25+ point per week differential.

6) I've seen in this thread and others that the opinions on what should be allowed varies greatly. I guess I fall on the strictest side of this. A couple of examples some seem OK with:

If you make a trade to another team that you know does not improve your team, and in fact hurts it, even slightly, just so that another team can beat an opponent you are scared to face in the playoffs, you have colluded.

If you make a trade with future considerations, such as a later trade back of the player, you have colluded. Some believe this is OK, I do not. You are in essence borrowing or lending a player. Not allowed. All trades must stand on their own merit.

I would not immediately boot both teams, and it doesn't sound like the OP did. I would reverse the trade, ask both owners to have more respect for the other teams, and move on. At the end of the season, I would decide whether they needed to be booted. In large part it would be dtermined by their reaction and actions for the remainder of the season.

I guess I've led a sheltered life when it comes to Fantasy Football because I've never had this happen in any of my leagues, including 24 years encompassing about 60 collective seasons. Some of the responses and what people think is OK really surprises me.

 

[Johnny Blood]

1) This is redraft, right? So can we get past the "who's the backup", "need to see the rest of the roster" stuff. All three positions were upgrades for one team based on current market value on any site, anywhere.

Put this case aside. Just look at point #1 here. So what? That and $2.50 gets you a ride on the bus.

One team dominating on current market value (according to the global FF community) happens ALL THE TIME when someone is stacked at a position and the trade market is not liquid. Not saying that happened here, but your #1 point is complete bunk. The closer you get to the deadline the more likely it is to happen.

Evaluating trades with no rosters and only the words of someone who is without any doubt selective with the facts is ludicrous.

I bought Peyton for pennies on the dollar last year the deadline day, and the anti trading set in my league went wild giving this same bunk argument. Guess what---Peyton isn't worth "current market value" when you don't want to bench Rodgers for him and you aren't flooded with offers. The market value in my league was my piddling offer, and he took it because it was the only way to get more points in his starting lineup.

It doesn't matter if every FF site on the globe says one team trounced the other. Without context that is useless information.

 

[Pantherz]

1) This is redraft, right? So can we get past the "who's the backup", "need to see the rest of the roster" stuff. All three positions were upgrades for one team based on current market value on any site, anywhere.

So what? That and $2.50 gets you a ride on the bus.

One team dominating on current market value (according to the global FF community) happens ALL THE TIME when someone is stacked at a position and the trade market is not liquid. Not saying that happened here, but your #1 point is complete bunk. The closer you get to the deadline the more likely it is to happen.

Evaluating trades with no rosters and only the words of someone who is without any doubt selective with the facts is ludicrous.

The 3-7 team admitted he traded to help the other team. I do understand what you are trying to say, but in this case it simply doesn't apply. I have no idea why the OP wouldn't post the rosters, but I've never seen one where losing at three different positions helps. I have also seen questionable trades that appeared bad on one side turn out the other way. Doesn't mean anything here because by all accounts 3-7 said he knew it was a bad trade for his team.

 

[KCitons]

1) This is redraft, right? So can we get past the "who's the backup", "need to see the rest of the roster" stuff. All three positions were upgrades for one team based on current market value on any site, anywhere.

So what? That and $2.50 gets you a ride on the bus.

One team dominating on current market value (according to the global FF community) happens ALL THE TIME when someone is stacked at a position and the trade market is not liquid. Not saying that happened here, but your #1 point is complete bunk. The closer you get to the deadline the more likely it is to happen.

Evaluating trades with no rosters and only the words of someone who is without any doubt selective with the facts is ludicrous.

The 3-7 team admitted he traded to help the other team. I do understand what you are trying to say, but in this case it simply doesn't apply. I have no idea why the OP wouldn't post the rosters, but I've never seen one where losing at three different positions helps. I have also seen questionable trades that appeared bad on one side turn out the other way. Doesn't mean anything here because by all accounts 3-7 said he knew it was a bad trade for his team.

It may have been a bad trade for his team, but was it a good for him personally. I already mentioned that he may have been a fan of one to player/teams and decided since he was going to be watching from the outside, he would rather lose with his favorite players.

Would doing something like this be considered collusion? Or conduct detrimental to the league?

 

[Da Guru]

I really hate half-assed leagues.

 

[Pantherz]

1) This is redraft, right? So can we get past the "who's the backup", "need to see the rest of the roster" stuff. All three positions were upgrades for one team based on current market value on any site, anywhere.

So what? That and $2.50 gets you a ride on the bus.

One team dominating on current market value (according to the global FF community) happens ALL THE TIME when someone is stacked at a position and the trade market is not liquid. Not saying that happened here, but your #1 point is complete bunk. The closer you get to the deadline the more likely it is to happen.

Evaluating trades with no rosters and only the words of someone who is without any doubt selective with the facts is ludicrous.

The 3-7 team admitted he traded to help the other team. I do understand what you are trying to say, but in this case it simply doesn't apply. I have no idea why the OP wouldn't post the rosters, but I've never seen one where losing at three different positions helps. I have also seen questionable trades that appeared bad on one side turn out the other way. Doesn't mean anything here because by all accounts 3-7 said he knew it was a bad trade for his team.

It may have been a bad trade for his team, but was it a good for him personally. I already mentioned that he may have been a fan of one to player/teams and decided since he was going to be watching from the outside, he would rather lose with his favorite players.

Would doing something like this be considered collusion? Or conduct detrimental to the league?

So if my team is bad, but I really like Brandon Lafell, being a Panther fan and all, you'd be OK with me trading Calvin Johnson for him because it would make me happier. YES I have a problem with that. Can you not see how this affects the rest of the league? Unbelievable.