What exactly do you consider collusion? (1 Viewer)

[Boston]

IMO collusion is easily defined...

It's cheating.

If you're cheating you're colluding (is that a real word?).

If you're being a stupid owner than you're being a stupid owner. That's not colluding

If you're being a very creative owner and you're working the rules to give yourself an edge but you're playing by the rules than that's not colluding.

The key to solving these type of situations is to prove one or both parties is willingly cheating (i.e. they know the shadiness they're up to and it's against current league rules). If they are cheating than lay the law down and do not give them a second chance. It's an inexcusable offense.

If they aren't cheating than the owners should be allowed to do whatever they want to do as long as it's within the framework of the league rules...no matter how much it makes your head scratch.

 

[buwani]

Rather that start a new collusion thread, ( seems to be many this week)I thought I would add a question here as it seems related. All seem to agree that the trading back of players , usally for covering byes, it not acceptable. What about the 2 part delayed trade? Heres one that our league has been arguing about.

The trade itself is Doug Gabriel and C-Pep for Deuce McAllister and Jake Delhomme. This was a few weeks ago when it was brought up and C-Pep was still a starter and Gabriel had a few nice games. Not the smartest of trades but I would not consider it collution even though it is the last place guy getting the worst of it. The other is tied for first.Heres the kicker. They trade Gabrial for Delhomme 2 weeks ago, THEN after C-pep is benched and it is clear he is not starting anymore, they pull the second half that is C-pep for Deuce.

When everyone saw the C-Pep for Duece trade,everyone was like WTH? The guy that got Duece and Delhomme explained that they delayed the second part to cover bye problems, letting Duece stay for one more week.

The second trade was shot down by the league and quite a few teams are pissed about it.

What do you think?

 

[faulkfan]

Im not asking whether to trade is fair or not....Im asking if it's collusion. Collusion - cooperation or collaboration between two seperate competing entities. Just wondering if that is collusion to trade for the sole purpose of fulfilling bye weeks only. If someone were to offer Driver for Plummer but he rejected that trade to do this one would it be collusion (Driver has a bye week)

Oh my God! A trade where both benefit??? NO one getting screwed? It must be collusion!

Cut me a break here, do you really think someone is actually getting the better end of this deal? A guy trades his 3rd QB who will never see the field for a WR that hasn't even gotten a start in my 16 team league this year?

Quit the whining and take it like a man when two teams make a trade that make sense for both teams.

Using this definition every trade is collusion because they occur between competing parties. In a trade the two sides look to fulfill their needs which is cooperation. If one side is intentionally taking the short end of the deal to help the other. Stupidity does not qualify and taking players that another team isn't using to fill a need also does not.

Relax and let these guys run their teams. Tell the other owners who are complaining the same thing. This is a smart trade by owners who understand that they had a weakness and took step to address them.

 

[secretid]

I don't see a problem with delaying a trade. I also think "player to be named later" out of a list should be fair game as well.

It's player renting, and it's a road no serious league wants to go down.

Maybe the answer is obvious, but why not? Swapping players to cover a bye just seems like good strategy to me, but none of my leagues allow it.

 

[squidrope]

I JUST revoked a trade in our league between two brothers that has to be collusion. Get this...

PManning and DMason for Leftwich and KC Def

Uhhhh, no.

When the one owner announced Manning was on the block, I know for a fact he got much better offers.

You are a bad commish.

Um no he's not. This is the first trade in any of these recent posts that is clear cut collusion.

It may be lopsided, but that is not collusion.Do you know what the word means?

A bad trade is not collusion. Sometimes people do stupid things. You can regulate them or you can let them make thier mistakes and after they learn from them they become better owners. Did the NFL stop Ditka from trading his entire draft for R.Williams? No. You know why? It wasn't collusion, just a stupid trade.

I have been a commish for 9 years now and I have yet to be forced into a position where I had to veto a trade. And believe me, I have seen some stupid moves made. The really bad owners eventually just fade away after making too many mistakes, or they get better. In a system where you protect people from their own stupidity the really bad owners just stay bad.

With that logic it's no wonder you've never had to reverse any trades in 9 years. I don't think Col. Klink had any documented escapes while he was in command either.

 

[squidrope]

I don't see a problem with delaying a trade. I also think "player to be named later" out of a list should be fair game as well.

It's player renting, and it's a road no serious league wants to go down.

Maybe the answer is obvious, but why not? Swapping players to cover a bye just seems like good strategy to me, but none of my leagues allow it.

I agree about covering bye weeks. It's a win win trade. The problem I've encountered is when team A needs team B to lose to make the playoffs. Team A trades "rents" players to Team C (strengthening C)which happens to be playing team B that week. It got real ugly. Now we don't allow any player traded from your team back onto your team until after the draft (unless said player has been dropped to ww).

 

[murrrrr]

As a commish, I had something that may or may not have been collusion... and I want your takes on it.

Team A trades Barlow for Team B's Dillon.

On the surface, the scoring is about the same in our league for both, so I sit back and watch the trade go through.

Then, Team A immediately drops Bledsoe (going against Houston this week) and doesn't pick up anyone.

Since Team B has the highest waiver priority, he gets Bledsoe to cover his bye week for free.

Team A then picks up some scrub TE instead.

My issue isn't about the trading; if it had been Bledsoe/Barlow for Dillon/someone equal, I wouldn't be writing this. My issue is with the blatant subverting of the system. It wound up being Bledsoe/Barlow for Dillon, and I know that it would have been voted down by the other owners.

Since there are no rules in place covering this, I can't do anything. But if I were an owner, I'd be PISSED.

Any comments? Do you think it was collusion?

P.S. The "traders" are related here, too.

P.P.S. yeah, the initial collusion post (Manning, Mason, etc) would be collusion in my view. It's a good start to making the league blatantly lopsided, PLUS you know one will indirectly share in the winnings of the other.

 

[squidrope]

As a commish, I had something that may or may not have been collusion... and I want your takes on it.Team A trades Barlow for Team B's Dillon.On the surface, the scoring is about the same in our league for both, so I sit back and watch the trade go through.Then, Team A immediately drops Bledsoe (going against Houston this week) and doesn't pick up anyone.Since Team B has the highest waiver priority, he gets Bledsoe to cover his bye week for free.Team A then picks up some scrub TE instead.My issue isn't about the trading; if it had been Bledsoe/Barlow for Dillon/someone equal, I wouldn't be writing this. My issue is with the blatant subverting of the system. It wound up being Bledsoe/Barlow for Dillon, and I know that it would have been voted down by the other owners.Since there are no rules in place covering this, I can't do anything. But if I were an owner, I'd be PISSED.Any comments? Do you think it was collusion?P.S. The "traders" are related here, too.P.P.S. yeah, the initial collusion post (Manning, Mason, etc) would be collusion in my view. It's a good start to making the league blatantly lopsided, PLUS you know one will indirectly share in the winnings of the other.

short answer-no collusion (Barlow<Dillon, Barlow+Bledsoe>=Dillon)longer answer-Quite possible they were "trying" to pull one over on the league. Not sure what your line ups are (1 or 2 qb's), number of teams in the league, or how ww order is determined. But if it's like most "standard" leagues I wouldn't be "pissed". Bledsoe aint no Peyton!

 

[murrrrr]

Thanks for the reply. Like I said, a 2 for 2 would have been fine.

And actually, Bledsoe/Barlow for Dillon and a crap TE (like the other team picked up) would have been fine.

It just gave the APPEARANCE of a shady deal, with the Bledsoe drop and all.

It also makes the people involved in the deal look like total assclowns to most of the other owners.

We only start 1 QB, and Bledsoe will be starting in place of Alex Smith.

You know, I just wish they had been above board about the whole trade.

Don't people realize that they can burn bridges with stupid things like this?

 

[Mario Kart]

The trade itself is Doug Gabriel and C-Pep for Deuce McAllister and Jake Delhomme. This was a few weeks ago when it was brought up and C-Pep was still a starter and Gabriel had a few nice games. Not the smartest of trades but I would not consider it collution even though it is the last place guy getting the worst of it. The other is tied for first.Heres the kicker. They trade Gabrial for Delhomme 2 weeks ago, THEN after C-pep is benched and it is clear he is not starting anymore, they pull the second half that is C-pep for Deuce.The second trade was shot down by the league and quite a few teams are pissed about it.What do you think?

This kind of trade is wrong and is the definition of "renting players" imo. If there is a trade with two people those players change teams right away. None of this two part stuff or whatever else can be thought up. Your league was right to vote down the Mac for Cpep trade as there is no way especially with the reasoning given.This happened to me as well but Karma came back and bit the league in the butt for not siding with me. Two teams made a trade (keep 2 each year). The "trade" was that players A+B would remain on the original team and be traded after the year to be kept by the other owner. The other owners players, players C+D would switch teams right away. So, the one team now had players A, B, C & D when the other owner had no players in the deal on his team. I spoke up and was adamant about it but nobody else agreed with me... I almost left the league. I made the Superbowl that year and lost, ironically, to the team with players A, B, C, & D. Karma you ask? I won the league the following 2 years beating the other owner in one of the two games. Karma, got to love it.

 

[Mario Kart]

If not history, then what do you suggest we look at?

There are many variables to be looked at. If history one a major one though I should be able to trade Favre for one of Palmer, Manning, Manning, Frye and have it vetoed. Favre is by far the best QB history speaking currently playing. Yes, I am being extreme here but making a point.There are just many variables to be looked at to come to a conclusion one way or the other in most cases. But, to say something is "common sense" or "no way that is happening" is judging personal value when that should not be the case.

 

[turnit643]

If the team that started with Dillon had picked up scrubbyTE first and packaged the two of them for Bledsoe+Barlow, all would be fine? OK, no big deal.

So the issue is just the order in which it all happened? Did they have a reason to believe the deal would be vetoed and thought it best to find an alternate route? Doesn't seem like much to worry about either way.

 

[FFdork]

I'd like an update on this situation. How did the two brothers justify the trade?

I can easily say the same thing the other way around as well. I dont believe someone can think Manning and Mason are more valuable then Lefty and KCD. See, it is pretty easy and there needs to be no justification for it. Historically Manning has been better than Lefty however history does not tell the future. Therefore, within the confines of fantasy football nobody should look at history when looking at trades. Projections at the beginning of the year are different however trading during the season those projections are thrown out of the window. There is nothing wrong with the trade in question.

I don't even know where to start here...so, a retired kicker for LJ is fair game in your league? I mean after all, that kicker could come out of retirement and break the all time record for field goals in a 10 game stretch, averaging 20 points per game. History leads us to believe it won't happen, but we can't know for sure...

Yes, there is no way to know for sure Peyton will be better than Leftwich. However, if you polled 1000 average fantasy football players if they want Peyton or Leftwich for the rest of the season, the results would be overwhelming.

Just because the past doesn't necessarily predict the future in no way changes things if two guys are trying to cheat. If the one guy is the biggest Jacksonville homer of all time and believes in his heart of hearts that Lefty > Peyton, fine. As commish I would allow it if I believed he really thought his team was better. It's just hard to imagine that happens to be the case in the original example.

 

[Bandit]

As a commish, I had something that may or may not have been collusion... and I want your takes on it.

Team A trades Barlow for Team B's Dillon.

On the surface, the scoring is about the same in our league for both, so I sit back and watch the trade go through.

Then, Team A immediately drops Bledsoe (going against Houston this week) and doesn't pick up anyone.

Since Team B has the highest waiver priority, he gets Bledsoe to cover his bye week for free.

Team A then picks up some scrub TE instead.

My issue isn't about the trading; if it had been Bledsoe/Barlow for Dillon/someone equal, I wouldn't be writing this. My issue is with the blatant subverting of the system. It wound up being Bledsoe/Barlow for Dillon, and I know that it would have been voted down by the other owners.

Since there are no rules in place covering this, I can't do anything. But if I were an owner, I'd be PISSED.

Any comments? Do you think it was collusion?

P.S. The "traders" are related here, too.

P.P.S. yeah, the initial collusion post (Manning, Mason, etc) would be collusion in my view. It's a good start to making the league blatantly lopsided, PLUS you know one will indirectly share in the winnings of the other.

Are you sure that a Bledsoe/Barlow for Dillon trade would get voted down? If so, then I think that your league has a huge problem in that the owners are too veto-happy, and this one incident is nothing compared to that issue. If anything, I feel bad for these two teams that they couldn't have been able to just make the Bledsoe/Barlow for Dillon trade in the first place.

 

[turnit643]

The trade itself is Doug Gabriel and C-Pep for Deuce McAllister and Jake Delhomme. This was a few weeks ago when it was brought up and C-Pep was still a starter and Gabriel had a few nice games. Not the smartest of trades but I would not consider it collution even though it is the last place guy getting the worst of it. The other is tied for first.Heres the kicker. They trade Gabrial for Delhomme 2 weeks ago, THEN after C-pep is benched and it is clear he is not starting anymore, they pull the second half that is C-pep for Deuce.The second trade was shot down by the league and quite a few teams are pissed about it.What do you think?

Just wondering if the two halves of the deal were all announced at once or treated as two separate deals in the way they were presented to the league?If they were announced at once - "we'll be swapping these guys this week and then we'll be finishing the deal next week with these other two players changing teams." Were there any complaints from the rest of the league at that time? If not, then the entire deal should go through.If they were presented as separate deals, they should be evaluated as such and I think that it's reasonable to deny the 2nd half on it's own merit ... a starting RB that is producing at a top 10-ish clip among his position mates and looks to be in position to continue that in exchange for a QB that is not 100% and is now officially the back-up on a bad team.

 

[turnit643]

If the one guy is the biggest Jacksonville homer of all time and believes in his heart of hearts that Lefty > Peyton, fine. As commish I would allow it if I believed he really thought his team was better. It's just hard to imagine that happens to be the case in the original example.

Can't be that hard to imagine, you just imagined a situation that would get you to approve the deal.

 

[FFdork]

If the one guy is the biggest Jacksonville homer of all time and believes in his heart of hearts that Lefty > Peyton, fine. As commish I would allow it if I believed he really thought his team was better. It's just hard to imagine that happens to be the case in the original example.

Can't be that hard to imagine, you just imagined a situation that would get you to approve the deal.

right, so that scenario applies to, what, the 15 people in the world that are that deluded of Jacksonville/Lefty fans out of the 40 million or so that play fantasy football. Therefore the trade should be allowed without any further examination.

 

[j3r3m3y]

I JUST revoked a trade in our league between two brothers that has to be collusion. Get this...

PManning and DMason for Leftwich and KC Def

Uhhhh, no.

When the one owner announced Manning was on the block, I know for a fact he got much better offers.

You are a bad commish.

Um no he's not. This is the first trade in any of these recent posts that is clear cut collusion.

It may be lopsided, but that is not collusion.Do you know what the word means?

A bad trade is not collusion. Sometimes people do stupid things. You can regulate them or you can let them make thier mistakes and after they learn from them they become better owners. Did the NFL stop Ditka from trading his entire draft for R.Williams? No. You know why? It wasn't collusion, just a stupid trade.

I have been a commish for 9 years now and I have yet to be forced into a position where I had to veto a trade. And believe me, I have seen some stupid moves made. The really bad owners eventually just fade away after making too many mistakes, or they get better. In a system where you protect people from their own stupidity the really bad owners just stay bad.

With that logic it's no wonder you've never had to reverse any trades in 9 years. I don't think Col. Klink had any documented escapes while he was in command either.

OK then, keep playing in a playpen where you are told what you can an can not do and thinking you are a great owner because of it. Our system works for us and we are all better owners for it.

 

[j3r3m3y]

If the one guy is the biggest Jacksonville homer of all time and believes in his heart of hearts that Lefty > Peyton, fine. As commish I would allow it if I believed he really thought his team was better. It's just hard to imagine that happens to be the case in the original example.

Can't be that hard to imagine, you just imagined a situation that would get you to approve the deal.

right, so that scenario applies to, what, the 15 people in the world that are that deluded of Jacksonville/Lefty fans out of the 40 million or so that play fantasy football. Therefore the trade should be allowed without any further examination.

If both owners think they are improving their teams, if they are not conspiring to make one team weaker and one stronger, it should be allowed. Anything else is saying "my opinion is more valid than yours".Before pre-season a trade of Gore for Edge would be scoffed at. But today, yeah people would cry but for the opposite reason.

The "majority" is not always right. The majority thinks that Everybody Loves Raymod is "quality" TV.

 

[squidrope]

I JUST revoked a trade in our league between two brothers that has to be collusion. Get this...

PManning and DMason for Leftwich and KC Def

Uhhhh, no.

When the one owner announced Manning was on the block, I know for a fact he got much better offers.

You are a bad commish.

Um no he's not. This is the first trade in any of these recent posts that is clear cut collusion.

It may be lopsided, but that is not collusion.Do you know what the word means?

A bad trade is not collusion. Sometimes people do stupid things. You can regulate them or you can let them make thier mistakes and after they learn from them they become better owners. Did the NFL stop Ditka from trading his entire draft for R.Williams? No. You know why? It wasn't collusion, just a stupid trade.

I have been a commish for 9 years now and I have yet to be forced into a position where I had to veto a trade. And believe me, I have seen some stupid moves made. The really bad owners eventually just fade away after making too many mistakes, or they get better. In a system where you protect people from their own stupidity the really bad owners just stay bad.

With that logic it's no wonder you've never had to reverse any trades in 9 years. I don't think Col. Klink had any documented escapes while he was in command either.

OK then, keep playing in a playpen where you are told what you can an can not do and thinking you are a great owner because of it. Our system works for us and we are all better owners for it.

HoooGaaannn!

 

[turnit643]

Yes, there is no way to know for sure Peyton will be better than Leftwich. However, if you polled 1000 average fantasy football players if they want Peyton or Leftwich for the rest of the season, the results would be overwhelming.

I think they would be too, but why would you base your opinion of the deal on what you think 1000 average fantasy owners would say - they aren't involved and they don't know the whole deal.

Just because the past doesn't necessarily predict the future in no way changes things if two guys are trying to cheat.

Why do you assume they are trying to cheat? because they are brothers?

right, so that scenario applies to, what, the 15 people in the world that are that deluded of Jacksonville/Lefty fans out of the 40 million or so that play fantasy football. Therefore the trade should be allowed without any further examination.

Yeah, that's exactly what I was saying.We really need more info about the whole thing to come up with any kind of solid response ...

1. The scoring system - if Manning is ahead of Leftwich by a handful of completions, 200+ yards and 1 TD pass, and Lefty has gained a few more rush yds and they've each run for a pair of TDs ... what accounts for Manning being the #2 guy in the league and Lefty being somewhere in the middle of the QB pack? (Manning is the #3 QB in my league and Lefty is #5, for comparison) And, how do Mason and the KC D relate to each other?

2. What was the original Manning owner's D? and what did his WR depth look like? Was he in fact improving at one spot while dealing from a strength?

3. We haven't heard their reasoning (the owners involved).

 

[turnit643]

It's player renting, and it's a road no serious league wants to go down.

Maybe the answer is obvious, but why not? Swapping players to cover a bye just seems like good strategy to me, but none of my leagues allow it.

Because it's literally one step away from tribes forming within the league ... groups determined to help each other through the course of the year to eliminate bye week or injury situations and decisions that are inherent to the strategy of the game. Swapping players back and forth blurs the lines between teams and creating/developing/managing a team is what the game is all about.

 

[turnit643]

The "trade" was that players A+B would remain on the original team and be traded after the year to be kept by the other owner. The other owners players, players C+D would switch teams right away. So, the one team now had players A, B, C & D when the other owner had no players in the deal on his team.

Wow.

 

[squidrope]

It's player renting, and it's a road no serious league wants to go down.

Maybe the answer is obvious, but why not? Swapping players to cover a bye just seems like good strategy to me, but none of my leagues allow it.

Because it's literally one step away from tribes forming within the league ... groups determined to help each other through the course of the year to eliminate bye week or injury situations and decisions that are inherent to the strategy of the game. Swapping players back and forth blurs the lines between teams and creating/developing/managing a team is what the game is all about.

good point

 

[turnit643]

Hey, looking back, this thread is actually turning out some good topics and discussion ...

1. Plummer for Battle. To cover bye weeks.

2. Manning+Mason for Leftwich+KC D. Brothers deal.

3. Gabriel+Culpepper for Deuce+Delhomme. Split over two weeks.

4. Barlow+Bledsoe for Dillon+scrubbyTE. Using the WW as a tool for the trade.

5. A+B for C+D. All one way now, all the other way later.

6. General player renting/loaning.

And all in a single collusion thread!

 

[j3r3m3y]

I JUST revoked a trade in our league between two brothers that has to be collusion. Get this...

PManning and DMason for Leftwich and KC Def

Uhhhh, no.

When the one owner announced Manning was on the block, I know for a fact he got much better offers.

You are a bad commish.

Um no he's not. This is the first trade in any of these recent posts that is clear cut collusion.

It may be lopsided, but that is not collusion.Do you know what the word means?

A bad trade is not collusion. Sometimes people do stupid things. You can regulate them or you can let them make thier mistakes and after they learn from them they become better owners. Did the NFL stop Ditka from trading his entire draft for R.Williams? No. You know why? It wasn't collusion, just a stupid trade.

I have been a commish for 9 years now and I have yet to be forced into a position where I had to veto a trade. And believe me, I have seen some stupid moves made. The really bad owners eventually just fade away after making too many mistakes, or they get better. In a system where you protect people from their own stupidity the really bad owners just stay bad.

With that logic it's no wonder you've never had to reverse any trades in 9 years. I don't think Col. Klink had any documented escapes while he was in command either.

OK then, keep playing in a playpen where you are told what you can an can not do and thinking you are a great owner because of it. Our system works for us and we are all better owners for it.

HoooGaaannn!

You insult my logic, and all you can respond with is a lame attempt at a joke?I guess I made my point.

 

[GregR_2]

What exactly do you consider collusion?

....

It's going to be long, but here's my 2 cents.First I think it's worth saying that the dictionary definition of collusion doesn't seem as broad as many people use it in an FF sense. And that always seems to get pulled out by someone as an argument in these threads, which I don't buy or care about. There are a class of collaborative acts which I think go against the spirit of FF leagues. Some exactly fit the dictionary definition of collusion, others don't. I don't know of a more appropriate word for the ones that don't. But whether they fit or not, I think unless a league all agree that they are allowed, that most leagues would wish to not allow them. Ok, so let's jump into them.

1) A transaction or series of transactions made with the owner's belief they did not improve his team. For it to fit the dictionary def. of collusion both teams would have to be in on it. But in a practical "what should we stop in FF" sense, if Marc Levin gives me good players to help my team at his team's expense... even if I wasn't aware Marc felt he was hurting his team, it's collusion to me. The only difference is, if I wasn't aware of it, Marc is the only one guilty of collusion. If I was aware of it, then we're both guilty of it.

Any time something outside the "normal" FF assets are part of a deal, it would be collusion unless the league expressly allowed it. Like selling LT to a team for Chris Perry and $50 cash would be collusion, as the $50 would not be recognized as an asset that improved the FF team giving up LT.

2) Teams that act cooperatively beyond the level normally expected in FF. This one can be shades of grey. "You draft a good backup kicker, I'll draft a good backup TE, we'll both make sure our TE and kickers and backups don't have conflicting byes, and then we'll agree in advance to swap our backup players so we both get our bye's covered by above-average bye fill ins." I think most people will agree those teams are acting in concert beyond the level that a game of individual competition allows. This tactic is also frequently called sharing roster space, but it's also wrong because they agreed in advance they would do this and adopted joint strategies as a result.

Another example is saying, "MT doesn't have any RBs and it's the 4th round and he doesn't pick until the end of the 5th. Let's everyone draft all the RBs worth having before he picks again." This is one of those grey areas. Using the wording above, an owner is lobbying other owners to work collectively in a manner that goes beyond individual competition. But I wouldn't object to an owner saying aloud, "Damn MT, I would never take on the risk of not having a RB before my 5th round pick," but leaving out any suggestion or lobbying of actions other teams should take. Though some might say pointing the fact out could be poor sportsmanship, and make a good case for it, but I wouldn't call it illegal anyway.

Still another would be teams coming to prior agreements, whether it be to trade a set of players, then later trade them back... or to both agree they'll do a trade on week X. It is one thing to sound out other teams and find out if they think they'll be amenable to a trade at a later date. But to commit to it seems to go beyond the realm of individual competition and transactions that execute immediately.

3) Sharing roster space. Already mentioned the example above, if they swap players, then swap back later. Another example is the two-stage trade. "I'll give you LT and Rod Smith for Holt and C. Taylor. But, I'll only do if it we swap LT for Taylor this week... and then 2 weeks from now swap Rod Smith for Holt." What that amounts to is one team loaning LT to the other team for less than his value until the second half of the trade is executed. Again, I think most people would not expect that to be part of a game built around individual competition. The fact we can make a swap of players in a trade doesn't mean we can loan them out for extended periods of time.

Given all that I've said, I don't think the original trade posted is a problem as long as the two teams did not do either of:

1) Agree in advance to have one get a bye filler at one position while the other got the filler at the other.

2) Agree to trade back the bye week players once they are done.

If all they are doing is to pick up a player who will start for them, and they didn't give up a more valuable player to do it, then there is a reasonable expectation both teams have improved their gametime efforts.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

If not history, then what do you suggest we look at?

I agree. That trade looks fishy to me. What's weird is that, in my experience, playing in leagues with brothers isn't a problem at all. In fact, they seem to have trouble trading with each other and would NEVER let the other one get the best of them. Sibling rivalry tends to dominate the mood, rather than "helping out family." I've occasionally been able to swing trades just by pitting one brother against the other.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

I don't see a problem with delaying a trade. I also think "player to be named later" out of a list should be fair game as well.

It's player renting, and it's a road no serious league wants to go down.

Maybe the answer is obvious, but why not? Swapping players to cover a bye just seems like good strategy to me, but none of my leagues allow it.

As long as each team thinks they're helping themselves, I'm not sure how it's collusion. Many leagues have time periods that a player has to remain on a roster, and nobody can enforce a "trade back," so the only ones at risk are the teams involved in the trade. I don't think any team would trade a player unless they thought they were getting a better (for them) player in return. If they agree to trade back, they must think they'd rather have that player in their stable of potential starters. If they knowingly hurt their own team to help another, that's obviously a problem. But if I believe I'm helping my team, how is that colluding with another owner? I'm helping me; I don't care about him.

 

[buwani]

The trade itself is Doug Gabriel and C-Pep for Deuce McAllister and Jake Delhomme. This was a few weeks ago when it was brought up and C-Pep was still a starter and Gabriel had a few nice games. Not the smartest of trades but I would not consider it collution even though it is the last place guy getting the worst of it. The other is tied for first.Heres the kicker. They trade Gabrial for Delhomme 2 weeks ago, THEN after C-pep is benched and it is clear he is not starting anymore, they pull the second half that is C-pep for Deuce.The second trade was shot down by the league and quite a few teams are pissed about it.What do you think?

Just wondering if the two halves of the deal were all announced at once or treated as two separate deals in the way they were presented to the league?If they were announced at once - "we'll be swapping these guys this week and then we'll be finishing the deal next week with these other two players changing teams." Were there any complaints from the rest of the league at that time? If not, then the entire deal should go through.If they were presented as separate deals, they should be evaluated as such and I think that it's reasonable to deny the 2nd half on it's own merit ... a starting RB that is producing at a top 10-ish clip among his position mates and looks to be in position to continue that in exchange for a QB that is not 100% and is now officially the back-up on a bad team.

It was never announced beforehand what the whole deal was. Only after the C-Pep for Deuce trade , the owner explained the whole deal. THEY had a verbal agreement to complete the trade after he used Deuce one more week.

 

[turnit643]

As long as each team thinks they're helping themselves, I'm not sure how it's collusion. Many leagues have time periods that a player has to remain on a roster, and nobody can enforce a "trade back," so the only ones at risk are the teams involved in the trade.

I don't think any team would trade a player unless they thought they were getting a better (for them) player in return. If they agree to trade back, they must think they'd rather have that player in their stable of potential starters. If they knowingly hurt their own team to help another, that's obviously a problem. But if I believe I'm helping my team, how is that colluding with another owner? I'm helping me; I don't care about him.

So Neil, you have no problem with this ...Your opponent has painted himself into a corner with one QB on bye and his other injured.

The waiver wire is thin because you play in a deep league.

You've planned and covered your bye weeks with viable team depth.

It's an important game for you.

On Sunday morning, he borrows a QB from a rival of yours that has two very good QB's.

After the game, he gives the QB back.

You and your league may think this is acceptable. I would hope that most don't.

 

[Marc Levin]

More specifically the latest trade that is pending right now. Our waiver wire is pretty damn thin and team A needs a WR for this weeks bye weeks. He is trading Plummer for Battle (WR).... He already has Grossman and Delhomme. The reason some owners think this is sketchy is because he gets to have his WR for this bye week and the other team will get a QB for her bye week. Then after that I dont see either of them starting either.I dunno what to think of this as it doesnt really fulfill any inherent weakness for either team other than filling bye week spots. Im not big on overriding trades as the commish (unless it's glaringly bad, which this isnt) but I do like to post on the message board when I think it's horrible so it does get voted down.

why the heck is trading for a guy to fill a bye weeks spot sketchy?That is the stupidest thing a fantasy football player could say.If they traded those same players BACK to each other after the bye, then there is a problem, but, otherwise, who cares?

 

[Marc Levin]

ps - "sharing' and "borrowing" players is, by definition, collusion.

 

[coolnerd]

What exactly do you consider collusion?

....

It's going to be long, but here's my 2 cents.First I think it's worth saying that the dictionary definition of collusion doesn't seem as broad as many people use it in an FF sense. And that always seems to get pulled out by someone as an argument in these threads, which I don't buy or care about. There are a class of collaborative acts which I think go against the spirit of FF leagues. Some exactly fit the dictionary definition of collusion, others don't. I don't know of a more appropriate word for the ones that don't. But whether they fit or not, I think unless a league all agree that they are allowed, that most leagues would wish to not allow them. Ok, so let's jump into them.

1) A transaction or series of transactions made with the owner's belief they did not improve his team. For it to fit the dictionary def. of collusion both teams would have to be in on it. But in a practical "what should we stop in FF" sense, if Marc Levin gives me good players to help my team at his team's expense... even if I wasn't aware Marc felt he was hurting his team, it's collusion to me. The only difference is, if I wasn't aware of it, Marc is the only one guilty of collusion. If I was aware of it, then we're both guilty of it.

Any time something outside the "normal" FF assets are part of a deal, it would be collusion unless the league expressly allowed it. Like selling LT to a team for Chris Perry and $50 cash would be collusion, as the $50 would not be recognized as an asset that improved the FF team giving up LT.

2) Teams that act cooperatively beyond the level normally expected in FF. This one can be shades of grey. "You draft a good backup kicker, I'll draft a good backup TE, we'll both make sure our TE and kickers and backups don't have conflicting byes, and then we'll agree in advance to swap our backup players so we both get our bye's covered by above-average bye fill ins." I think most people will agree those teams are acting in concert beyond the level that a game of individual competition allows. This tactic is also frequently called sharing roster space, but it's also wrong because they agreed in advance they would do this and adopted joint strategies as a result.

Another example is saying, "MT doesn't have any RBs and it's the 4th round and he doesn't pick until the end of the 5th. Let's everyone draft all the RBs worth having before he picks again." This is one of those grey areas. Using the wording above, an owner is lobbying other owners to work collectively in a manner that goes beyond individual competition. But I wouldn't object to an owner saying aloud, "Damn MT, I would never take on the risk of not having a RB before my 5th round pick," but leaving out any suggestion or lobbying of actions other teams should take. Though some might say pointing the fact out could be poor sportsmanship, and make a good case for it, but I wouldn't call it illegal anyway.

Still another would be teams coming to prior agreements, whether it be to trade a set of players, then later trade them back... or to both agree they'll do a trade on week X. It is one thing to sound out other teams and find out if they think they'll be amenable to a trade at a later date. But to commit to it seems to go beyond the realm of individual competition and transactions that execute immediately.

3) Sharing roster space. Already mentioned the example above, if they swap players, then swap back later. Another example is the two-stage trade. "I'll give you LT and Rod Smith for Holt and C. Taylor. But, I'll only do if it we swap LT for Taylor this week... and then 2 weeks from now swap Rod Smith for Holt." What that amounts to is one team loaning LT to the other team for less than his value until the second half of the trade is executed. Again, I think most people would not expect that to be part of a game built around individual competition. The fact we can make a swap of players in a trade doesn't mean we can loan them out for extended periods of time.

Given all that I've said, I don't think the original trade posted is a problem as long as the two teams did not do either of:

1) Agree in advance to have one get a bye filler at one position while the other got the filler at the other.

2) Agree to trade back the bye week players once they are done.

If all they are doing is to pick up a player who will start for them, and they didn't give up a more valuable player to do it, then there is a reasonable expectation both teams have improved their gametime efforts.

everything I wanted to know and more.

 

[FFdork]

We really need more info about the whole thing to come up with any kind of solid response ...

1. The scoring system - if Manning is ahead of Leftwich by a handful of completions, 200+ yards and 1 TD pass, and Lefty has gained a few more rush yds and they've each run for a pair of TDs ... what accounts for Manning being the #2 guy in the league and Lefty being somewhere in the middle of the QB pack? (Manning is the #3 QB in my league and Lefty is #5, for comparison) And, how do Mason and the KC D relate to each other?

2. What was the original Manning owner's D? and what did his WR depth look like? Was he in fact improving at one spot while dealing from a strength?

3. We haven't heard their reasoning (the owners involved).

To me, what I bolded is all that really matters. Well, that and actually knowing the two people involved.I get that Lefty and Manning look close in stats right now, but you're arguing like a lawyer defending a client. Just look at it without an agenda. Just to add an objectinve opinion without revealing too much about subscriber content, despite similar statistics, FBG has an over 1000 point difference in value between those 2 QBs (so to get equal value Manning should be getting traded for a Frank Gore while Lefty shoud be getting trading for a Troy Brown ). I understand someone might believe they're close in value (and, again, if that's what's really happening here, I would allow the trade in my league), but do you really think there's anything better than a 2% chance that is the case here? Yes, we need more info, but c'mon, the odds are slim.

 

[turnit643]

We really need more info about the whole thing to come up with any kind of solid response ...

1. The scoring system - if Manning is ahead of Leftwich by a handful of completions, 200+ yards and 1 TD pass, and Lefty has gained a few more rush yds and they've each run for a pair of TDs ... what accounts for Manning being the #2 guy in the league and Lefty being somewhere in the middle of the QB pack? (Manning is the #3 QB in my league and Lefty is #5, for comparison) And, how do Mason and the KC D relate to each other?

2. What was the original Manning owner's D? and what did his WR depth look like? Was he in fact improving at one spot while dealing from a strength?

3. We haven't heard their reasoning (the owners involved).

To me, what I bolded is all that really matters. Well, that and actually knowing the two people involved.I get that Lefty and Manning look close in stats right now, but you're arguing like a lawyer defending a client. Just look at it without an agenda. Just to add an objectinve opinion without revealing too much about subscriber content, despite similar statistics, FBG has an over 1000 point difference in value between those 2 QBs (so to get equal value Manning should be getting traded for a Frank Gore while Lefty shoud be getting trading for a Troy Brown ). I understand someone might believe they're close in value (and, again, if that's what's really happening here, I would allow the trade in my league), but do you really think there's anything better than a 2% chance that is the case here? Yes, we need more info, but c'mon, the odds are slim.

To me the bolded part is what really matters as well. To the commish in this case it seems the fact that they are brothers is what really matters.Would I trade Manning in this deal? No. But who cares what I would do? These two agreed to the deal and all I'm saying is that I can see where they may have a reasonable motivation. And, yes I do believe there better than a 2% chance of that. You don't, OK. But, why assume they're cheating? (because they're brothers?)

As for arguing it with an agenda ... I couldn't care less if the deal gets done or not, what I'm saying is that I think the deal can be explained reasonably. It may be a bad deal in my mind, but I don't know, from what I do know of it, that they are trying to cheat the league. So why should I or any of us assume that they are?

FBG's 250 forward also says the CHI D (their #1 rated D) is a relatively good ballpark offer for Samkon Gado ... their numbers aren't applicable across the board league to league and aren't worth much as an "objective opinion".

So, all it comes down to is that your inclination is to assume - without knowing the pertinent details - that they are cheating and mine isn't. You may be right, but I hope you're not for the good of their league. It does deserve further inspection and it would be great if the two involved could share their reasoning here. In the absence of that, I guess we'll just have to offer differing opinions to their commish.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

As long as each team thinks they're helping themselves, I'm not sure how it's collusion. Many leagues have time periods that a player has to remain on a roster, and nobody can enforce a "trade back," so the only ones at risk are the teams involved in the trade.

I don't think any team would trade a player unless they thought they were getting a better (for them) player in return. If they agree to trade back, they must think they'd rather have that player in their stable of potential starters. If they knowingly hurt their own team to help another, that's obviously a problem. But if I believe I'm helping my team, how is that colluding with another owner? I'm helping me; I don't care about him.

So Neil, you have no problem with this ...Your opponent has painted himself into a corner with one QB on bye and his other injured.

The waiver wire is thin because you play in a deep league.

You've planned and covered your bye weeks with viable team depth.

It's an important game for you.

On Sunday morning, he borrows a QB from a rival of yours that has two very good QB's.

After the game, he gives the QB back.

You and your league may think this is acceptable. I would hope that most don't.

Is my opponent giving up a starter-worthy RB or something that the other owner is using to improve his team with? I obviously wouldn't like it because it would hurt my chances at winning. But if both teams are making a trade to help their own team...I don't see how it's collusion. Each team thinks they're helping their own team win a game. If he got a good QB for a backup tight end...that's a problem. The other guy isn't trying to help his team. If he got Delhomme and gave up Chester Taylor (not on his bye), that seems pretty fair to me. Also, as someone else said, both sides of the trade have to make sense. If Delhomme got injured and was out for the year, the second part of the trade (the players getting traded back) should be disallowed. Clearly, the team trading for an injured guy is NOT trying to help his team.

Trading for a guy isn't a problem if what he gives up is equitable imo. Gifts aren't (and shouldn't be) allowed. That's collusion.

 

[FFdork]

To the commish in this case it seems the fact that they are brothers is what really matters.

I agree this is kind of irrelevant other than you can see an angle for the old 'let's load up 1 team and split the $' play. It's much more important to know their reasoning, know the roster situations and the scoring of the league, and know them as people.

And, yes I do believe there better than a 2% chance of that. You don't, OK. But, why assume they're cheating? (because they're brothers?)

I assume they're cheating because it's far and away the likliest assumption here. I can only imagine a few scenarios where this would be an honest trade with an idiot on one end. I think I'm a pretty fair persone, but you're giving them much more benefit of the doubt than I am, which is fine.

FBG's 250 forward also says the CHI D (their #1 rated D) is a relatively good ballpark offer for Samkon Gado ... their numbers aren't applicable across the board league to league and aren't worth much as an "objective opinion".

Obviously the rankings don't work for every scoring system, but they are objective in that a person who has no agenda has Lefty as WAY less valuable than Manning in a typical scoring system. Plus, it's hard to imagine a scoring system where you wouldn't feel that way. In my league with team D, that value is pretty dead on. Defense just doesn't score enough on a predictable basis to have a lot of trade value given what's on the waiver wire week to week.

So, all it comes down to is that your inclination is to assume - without knowing the pertinent details - that they are cheating and mine isn't. You may be right, but I hope you're not for the good of their league. It does deserve further inspection and it would be great if the two involved could share their reasoning here. In the absence of that, I guess we'll just have to offer differing opinions to their commish.

Yes, without more details this stinks of cheating to me. It's not a court of law, it's not my league, and they're not my friends, so without more info, I think that's the much more likely explanation. You're giving more benefit of the doubt which is fine but probably giving them too much credit here. I hope I'm wrong about the cheating too--as I've said throughout this thread I let stupid trades go, just not ones I believe are collusion/cheating.