Yearly is this collusion tread? (1 Viewer)

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I think sometimes you can say "this probably is collusion" but unless it's absolutely horrible you have to give a guy the benefit of the doubt.

Just like someone with a 3-8 record starting a guy projected at 8.4 over another guy projected at 12.1. There's sure to be "that guy" who is gonna accuse him of tanking. And he very well could be soft-tanking. But you have to give him the benefit of the doubt. If he puts scrubs in his lineup, that's different. Similarly, if the husband traded the wife Amon-Ra St. Brown and Travis Etienne for JuJu Smith-Schuster and Latavius Murray ... then you can call the cops.

I think this is a fair assesment. I would say even the colluding family wouldnt even attempt that trade which would get the po po called on them. lol

I agree

Nit picky details about the players aside, I believe most of us are in agreement that it only rises to “collusion” due to context + history.

Husband & wife trading with each other.
History of shaky deals like this.

Verdict: call 911

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I'll say the quiet part out loud; if it's true this is a pattern of behavior that's gone on before in this league, why are you still in it? You seem pissed/upset about it, so even if it's not real collusion and detracting from the fairness of the league, it certainly seems to be detracting from your enjoyment of it. I understand some people who find themselves in these positions take the indignant stand of "I'm not going to let them ruin this for me." But 95% of the time, in actuality, that ship has already sailed. It's been ruined. You're on a message board with strangers complaining about it. Regardless of whether anyone in this thread agrees with you or not on if it's collusion, perception eventually becomes your own reality, and you sound pretty convinced the league's had repeated instances of collusion trades. Just quit the league and I'm fairly certain you'll be happier for it in the long run. That's what I would do at least if I was in the same position.

This is a fair take.

 

[-OZ-]

In a vacuum, no.

But given your knowledge of the relationship, it's recurrence each year, etc.....yeah, likely.

A trade doesn't have to be massively lopsided to be collusion. OP knows the details, history, and circumstances between these 2 individuals. That's enough for me to say yes.

If you’re playing with family in a money league, you need to make sure the deals are as close to objectively fair as they can be.
There will always be disagreements about whether one side is better.
I had gone with the idea that I’d never trade with my son in our league but a few trusted owners in our league thought that was overkill.

 

[Ardbeg4ever]

I would ask the hubby how he thinks this trade will benefit his team. When people have to write stuff out, it usually becomes more obvious what is going on.

 

[Wrigley]

This is like talking to my wife. Why ask the question if you are going to argue when you don't like the answer? Even trade? No. Collusion? Eh. Definitely not blatant.

I'll say the quiet part out loud; if it's true this is a pattern of behavior that's gone on before in this league, why are you still in it? You seem pissed/upset about it, so even if it's not real collusion and detracting from the fairness of the league, it certainly seems to be detracting from your enjoyment of it. I understand some people who find themselves in these positions take the indignant stand of "I'm not going to let them ruin this for me." But 95% of the time, in actuality, that ship has already sailed. It's been ruined. You're on a message board with strangers complaining about it. Regardless of whether anyone in this thread agrees with you or not on if it's collusion, perception eventually becomes your own reality, and you sound pretty convinced the league's had repeated instances of collusion trades. Just quit the league and I'm fairly certain you'll be happier for it in the long run. That's what I would do at least if I was in the same position.

Strangers?

Hell, my wife still calls FBGs my "fake friends"

 

[Wrigley]

I would ask the hubby how he thinks this trade will benefit his team. When people have to write stuff out, it usually becomes more obvious what is going on.

I did ask this, zero reply

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I did ask this, zero reply

Ah. That added context helps too.

Sounds shady.

 

[Enzo....the Baker]

This morning I wake up to a trade

Husband(3-6) acquired

C Ridley
A Gibson

Wife(7-2) acquired

D Achane
D London

Thoughts?

This trade doesn’t benefit the husband in any way, but surely gives the wife the upper hand heading toward the playoffs

Probably got the husband a make-up session
Definitely not BJ worthy

 

[kylechoffman]

This trade happened a few weeks ago in my league before the A Richardson injury:

Last place Team 1 (with A Richardson) sends:

J Allen
M Andrews
T Boyd
Q Johnson

to

1st place team in exchange for:

Dak
Lamb
Higbee
Mattison

Last place team loses Richardson later that week. It can be argued that Allen is not playing his best. These two team owners are cousins.

 

[Mr.Blonde]

I'll say the quiet part out loud; if it's true this is a pattern of behavior that's gone on before in this league, why are you still in it? You seem pissed/upset about it, so even if it's not real collusion and detracting from the fairness of the league, it certainly seems to be detracting from your enjoyment of it. I understand some people who find themselves in these positions take the indignant stand of "I'm not going to let them ruin this for me." But 95% of the time, in actuality, that ship has already sailed. It's been ruined. You're on a message board with strangers complaining about it. Regardless of whether anyone in this thread agrees with you or not on if it's collusion, perception eventually becomes your own reality, and you sound pretty convinced the league's had repeated instances of collusion trades. Just quit the league and I'm fairly certain you'll be happier for it in the long run. That's what I would do at least if I was in the same position.

Pink's post above is correct. Arguing this on the merits of the individual players performances is a waste of good oxygen.

What are you doing to do about it? You can't do anything about it

Call them out on a hunch you have? Kick them out of the league? They're going to be butt-hurt

The only thing you can do is quit; in that way, you claim the high ground.

If they ask "Why?" I would think you owe them an honest answer.

"I didn't like that every year you had a 'shady Grady' trade, so rather than question you and yours intentions, cast aspersions on your character(s) and create a bunch of bad blood, I walked away."

Maybe then they will realize that their shenanigans are ruining leagues.
Maybe they won't, which would then validate your leaving.

 

[Grahamburn]

Husband/wife team must win this thing every year and the rest of these nerds are butt hurt.

 

[da_budman]

I was the commish of my long running league for 20ish years. Never once vetoed a trade. Before things got way out of hand I would go to each owner to try to suss out their motivation for the trade. Specifically asking the one who seemed to be getting the short end of the stick in your view how does this make your team better. If they couldnt answer that question then the answer is pretty apparent...they werent. That by definition is collusion. I said I never vetoed a trade but I sure did influence 3 or 4 people over the years to reconsider their trade. I would add there ARE very valid reasons for making a lopsided trade but the owner giving up "too much" should have a reason for it. I remember making a trade just last year that I MADE close to as lopsided as this one seems to me. The reason for the trade? Simple I had to drop someone to pick up a wr and the guy I got in the trade was marginally better than anything I was getting off the wire and the only offer I got ( after posting who I was giving up and what I needed on the message board. Every single owner had a chance to make me a better offer and didnt. It made his team better and my team "less better"

 

[Long Ball Larry]

If you have to ask, the answer is always [NO].

okay: this trade is collusion!!!!

I'd prefer the Achane side, but this isn't close to collusion

Problem is it's a husband(3-6) trading with his wife(7-2)

once one team is out of it, a monster player gets traded.

Happens ever year.

The rest of the league has had enough.

i would have recommended leading with the history. the trade on its face doesn't seem close to crazy.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

These two team owners are cousins.

but are they married?

ETA: follow up Q - to each other?

 

[Atomic Punk]

Bad trade but not bad enough to be in the worst trade offer thread (btw, where did that thread go?). Still seems fishy given all of the other details.

My wife joined one of my leagues a few years ago and we made a rule that the two co-commissioners had to approve any trades between us. We have only made one trade in three years. After the deal a couple of other managers made some comments about how the deal was lopsided … until I showed the rest of the league that I offered those same managers the exact same deal first but they turned it down. Things quieted down after that.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

until I showed the rest of the league that I offered those same managers the exact same deal first but they turned it down. Things quieted down after that.

Always keep those receipts!

 

[FarFromHome]

My wife hates football. Our anniversary and the conclusion of the NFL season are big days for her. Ha ha

 

[dickey moe]

If this trade is vetoed will it end in divorce?

 

[menobrown]

Collusion and purposely tanking are the two worst things in dynasty and I don't want any part of doing that so I wanted to ask for some thoughts before I make someone an offer.

My situation summed is I need a QB this week, FA options are barren and on top of that I can't find roster room to cut anyone so I'd rather trade a player then just cut someone for the likes of Zach Wilson.

So here is my question.

If I offered someone a handcuff RB to their starting RB for their QB2 and let it be known I'd be willing to trade the QB back to them next week for peanuts would that be considered collusion? Would it matter if I just said that versus working out an agreement in principle? I feel like saying I'd make the QB available next week for cheap to them is a bit of a gray area, actually working out parameters is starting to get into collusion or maybe both are collusion? I welcome the thoughts and will act accordingly.

I purposely did not want to bog this down on players specifics but would just add if I said nothing and just traded the RB for the QB it would be considered a fair trade. I would in fact rather have the RB if I did not need a QB this week and that RB is not my handcuff. I just think my trade has a better chance of being accepted if I let it be known I'd be open to sending the QB back next week when I don't need him any longer.

 

[BobbyLayne]

We had husband & wife in our league for years. We didn’t make any special rules but they recused (is that the right word?) themselves from trading with each other. He was our founder & first Commish, wanted to stay above reproach.

 

[eighsse2]

Collusion and purposely tanking are the two worst things in dynasty and I don't want any part of doing that so I wanted to ask for some thoughts before I make someone an offer.

My situation summed is I need a QB this week, FA options are barren and on top of that I can't find roster room to cut anyone so I'd rather trade a player then just cut someone for the likes of Zach Wilson.

So here is my question.

If I offered someone a handcuff RB to their starting RB for their QB2 and let it be known I'd be willing to trade the QB back to them next week for peanuts would that be considered collusion? Would it matter if I just said that versus working out an agreement in principle? I feel like saying I'd make the QB available next week for cheap to them is a bit of a gray area, actually working out parameters is starting to get into collusion or maybe both are collusion? I welcome the thoughts and will act accordingly.

I purposely did not want to bog this down on players specifics but would just add if I said nothing and just traded the RB for the QB it would be considered a fair trade. I would in fact rather have the RB if I did not need a QB this week and that RB is not my handcuff. I just think my trade has a better chance of being accepted if I let it be known I'd be open to sending the QB back next week when I don't need him any longer.

Sounds like loaning players. Which, I could be wrong, but I don't think that is generally allowed. Now, implementing a system to enable all teams to make formal loans, would be interesting. But normally it isn't considered kosher.

 

[da_budman]

I think sometimes you can say "this probably is collusion" but unless it's absolutely horrible you have to give a guy the benefit of the doubt.

Just like someone with a 3-8 record starting a guy projected at 8.4 over another guy projected at 12.1. There's sure to be "that guy" who is gonna accuse him of tanking. And he very well could be soft-tanking. But you have to give him the benefit of the doubt. If he puts scrubs in his lineup, that's different. Similarly, if the husband traded the wife Amon-Ra St. Brown and Travis Etienne for JuJu Smith-Schuster and Latavius Murray ... then you can call the cops.

I think this is a fair assesment. I would say even the colluding family wouldnt even attempt that trade which would get the po po called on them. lol

I agree

Nit picky details about the players aside, I believe most of us are in agreement that it only rises to “collusion” due to context + history.

Husband & wife trading with each other.
History of shaky deals like this.

Verdict: call 911

Can we stick to calling the non emergency line please? Calling 911 for a FF non emergency is probably abuse of the emergency line and a crime in itself.

 

[da_budman]

Collusion and purposely tanking are the two worst things in dynasty and I don't want any part of doing that so I wanted to ask for some thoughts before I make someone an offer.

My situation summed is I need a QB this week, FA options are barren and on top of that I can't find roster room to cut anyone so I'd rather trade a player then just cut someone for the likes of Zach Wilson.

So here is my question.

If I offered someone a handcuff RB to their starting RB for their QB2 and let it be known I'd be willing to trade the QB back to them next week for peanuts would that be considered collusion? Would it matter if I just said that versus working out an agreement in principle? I feel like saying I'd make the QB available next week for cheap to them is a bit of a gray area, actually working out parameters is starting to get into collusion or maybe both are collusion? I welcome the thoughts and will act accordingly.

I purposely did not want to bog this down on players specifics but would just add if I said nothing and just traded the RB for the QB it would be considered a fair trade. I would in fact rather have the RB if I did not need a QB this week and that RB is not my handcuff. I just think my trade has a better chance of being accepted if I let it be known I'd be open to sending the QB back next week when I don't need him any longer.

yeah tradiing back after 1 week is definitely roster sharing and against the rules. Its a form of collusion. If you think of this on a bigger scale you could have 2 teams agreeing to cover the other teams bye week issues then trading back the next week..... That sort of agreement would be unfair to the other teams and be roster sharing.

 

[Craig_MiamiFL]

Crazy SIL found a sucker?

 

[Wrigley]

Crazy SIL found a sucker?

I wish

 

[menobrown]

Collusion and purposely tanking are the two worst things in dynasty and I don't want any part of doing that so I wanted to ask for some thoughts before I make someone an offer.

My situation summed is I need a QB this week, FA options are barren and on top of that I can't find roster room to cut anyone so I'd rather trade a player then just cut someone for the likes of Zach Wilson.

So here is my question.

If I offered someone a handcuff RB to their starting RB for their QB2 and let it be known I'd be willing to trade the QB back to them next week for peanuts would that be considered collusion? Would it matter if I just said that versus working out an agreement in principle? I feel like saying I'd make the QB available next week for cheap to them is a bit of a gray area, actually working out parameters is starting to get into collusion or maybe both are collusion? I welcome the thoughts and will act accordingly.

I purposely did not want to bog this down on players specifics but would just add if I said nothing and just traded the RB for the QB it would be considered a fair trade. I would in fact rather have the RB if I did not need a QB this week and that RB is not my handcuff. I just think my trade has a better chance of being accepted if I let it be known I'd be open to sending the QB back next week when I don't need him any longer.

yeah tradiing back after 1 week is definitely roster sharing and against the rules. Its a form of collusion. If you think of this on a bigger scale you could have 2 teams agreeing to cover the other teams bye week issues then trading back the next week..... That sort of agreement would be unfair to the other teams and be roster sharing.

Thanks, I get that but not really consider roster sharing or renting a player but I can see how it would be seen that way. Really would just intend to cut the QB I got after this week and was trying to convey to the owner he could get him back cheap if he wanted, whether by trade or picking him back up in FA after I cut him. I think that's a little different then working out a multi-layered plan ahead of time, that's more player renting to me. But I appreciate the feedback.

 

[eighsse2]

Collusion and purposely tanking are the two worst things in dynasty and I don't want any part of doing that so I wanted to ask for some thoughts before I make someone an offer.

My situation summed is I need a QB this week, FA options are barren and on top of that I can't find roster room to cut anyone so I'd rather trade a player then just cut someone for the likes of Zach Wilson.

So here is my question.

If I offered someone a handcuff RB to their starting RB for their QB2 and let it be known I'd be willing to trade the QB back to them next week for peanuts would that be considered collusion? Would it matter if I just said that versus working out an agreement in principle? I feel like saying I'd make the QB available next week for cheap to them is a bit of a gray area, actually working out parameters is starting to get into collusion or maybe both are collusion? I welcome the thoughts and will act accordingly.

I purposely did not want to bog this down on players specifics but would just add if I said nothing and just traded the RB for the QB it would be considered a fair trade. I would in fact rather have the RB if I did not need a QB this week and that RB is not my handcuff. I just think my trade has a better chance of being accepted if I let it be known I'd be open to sending the QB back next week when I don't need him any longer.

yeah tradiing back after 1 week is definitely roster sharing and against the rules. Its a form of collusion. If you think of this on a bigger scale you could have 2 teams agreeing to cover the other teams bye week issues then trading back the next week..... That sort of agreement would be unfair to the other teams and be roster sharing.

Thanks, I get that but not really consider roster sharing or renting a player but I can see how it would be seen that way. Really would just intend to cut the QB I got after this week and was trying to convey to the owner he could get him back cheap if he wanted, whether by trade or picking him back up in FA after I cut him. I think that's a little different then working out a multi-layered plan ahead of time, that's more player renting to me. But I appreciate the feedback.

To me, if you make a legit promise to do some particular thing in the future, that's not okay.

Alternatively, if it's just a supposed provision that you may or may not come through on, then why should he take it seriously?