Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
All of those are elements of the same collusion. Which, you stated pretty clearly, you’re fine with as conditions if you get the player you want out of the deal.
Not a lot more to say.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Commissioner Collusion - what say you? - Update - I’m playing the sketchy commish in the semi’s and Thomas is out (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Judge Smails
- Start date
Not a lot more to say.
DropKick
Footballguy
ghostguy123
Footballguy
The team trading for Thomas was not tanking. He agreed to a condition of the trade. He still tried to win the game. It would be a different ballgame if he had also agreed to bench other players on his team rather than just the player he was trading for. That's kind of the point though. The trade does not happen without the condition.
The problem is they didnt tell anyone and tried to hide it rather than put the details out in the open. They clearly were not sure a condition like that was allowed, hence the lying.
The problem is they didnt tell anyone and tried to hide it rather than put the details out in the open. They clearly were not sure a condition like that was allowed, hence the lying.
ratbast
Footballguy
I concede that he broke the trade rule concept presented here. But I don’t care if he or you thinks MT is a “superior” product. He simply is not this year. It should not be considered in the argument. Because I can make an argument for most of the league being a better play than MT.
If we didn’t know the trade deal, would he have been called out for tanking by playing Greg Ward over MT?
Focus on the trade issue. Drop the tanking.
ratbast
Footballguy
I hear what you are saying but either it’s a legal trade or it’s not. Announcing keeping MT on bench wouldn’t have done anything except perhaps stop the “illegal” trade.
A secret deal to sit a player the owner thinks is the preferred play is the issue. It is irrelevant who the players involved are.
Mr.Pack
Footballguy
So it would be ok if part of the deal was that he not play Thomas a few weeks down the line if the owner has a chance to make the playoffs and a monster game by Thomas might hinder that?
I always give the benefit of the doubt in collusion questions and rarely agree that there was any, but here, no question about it. It not only affects these two teams but others in the playoff hunt.
Stinkin Ref
IBL Representative
I have posted since that post that I reconsidered my initial position and changed my view.....
ghostguy123
Footballguy
If this particular league does not allow conditions like this then of course the deal was illegal.
If nothing is spelled out in the rules then they need to have a league vote to either let it slide or to change the lineup to Thomas and change the outcome.
Then make a rule moving forward about acceptable conditions for trades, if any at all.
Some leagues conditional trades are not only allowed but they frequently occur. Some leagues they arent allowed at all. It's up to that league if this type of deal will be legal or not moving forward.
FUBAR
Footballguy
Conditional can be okay. A trade of Tom brady for a conditional pick based on his scoring over the year is perfectly fine imo. It would also be okay to trade for a conditional pick depending where that pick falls (for example if my 1st is a top 6 pick I keep it and you get my 2nd, but if it's later than 6 you get it). But most of my leagues require you to play your best lineup - we don't second guess the mildly reasonable decisions, but agreeing to not start a player you otherwise would, would violate that.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
An evolution rarely seen on fantasy boards like this. I wanted to take a moment and acknowledge this. Well done, Sir or Madame.
ratbast
Footballguy
Who cares? Either the trade was legal or not. “The owner thinks is the preferred player” that’s actually not important at all. Either the condition of the trade was legal or not.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
And again, if a league allows it then so be it. If not, make a rule and move on. Some do some dont.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
Guessing in a league with 6 grand floating around that these types of conditional deals should not be allowed.
GroveDiesel
Footballguy
Maybe this has been addressed but 15 pages is a lot to read through, so I didn’t. If addressed, my apologies and feel free to ignore.
1) Was the trade approved by the commish or by the league as a whole? If the trade was approved by the league as a whole and the “side deal” wasn’t announced as part of the trade, that makes the deal null and void IMO and it should be reversed back to the previous week. Of course now you’re in a sticky situation where you can’t possibly know what each team’s starting lineup should look like for last week.
2) What do the league rules specifically say (this is why it is important to have good rules). My league’s rules specifically say that trades can involved players and future picks with no other conditions attached.
The fact that they hid what they did and then seemingly lied about it after the fact tells me that they believed that what they did may not be allowed by the rules of the league, otherwise they would have been up front about it and let the league decide BEFORE the trade was finalized. That one of the managers doing that is the commish is concerning to me.
1) Was the trade approved by the commish or by the league as a whole? If the trade was approved by the league as a whole and the “side deal” wasn’t announced as part of the trade, that makes the deal null and void IMO and it should be reversed back to the previous week. Of course now you’re in a sticky situation where you can’t possibly know what each team’s starting lineup should look like for last week.
2) What do the league rules specifically say (this is why it is important to have good rules). My league’s rules specifically say that trades can involved players and future picks with no other conditions attached.
The fact that they hid what they did and then seemingly lied about it after the fact tells me that they believed that what they did may not be allowed by the rules of the league, otherwise they would have been up front about it and let the league decide BEFORE the trade was finalized. That one of the managers doing that is the commish is concerning to me.
Mr.Pack
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
The commish was one of the teams in the trade. So...yeah. It’s a bad look.
This is why my league has a co-commish. They’re there as backup to help with league stuff, and also to act as commish if I’m personally involved in a trade.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Precisely.
There is no such thing as “well he only benched one top player that he just went out of his way to acquire, so he really was trying to win.”
that’s a fiction people seemingly tell themselves to ignore the blatant collusion in this shady deal.
To repeat my earlier post, either you’re trying to win or you’re trying to not win.
Agreeing to bench a top asset in a specific game as a condition of a trade is exactly the same thing as agreeing to not play your best lineup in a specific game, which is the exact same thing as agreeing to throw a game.
There’s simply no such thing as intentionally playing a lesser lineup and trying to win. These two things are entirely incompatible.
You would think this would be assumed, understood, and accepted by all, without having to be spelled out in writing, wouldn't you?
But here we are.
Go back and read again. @Joe Bryant relies on one very important (and incorrect) assumption:
As the OP has detailed, the two owners hid this, then later lied about it.
The mental gymnastics going on here to try and justify this tanking is truly impressive to witness.
It's really very simple:
If you're trying to win, then you play your best lineup.
From that premise it necessarily and logically follows that if you DON'T play your best lineup, then you AREN'T trying to win.
If you AREN'T trying to win, then you're tanking.
This whole, "he was kinda-sorta trying to win" nonsense is akin to being a little pregnant.
Neil Beaufort Zod
Footballguy
Are the owners good owners? Like, do they generally try and win the league, pay attention, etc?
If so, cut them some slack and let them run their teams the way they want. Both teams are trying to win a title, and this is how both agree they help themselves do it. Just because you might not do it that way doesn't mean it's collusion. Neither team is trying to help the other team win. Both want to be champion this season and are working toward that.
In order to get Thomas, part of the cost is they get to use him one week less. Otherwise they wouldn't get Thomas at all. Both sides agreed and both sides are trying to win a title.
If so, cut them some slack and let them run their teams the way they want. Both teams are trying to win a title, and this is how both agree they help themselves do it. Just because you might not do it that way doesn't mean it's collusion. Neither team is trying to help the other team win. Both want to be champion this season and are working toward that.
In order to get Thomas, part of the cost is they get to use him one week less. Otherwise they wouldn't get Thomas at all. Both sides agreed and both sides are trying to win a title.
Neil Beaufort Zod
Footballguy
The goal is to win a title imo. I don't care if I'm 10-4, 12-2 or 8-6 in the regular season. My goal is to make the playoffs and win a title.
If both sides were trying to win a title this season, there's no collusion.
NFL teams do not always play their best lineup (week 17). They aren't trying to win...because they're trying to win a title. They don't have to "justify the tanking" because it's obvious they're trying to win the Super Bowl. Both teams in the trade are trying to win a title, right? So what's the difference?
This was addressed a few posts up.
It should be understood and accepted in all fantasy leagues that as a matter of basic competitive fairness, all teams must agree to play their best lineup every week.
Beyond that, in FF there's no such thing as resting your players to get them ready for the playoffs, so the analogy to real football falls apart right there.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
Not starting a great player is out in the open. In a league where people care, and this clearly is, that's out in the open.
After 15 pages, can you guys devote some of this energy to talking about upcoming games?
And that's the whole problem. As a condition of the trade, he was required to tank.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
ghostguy123
Footballguy
He didnt tank. He played the best lineup he was allowed to play.
It's just a matter of whether or not you think that a conditional trade like this should be allowed. You obviously dont, and that's fine. It probably shouldn't be allowed
Neil Beaufort Zod
Footballguy
Sorry, lots of pages in this thread so I didn't read them all.
So basic rules of fariness dictate that a team should try to win each week, even when it hurts their chances of winning a title? What's the rationale behind that? Why should an owner be forced to hurt their own title chances?
NFL teams do not always play their best lineup every week. The reason is they think it helps improve their chances of winning a title. If a fantasy team does the exact same thing, how is it violating basic competitive fairness?
If I'm trying to forfeit my own playoff hopes on purpose to help another team win a title, that's collusion. If we're both making moves to win a title that season, I don't see the collusion. Just my opinion.
Neil Beaufort Zod
Footballguy
Team A is trying to win a title. Team B is trying to win a title. Both teams think the trade helps them do that in the same season.
I have yet to see a defiition of collusion where the above can be said truthfully.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Team A doesn’t need a win that week
Team B desperately needs a win that week
Team A agreed to not play a top player as a condition of a deal with team B
They made this arrangement in secret, then lied to the league about it when called out. Then literally admitted to colluding.
It is, clearly, and without question, collusion. Whether it’s to impact a single game or the season, they collided. The injured party of this was the rest of the league, specifically any other team fighting for the playoff spot Team B is trying to get.
i’ve never seen a more obvious example of it in my decades of paying fantasy sports
My reply would be, agreeing to tank to help another team win isn't valid currency to offer in a trade. Even if it furthers your own title odds.
Nobody is denying that both teams are acting in their best interests. They obviously are.
"We were both trying to win the title" isn't some get-out-of-jail-free card.
Neil Beaufort Zod
Footballguy
I've also been playing for decades and I've definitely seen collusion.
In my opinion (and I've been wrong before, but it's how I feel), the goal is not to score the most points, or win the most games. The goal is to win a championship. Anything a team does should be done with the goal of winning a championship that season (unless it's a dynasty rebuild). In MOST cases, winning as many games as you can is the goal purely because that normally helps you win a championship. But on the rare occasions when not playing your best lineup would actually help you win a championship, it should absolutely be allowed.
Neil Beaufort Zod
Footballguy
Well, I guess that's where we differ. If both teams are trying to act in their best interests-- and those interests oppose each other (both can't win a title)-- then it can't really be collusion.
All we can ask of an owner is that they act in their team's best interests. If they're honestly doing that, it's good gameplay imo.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
All I see in your post is that the ends justify the means and cheating is ok.
nothing else matters but winning the championship so we should ignore the blatant collusion of secret conditional side-deals involving roster manipulation/tanking.
it’s stunningly unethical.
Not the first time this defense has been applied in here. Not the first time I’ve been appalled by it.
Last question from me and I'm on to this week - Do you think the real NFL teams who've clinched a playoff spot and rest starters in Week 17 are tanking or colluding?
Last edited by a moderator:
Neil Beaufort Zod
Footballguy
I apologize for not adding in "within the rules" when saying the goal was to win a championship. I mistakenly assumed it would be understood. I'll be sure to add in that caveat to avoid confusion in the future.
It seems like you think if a trade is accepted by both sides, and approved by a commissioner but you don't like it, it's cheating. Okay. That's fine. I'm not buying it. If both teams are trying to win a title and they do that (within the rules) and they both are acting in their own interest (within the rules) then they are doing what they're supposed to do.
The goal is not to score the most points (unless it's a total points league). The goal is not to win the most games. The goal is to win a championship. In our game, the winner is the last team standing after week 16 (some leagues are different). If you're tryng to do that (within the rules) then you're not cheating. Just my opinion.
Last edited by a moderator:
So if I agree to trade you Mahomes, Kelce, and Kamara for your first week in the playoffs because I have a bye and you do not and then you trade them back to me after that week it is OK because both teams are trying to win the title?
In the case for the OP the two teams made a secret agreement for a condition to sit a player that was viewed as the superior option by the team that did not play him. They then lied about doing it when first questioned.. later they came clean and confirmed they made the secret agreement.. All of this is not in question as it was confirmed by the participants in the trade..
Collusion: Secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.
This is the definition of collusion. These teams colluded. It is not in question
Last edited by a moderator:
ghostguy123
Footballguy
While I may agree with some of your point, this part is just awful and embarrassing someone would make this analogy.
NFL teams bench players for health reason.
You cant bench a fantasy guy for health reasons cause, well.........seems obvious as to why.
Neil Beaufort Zod
Footballguy
How does that benefit you? And how does it benefit the other team to trade them back to you? In the original example, both teams benefit. How do both teams benefit in either trade?
ghostguy123
Footballguy
If a team is up 35-0 at halftime and they bench their starters for the 2nd half, are they tanking?
The word tanking is being grossly misused around here.
Last edited by a moderator:
ghostguy123
Footballguy
Because the trade would have more included, and give a net benefit to the original team who traded away Mahomes, Kelce, and Kamara
Really?
The team borrowing Mahomes Kelce and Kamara for a week obviously benefit from having a stronger lineup that week, and a higher probability of winning.
The team lending the players obviously believes it would benefit from having the team he's lending to knock the other (presumably stronger) team out of the playoffs.
Both teams benefit. No problem right?
Neil Beaufort Zod
Footballguy
Yes, of course. I agree. No health reasons in fantasy.
NFL teams bench perfectly-healthy players. Not hurt at all. They simply don't care about the game, so they let backups get some work and let the starters rest. Kind of loosely-related to "health" but other factors as well.
The rationale is different than fantasy, but the strategy is the same. Don't play your best players today = better chance of winning a title tomorrow.
Neil Beaufort Zod
Footballguy
These are two different trades. In the first one, a team gets Mahomes, etc. What does the other team get?
In the other, same thing. I don't see how you can make it equitable.
If it's all "one trade" then you're talking about renting a player which is very different. That's more than a "condition." I see your point, but I think you used an unrelated example. You'd have to find a way to compensate both sides, and I don't see how you compensate a team on a bye. Plus the other team could just keep Mahomes, etc. and not make the second trade. What team would risk that?
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
you’re misrepresenting the deal here.
1. the commish was one of the teams involved in the collusion.
2. They colluded. They lied about it then admitted to it. This is known.
3. Has nothing to do with whether I don’t like the deal. It has to do with a team tanking as a condition of a deal. That’s unethical.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
