What's new
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 (3 Viewers)

What should happen since the trade already went through?

  • Overturn the trade

    Votes: 35 16.1%

  • Fine both owners significantly but allow the trade

    Votes: 13 6.0%

  • Impeach the commissioner

    Votes: 23 10.6%

  • Let trade stand but fine and impeach

    Votes: 13 6.0%

  • Overturn trade, fine and impeach

    Votes: 26 12.0%

  • Nothing

    Votes: 107 49.3%
  • Total voters
    217
What I find interesting is while the voting is split, It has been agreed upon by VAST MAJORITY of those posting that collusion did occur.  Simple.  While the voting is only slightly in agreement (55%) that collusion occurred, it is almost 50-50 split that the trade be overturned.  I am not in agreement that punishment should be implemented, but when this much contreversy is involved, maybe you should consider the conditions surrounding this deal are the problem.  It is recognication of your dancing around the lack of rules that makes it difficult for you to recognize the problem.  Conditional deals should not be permitted.  Simple.  

 
davearm said:
Why is "same calendar week" the critical unit of measure here?  Why not second, or minute, or hour, or day, or month, or year?  What's so special about a "calendar week"? 

Seems totally arbitrary, and self-serving of a rather poorly thought out argument.

I presume you're opposed to any trade involving a draft pick.  Those aren't completed for months, or even years in some cases.

And inasmuch as a new calendar week begins on a Sunday, this deal doesn't even meet your totally arbitrary standard.
Click to expand...
Oy,

The same week is critical because the NFL and FF revolve around weeks 1-17 and in season trades should only occur in one particular week (IE wk1 or wk5 or wk8 not wk5 and wk8 which is what all the straw men arguments do). The week the trade occurred is when the players, picks and in this case a contingency applied, its all 1 transaction for that week. By calendar I was referring to the nfl\ff wk1, wk2 etc. Trades for draft picks are completed same week (your trading picks not players). If you find this arbitrary and poorly thought out np, we can agree to disagree. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ghostguy123 said:
Theres a gigantic problem with this statement.

Just because something is unethical in one instance does not mean it is unethical in another.

Is lying unethical?  Is bluffing in poker unethical then?  Is talking about Santa with your kids unethical?  

In one league this trade is unethical, while in some others it is not.  
Click to expand...
Sigh. It’s like the mob. Just when I thought I was out; they sucked me back in. ;)  

ok, so In general I agree with you.

specifically, this trade in this topic was the obvious context of the statement that you selectively quoted here. 

context is everything. 

As for the last bit, in any FF leagues where this trade isn’t considered unethical, nothing would be considered unethical.

Those advocating this line of defense are loophole-seekers attempting to subvert commonly accepted ethical behavior, about cheating your fantasy league-mates, because to them the ends justify the means.

They have expressed in various ways that unless every single possible scenario is accounted for in the rules, then it’s morally, ethically ok to do whatever it takes, and if the league wants to make a rule about it after the fact, ok. I see this as a cheap attempt to justify what I consider unethical behavior (e.g. cheating).

Again, specific to this scenario, in this league. I am not making judgements about anyone in this topic, nor am I asserting that they are unethical people.

i’m looking at a team agreeing to tank a game as a condition of acquiring a player and saying that I see that action as unethical. 
 

ETA: here’s a better analogy for you....bluffing at poker isn’t considered cheating, because everyone can bluff. 

what about marking cards? What about an ace up your sleeve? Are those ok if there’s no sign on the wall telling players not to do it? I’ve been in dozens of card rooms; at hundreds of poker games and never saw such a posted rule. 

Yet somehow every single poker player there knows not to mark cards or keep an ace up their sleeve. 

Because ethical behavior is expected and this is known to be cheating.

just like agreeing to tank a game as a condition of a trade is known to be cheating. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jvdesigns2002 said:
What are your thoughts on this dynamic? (Link below). I posted this earlier and the thread is moving so fast that I think a lot of valid points are being over looked.  Allowing a condition like this inherently randomly gives some teams more trade equity than others.  Do you not believe that this is something that every owner of a league should agree to because of this?

https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/790330-commissioner-collusion-what-say-you/?do=findComment&comment=23101250
Click to expand...
Unless the trade dynamic is something outside of the parameters of the game or league I don’t see a problem. By this I mean something like “I’ll pay you $1000 for MT.”

But if you have game based capital that you can spend, so be it  The only capital the manager had was the luxury of not having urgency to win that particular week. 
 

But even under an assumed scenario of just players for players there are very few equitable trades. The market for players requires people to over pay or sell short  

 
Gally said:
Team A did agree to field a lesser lineup.  That fact is undisputed.  Team A admitted he wanted to play MT because he thought he was the best option to start but could not only due to the stipulation of the trade.  Team A owner believed that MT was his best play for that week but could not play him only because of the secret  trade agreement.  This is fact as presented by  @Judge Smails.
Click to expand...
No they didn’t agree to a lesser lineup. They agreed to sit MT. It is not stated that the recipient couldn’t get a player off the wire and if he had done so it would not have violated the trade condition. 

 
NE_REVIVAL said:
Oy,

The same week is critical because the NFL and FF revolve around weeks 1-17 and in season trades should only occur in one particular week (IE wk1 or wk5 or wk8 not wk5 and wk8 which is what all the straw men arguments do). The week the trade occurred is when the players, picks and in this case a contingency applied, its all 1 transaction for that week. By calendar I was referring to the nfl\ff wk1, wk2 etc. Trades for draft picks are completed same week (your trading picks not players). If you find this arbitrary and poorly thought out np, we can agree to disagree. 
Click to expand...
Well I do think you haven't really thought this through very well.

Here's how Owner A's roster evolved:

Week 9: JJSS and Lindsay

Week 10: Mattison

Week 11: Thomas and Mattison

From Owner A's perspective, the trade took two NFL weeks to complete.  His/her roster was clearly different in W10 than W9, then different again in W11.  He basically agreed to play a player short in W10.

 
Hot Sauce Guy said:
Sigh. It’s like the mob. Just when I thought I was out; they sucked me back in. ;)  

ok, so In general I agree with you.

specifically, this trade in this topic was the obvious context of the statement that you selectively quoted here. 

context is everything. 

As for the last bit, in any FF leagues where this trade isn’t considered unethical, nothing would be considered unethical.

Those advocating this line of defense are loophole-seekers attempting to subvert commonly accepted ethical behavior, about cheating your fantasy league-mates, because to them the ends justify the means.

They have expressed in various ways that unless every single possible scenario is accounted for in the rules, then it’s morally, ethically ok to do whatever it takes, and if the league wants to make a rule about it after the fact, ok. I see this as a cheap attempt to justify what I consider unethical behavior (e.g. cheating).

Again, specific to this scenario, in this league. I am not making judgements about anyone in this topic, nor am I asserting that they are unethical people.

i’m looking at a team agreeing to tank a game as a condition of acquiring a player and saying that I see that action as unethical. 
 

ETA: here’s a better analogy for you....bluffing at poker isn’t considered cheating, because everyone can bluff. 

what about marking cards? What about an ace up your sleeve? Are those ok if there’s no sign on the wall telling players not to do it? I’ve been in dozens of card rooms; at hundreds of poker games and never saw such a posted rule. 

Yet somehow every single poker player there knows not to mark cards or keep an ace up their sleeve. 

Because ethical behavior is expected and this is known to be cheating.

just like agreeing to tank a game as a condition of a trade is known to be cheating. 
Click to expand...
Again, the condition was to sit MT, not to lose a game. The manager could have easily picked a suitable player and met the criteria of the trade. 
 

It is a stretch to say that MT was without a doubt going to be the difference in the weekly match. I wish I had that level of prognostic ability. 
 

 
I Am the Stig said:
No they didn’t agree to a lesser lineup. They agreed to sit MT. 
Click to expand...
The owner himself has acknowledged he would have played Thomas in the but-for scenario.  Not Mattison.  Not another guy off his bench.  Not someone off the WW.  Thomas was his best option for that roster slot that week.

The fact that he didn't/couldn't is prima facie evidence that he agreed to a lesser lineup.

 
I Am the Stig said:
Again, the condition was to sit MT, not to lose a game. The manager could have easily picked a suitable player and met the criteria of the trade. 

It is a stretch to say that MT was without a doubt going to be the difference in the weekly match. I wish I had that level of prognostic ability. 
 
Click to expand...
For the 50th time; it’s not about prognostication.

all that matters to make the determination is whether the two teams involved in the deal believed the player getting benched as a condition of the deal (MT) was better than the player started instead (Mattison).

And we know the answer, because @Judge Smails told us that both teams admitted it. Team MT clearly knew he was starting an inferior player. 

I’ll add that it’s even more suspicious that he started Mattison, a backup RB to a healthy Cook, and not another player not named MT, who may have scored more, lending even further suspicion that it wasn’t merely a condition of the trade to bench MT, but to also start Mattison, which would make the tanking even more egregious. 

There’s simply no getting around the reality that he deliberately tanked his roster to fulfill an a condition of the player acquisition. It was admitted. It’s known. 

Prognostication has literally nothing to do with it. 

 
davearm said:
The owner himself has acknowledged he would have played Thomas in the but-for scenario.  Not Mattison.  Not another guy off his bench.  Not someone off the WW.  Thomas was his best option for that roster slot that week.

The fact that he didn't/couldn't is prima facie evidence that he agreed to a lesser lineup.
Click to expand...
Can’t say it any better than this. 

 
I have been playing in a league for 30 years, and we have made some very crazy rules over the years:

- You cannot offer sexual favors for players, unless said player has also been convicted of such an offense
- You must start players who are alive, unless you can prove you rostered them upon their death
- If you own multiple teams under aliases, you are only allowed 12 lopsided trades per season

 
davearm said:
The owner himself has acknowledged he would have played Thomas in the but-for scenario.  Not Mattison.  Not another guy off his bench.  Not someone off the WW.  Thomas was his best option for that roster slot that week.

The fact that he didn't/couldn't is prima facie evidence that he agreed to a lesser lineup.
Click to expand...
We know he would have benched MT but that was a condition of the trade. But the condition of the trade was simply to bench MT NOT a lesser lineup. 

 
I Am the Stig said:
Unless the trade dynamic is something outside of the parameters of the game or league I don’t see a problem. By this I mean something like “I’ll pay you $1000 for MT.”

But if you have game based capital that you can spend, so be it  The only capital the manager had was the luxury of not having urgency to win that particular week. 
 

But even under an assumed scenario of just players for players there are very few equitable trades. The market for players requires people to over pay or sell short  
Click to expand...
I don't see how that can't be viewed as a problem.  Let's say that hypothetically the team needed a TE and was willing to trade Michael Thomas for one.   The owner he plays is willing to offer Darren Waller for him, and lets say that another owner is willing to Travis Kelce for Thomas.   Kelce is better than Waller-but if the owner needs to "win now"--he very well could settle for a Darren Waller and add the contingency that the owner he's playing doesn't start Thomas.  That same luxury could not be offered by the Kelce owner even though he's offering him a better deal.  I'm not sure how this dynamic wouldn't play a part. It allows the opponent of the team owner in need to charge a massive premium for his players through the ability to add that condition that no other owner could offer. 

 
TheWinz said:
I have been playing in a league for 30 years, and we have made some very crazy rules over the years:

- You cannot offer sexual favors for players, unless said player has also been convicted of such an offense
- You must start players who are alive, unless you can prove you rostered them upon their death
- If you own multiple teams under aliases, you are only allowed 12 lopsided trades per season
Click to expand...
Thank goodness you included those. Some crafty fellow in your league may have attempted to pull off one of these capers had there not been an explicit rule against it. 

:lol:  

 
TheWinz said:
You are trying to make it seem like benching MT and submitting a lesser lineup are 2 different things.  They are not.
Click to expand...
I’ve said this 37 different ways. There’s no way he doesn’t understand this.  

it is a disingenuous argument argued in bad faith. Circular reasoning. 

Team MT’s cheating wasn’t cheating because he cheated in some specific manner that somehow side-steps the fact that he was cheating.

First he was trying to use the “chicken and the egg” argument of (paraphrased) “well if he didn’t agree to bench MT then he wouldn’t have had MT to bench” but shifted to this new “he didn’t agree to start a worse lineup, he just agreed to start a lineup without this top player in it who he said he would have started otherwise”. 

There have been alternates to this attempted which are (paraphrased) “MT isn’t a valuable valuable player”,  and my favorite (paraphrased) , “how could anyone have possibly known MT would have outscored Mattison”. 

It’s all ridiculous. I’m not even gonna sugar coat it. All that matters is that both teams involved in the deal believed MT was the better play. Everything else is lipstick on a pig. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jvdesigns2002 said:
I don't see how that can't be viewed as a problem.  Let's say that hypothetically the team needed a TE and was willing to trade Michael Thomas for one.   The owner he plays is willing to offer Darren Waller for him, and lets say that another owner is willing to Travis Kelce for Thomas.   Kelce is better than Waller-but if the owner needs to "win now"--he very well could settle for a Darren Waller and add the contingency that the owner he's playing doesn't start Thomas.  That same luxury could not be offered by the Kelce owner even though he's offering him a better deal.  I'm not sure how this dynamic wouldn't play a part. It allows the opponent of the team owner in need to charge a massive premium for his players through the ability to add that condition that no other owner could offer. 
Click to expand...
No, in this case the MT owner did not have enough capital  to land Kelce. Personally I value Kelce as much higher than MT right now and probably not even Waller. 
 

But if I was receiving Kelce or possibly Waller I’d sit them as a condition. But the reality is trades RARELY happen between common opponents that same week. That is partly why this whole thread is ridiculous. The stars aligned just so that this could even happen and it was the only way, approaching a trade deadline that it could get done. 
 

Any other week the trade would just be processed after the games. There just aren’t many reasons to be able to ask fir the benching or comply with it under any but the most extreme situations. 
 

Ive been on this forum for more than a decade and this is the only time that I have ever even seen this happen. This is just the rarest of trade Capitol that anyone could ever hope to cash in on. 

 
Hot Sauce Guy said:
I’ve said this 37 different ways. There’s no way he doesn’t understand this.  

it is a disingenuous argument argued in bad faith. Circular reasoning. 

Team MT’s cheating wasn’t cheating because he cheated in some specific manner that somehow side-steps the fact that he was cheating.

First he was trying to use the “chicken and the egg” argument of (paraphrased) “well if he didn’t agree to bench MT then he wouldn’t have had MT to bench” but shifted to this new “he didn’t agree to start a worse lineup, he just agreed to start a lineup without this top player in it who he said he would have started otherwise”. 

There have been alternates to this attempted which are (paraphrased) “MT isn’t a valuable valuable player”,  and my favorite, “how could anyone know MT would have outscored Mattison”. 

It’s all ridiculous. I’m not even gonna sugar coat it. All that matters is that both teams involved in the deal believed MT was the better play. Everything else is lipstick on a pig. 
Click to expand...
You know what?  I have changed my mind.  I now agree with everything Stig has been saying.  He makes complete sense.

 
yoman said:
Who's on first what's on second and I don't know is on third.
Click to expand...
He literally could have put anyone available on the WW or his roster but MT in the flex. That is not the same as demanding a lesser lineup. 
 

I would have absolutely honored the trade AND started the best available player that would have helped me win and I would have been comfortable doing it. 

 
I Am the Stig said:
He literally could have put anyone available on the WW or his roster but MT in the flex. That is not the same as demanding a lesser lineup. 
 

I would have absolutely honored the trade AND started the best available player that would have helped me win and I would have been comfortable doing it. 
Click to expand...
Are you a mod trying to bait people into calling you a moron?

 
TheWinz said:
You are trying to make it seem like benching MT and submitting a lesser lineup are 2 different things.  They are not.
Click to expand...
MT has 29.4 .5PPR points on the season. 
 

This is not 2019 but 2020. MT is anything but a slam dunk stud this year. I know, I’m a MT owner. Antonio Brown has been more productive. So let’s get off the idea that he is now this guys TOP player. By the sounds of it he has been doing fine and just views MT as a final piece to finish the job but not necessarily the best player on his team. 
 

Im told to sit a guy who up till that point in the season has 10 points in two games? Oh I’m shaking, how will I ever get by without the average production of Larry Fitzgerald?  What an outrageous demand. 

 
I Am the Stig said:
No, in this case the MT owner did not have enough capital  to land Kelce. Personally I value Kelce as much higher than MT right now and probably not even Waller. 
 

But if I was receiving Kelce or possibly Waller I’d sit them as a condition. But the reality is trades RARELY happen between common opponents that same week. That is partly why this whole thread is ridiculous. The stars aligned just so that this could even happen and it was the only way, approaching a trade deadline that it could get done. 
 

Any other week the trade would just be processed after the games. There just aren’t many reasons to be able to ask fir the benching or comply with it under any but the most extreme situations. 
 

Ive been on this forum for more than a decade and this is the only time that I have ever even seen this happen. This is just the rarest of trade Capitol that anyone could ever hope to cash in on. 
Click to expand...
I totally get you and keep in mind that my example was just a hypothetical. League constitutions don't only exist to cover common occurrences--they also exist to cover random situations that could effect the competitive balance of the league.  I don't think that its okay to assume this is okay just because it's a rarity.  Imo--I feel like the rest of the league owners of the league should have been able to decide whether or not they feel like it was an allowable condition--and I think the commish was wrong to choose the path of least transparency.   That's all I'm saying.   With that said--I do respect your opinion and I thank you very much for sharing it in a manner that invites discussion. 

 
TheWinz said:
Are you a mod trying to bait people into calling you a moron?
Click to expand...
Where is it wrong?

This game would have been literally the only game in week 10 that MT would have been the positive difference for a team. 
 

He lost games for everyone who started him that week. You’re all, the trade partners included, blinded by the brand name in this. MT is a WR 3/4 right now and two people completely over valued him in this trade. 
 

Yes, the upside is there but the opportunity cost of sitting him was frankly a cheap price to pay for a player who has proven nothing up till that point in the season. 

 
I Am the Stig said:
MT has 29.4 .5PPR points on the season. 
 

This is not 2019 but 2020. MT is anything but a slam dunk stud this year. I know, I’m a MT owner. Antonio Brown has been more productive. So let’s get off the idea that he is now this guys TOP player. By the sounds of it he has been doing fine and just views MT as a final piece to finish the job but not necessarily the best player on his team. 
 

Im told to sit a guy who up till that point in the season has 10 points in two games? Oh I’m shaking, how will I ever get by without the average production of Larry Fitzgerald?  What an outrageous demand. 
Click to expand...
I see we’re back to the “Michael Thomas is worthless, so it wasn’t tanking.” argument?

By all means, you should take this approach to the team with Michael Thomas in your dynasty league. Be sure to offer them Larry Fitzgerald and carefully point out that MT has no more value based on what he’s scored YTD.

Let us know how that goes. :thumbup:

 
jvdesigns2002 said:
I totally get you and keep in mind that my example was just a hypothetical. League constitutions don't only exist to cover common occurrences--they also exist to cover random situations that could effect the competitive balance of the league.  I don't think that its okay to assume this is okay just because it's a rarity.  Imo--I feel like the rest of the league owners of the league should have been able to decide whether or not they feel like it was an allowable condition--and I think the commish was wrong to choose the path of least transparency.   That's all I'm saying.   With that said--I do respect your opinion and I thank you very much for sharing it in a manner that invites discussion. 
Click to expand...
I agree but the league does not vote on trades or otherwise have a say in trades for this season. 
 

Certainly they will rethink that hands off approach moving forward, and they should, but as far as their league is currently constructed, like it or not, the trade is fine. 

 
I Am the Stig said:
MT has 29.4 .5PPR points on the season. 
 

This is not 2019 but 2020. MT is anything but a slam dunk stud this year. I know, I’m a MT owner. Antonio Brown has been more productive. So let’s get off the idea that he is now this guys TOP player. By the sounds of it he has been doing fine and just views MT as a final piece to finish the job but not necessarily the best player on his team. 
 

Im told to sit a guy who up till that point in the season has 10 points in two games? Oh I’m shaking, how will I ever get by without the average production of Larry Fitzgerald?  What an outrageous demand. 
Click to expand...
MT is WR109 and has played 4 games.  Richie James is WR108 and has also played 4 games.  They are only one-tenth of a point different in PPR.  Fair trade?

 
Imo--I feel like the rest of the league owners of the league should have been able to decide whether or not they feel like it was an allowable condition--and I think the commish was wrong to choose the path of least transparency.   That's all I'm saying.
 
Click to expand...
Respectfully, I believe you’d be hard-pressed to find any league where “tanking” of any sort would be an allowable condition of a trade. 

especially in the specific context of the tanking team not needing a W and the other team needing a W. 

The path of least transparency is actually an excellent point because here’s how I see this going down had they been transparent with this:

1. League reaction of outrage would have occurred before rather than after trade was consummated.

(We actually know that was the league reaction; in case you’d missed this over the last x # of pages) 

2. Trade veto by league. 

3. League would have immediately demanded that a rule be put in place to eliminate this “loophole” (which is only really a loophole if someone is desperately attempting to side-step the ethical concerns of the condition itself by saying “well it wasn’t specified in the rules, so...”)

That it wasn’t transparent, and they lied about having made the conditional side-deal, seems to make this more cut and dry. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TheWinz said:
MT is WR109 and has played 4 games.  Richie James is WR108 and has also played 4 games.  They are only one-tenth of a point different in PPR.  Fair trade?
Click to expand...
No because I don’t need to trade for a player on the WW. 
 

There is rest of season upside and weekly upside. Week 11 and MT had his first double digit fantasy day. 
 

You can believe in the brand name and the potential but the price of sitting him was just not that high a price. 

 
You can believe in the brand name and the potential but the price of sitting him was just not that high a price. 
Click to expand...
Must be nice to have such keen prognostication abilities. 

I read that somewhere once... 🤔 

 
Hot Sauce Guy said:
Respectfully, I believe you’d be hard-pressed to find any league where “tanking” of any sort would be an allowable condition of a trade. 

especially in the specific context of the tanking team not needing a W and the other team needing a W. 

The path of least transparency is actually an excellent point because here’s how I see this going down had they been transparent with this:

1. League reaction of outrage would have occurred before rather than after trade was consummated.

(We actually know that was the league reaction; in case you’d missed this over the last x # of pages) 

2. Trade veto by league. 

3. League would have immediately demanded that a rule be put in place to eliminate this “loophole” (which is only really a loophole if someone is desperately attempting to side-step the ethical concerns of the condition itself by saying “well it wasn’t specified in the rules, so...”)

That it wasn’t transparent, and they lied about having made the conditional side-deal, seems to make this more cut and dry. 
Click to expand...
Sitting one player while I playoff contention is not “tanking”. Lol. 
 

He sat a player who had 10 points on the season up till that point. 
 

 
I Am the Stig said:
Sitting one player while I playoff contention is not “tanking”. Lol. 
 

He sat a player who had 10 points on the season up till that point. 
 
Click to expand...
It’s irrelevant. Both teams involved in the decision to bench MT believed MT was the more valuable player.

that is all that matters to make this tanking. 

I’m not the only one to point this out. 

 
I Am the Stig said:
MT has 29.4 .5PPR points on the season. 
 

This is not 2019 but 2020. MT is anything but a slam dunk stud this year. I know, I’m a MT owner. Antonio Brown has been more productive. So let’s get off the idea that he is now this guys TOP player. By the sounds of it he has been doing fine and just views MT as a final piece to finish the job but not necessarily the best player on his team. 
 

Im told to sit a guy who up till that point in the season has 10 points in two games? Oh I’m shaking, how will I ever get by without the average production of Larry Fitzgerald?  What an outrageous demand. 
Click to expand...
None of this matters.  Not a single word of it.

The only thing that matters is that this owner would have had MT in his starting lineup if he could have.

Instead, he was forced to bench MT and start what he felt was a lesser player, and therefore a weaker lineup.

 
Hot Sauce Guy said:
Respectfully, I believe you’d be hard-pressed to find any league where “tanking” of any sort would be an allowable condition of a trade. 

especially in the specific context of the tanking team not needing a W and the other team needing a W. 

The path of least transparency is actually an excellent point because here’s how I see this going down had they been transparent with this:

1. League reaction of outrage would have occurred before rather than after trade was consummated.

(We actually know that was the league reaction; in case you’d missed this over the last x # of pages) 

2. Trade veto by league. 

3. League would have immediately demanded that a rule be put in place to eliminate this “loophole” (which is only really a loophole if someone is desperately attempting to side-step the ethical concerns of the condition itself by saying “well it wasn’t specified in the rules, so...”)

That it wasn’t transparent, and they lied about having made the conditional side-deal, seems to make this more cut and dry. 
Click to expand...
You and I are basically in full agreement as far as I can tell.  I certainly don't want to predict what would have happened if the rest of the team owners had a chance to chime in on --but based on this thread---I'd say that best case scenario roughly half would have been okay with it and half wouldn't--and that would certainly be enough to not allow the trade and put it as a topic to vote on for the next season.   

I don't agree with the stance that because the league doesn't vote on trades that it is a good/fair trade.  The issue with that stance is that the commish or decision maker of the league was involved and he chose a path where he was the beneficiary of the  needy team owner and a random schedule that allowed him to have the luxury of adding a condition that no other team owner could have had.   The trade was done in a self serving fashion and the lack of disclosure to the league also comes across as self serving to me.  Had the same thing been done between two owners--and other owners become vocal about it--I don't think there is a chance that he tries to treat it as the "non issue" in which he did.   If I play in fantasy leagues that allow conditions like this--I sure as heck want to know about it before week 1--and there is zero chance that I just expect that conditions like this are just allowed unless it's specifically stated.   

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hot Sauce Guy said:
This will be my last post in this topic, and I am only responding to this because it is an important point. 
Click to expand...
:lmao:  (on so many levels)  :lmao:

Hot Sauce Guy said:
Breaking my promise to address this:
Click to expand...
Shocking.



Hot Sauce Guy said:
Sigh. It’s like the mob. Just when I thought I was out; they sucked me back in. ;)  
Click to expand...


Hot Sauce Guy said:
For the 50th time;
Click to expand...
At least.



Hot Sauce Guy said:
I’ve said this 37 different ways.
Click to expand...
More than that, I’m quite certain.







I know you can’t bear the thought that anyone could have a differing opinion with any merit whatsoever, but maybe you should get some fresh air.  🤷🏼‍♂️

 
I know you can’t bear the thought that anyone could have a differing opinion with any merit whatsoever, but maybe you should get some fresh air.  🤷🏼‍♂️
Click to expand...
I’m quite comfortable with people having different opinions than mine. 

i’m quire uncomfortable when people have opinions aren’t in concert with reality. 

As a self-employed person I’m stuck indoors packing today’s 40 web orders & taking breaks to hang out with my puppy, replying to what I believe is a fascinating discussion of ethics & FF.  I have that luxury, 

I was planning on not replying, but then I was quoted and asked questions. So it pulled me back into the convo. Thanks for your keen observation. 

Perhaps you should consider making fewer personal attacks on other members and spending more time discussing the topic at hand.

It’s just an idea. 

 
davearm said:
None of this matters.  Not a single word of it.

The only thing that matters is that this owner would have had MT in his starting lineup if he could have.

Instead, he was forced to bench MT and start what he felt was a lesser player, and therefore a weaker lineup.
Click to expand...
That he started who he felt was a lesser player was his mistake but it was not the condition of the trade. He was only required to sit MT, if he had Julio Jones he would have been able to do so in MT’s place and it would not have violated the trade. 
 

He could have picked up Aiyuk off the wire and it would not have violated the the trade. 
 

The condition wasn’t  “to lose or start a lesser player.” The condition was to sit MT. That he did play a lesser player is immaterial to the actual trade condition as starting a lesser player was not explicitly stated. 
 

 
davearm said:
You're not going to manufacture a difference where none exists through sheer force of repetition.
Click to expand...
The condition of the trade was not to start Mattison in place of MT. You’re repeating that implication over and over again also does not make it true. 
 

He was simply told who not to start, he was not told who to start. There is a huge difference between the two conditions. 

 
--but based on this thread---I'd say that best case scenario roughly half would have been okay with it and half wouldn't--and that would certainly be enough to not allow the trade and put it as a topic to vote on for the next season.   
 
Click to expand...
It was described as league-wide outrage with dozens of messages flying around about it.

more likely it would have been universally panned.

There should have been a co-commish to handle moderating a trade the commish was directly involved with.  To me that is a glaring deficiency of this league. 

But the original sin can’t be glossed over either. The commish accepted a condition  that was tantamount to throwing a game.

Another interesting thought experiment might be, “what if both parties in this trade needed a W to make the playoffs”? 

I don’t think it erases the collusion, but it definitely adds an element to it. It makes me wonder if Team MT would agree to that condition.  If not, then this was clearly tanking, no? 

 
I Am the Stig said:
That he started who he felt was a lesser player was his mistake but it was not the condition of the trade. He was only required to sit MT, if he had Julio Jones he would have been able to do so in MT’s place and it would not have violated the trade. 
 

He could have picked up Aiyuk off the wire and it would not have violated the the trade. 
 

The condition wasn’t  “to lose or start a lesser player.” The condition was to sit MT. That he did play a lesser player is immaterial to the actual trade condition as starting a lesser player was not explicitly stated. 
 
Click to expand...
Still no.  Benching MT wasn't "his mistake".  It was required.  No better option existed, on his bench or on the WW.  Therefore his only choice was to play an inferior lineup.

 
I Am the Stig said:
The condition of the trade was not to start Mattison in place of MT. You’re repeating that implication over and over again also does not make it true. 
 

He was simply told who not to start, he was not told who to start. There is a huge difference between the two conditions. 
Click to expand...
He was told he could not start his best option for that roster spot.

That left him no other choice but to start an inferior lineup.

 
davearm said:
Still no.  Benching MT wasn't "his mistake".  It was required.  No better option existed, on his bench or on the WW.  Therefore his only choice was to play an inferior lineup.
Click to expand...
No, starting Mattison was his mistake. He wasn’t told to start Mattison  

 
I Am the Stig said:
No, starting Mattison was his mistake. He wasn’t told to start Mattison  
Click to expand...
Do you understand that this owner believed Michael Thomas was his best option for the week?  Better than Mattison, better than all the other players on his bench, better than all the players available on the WW.

Simple yes or no please.

 
davearm said:
He was told he could not start his best option for that roster spot.

That left him no other choice but to start an inferior lineup.
Click to expand...
That roster spot was the flex. That is rarely anyone’s best roster spot. 
 

He was not told who to start. He was not told to lose. He could have grabbed another player off the wire that would have been better. 
 

Can you point to the condition in the trade that says he could not play ANY player but MT? Can you point to the condition in the trade that required him to start Mattison?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Through 5 weeks the jury is in/out on...
Replies
26
Views
2K
RushHour
R
Joe Bryant
4/18 Footballguys Weekly News Summary - Topics and Comments from YOU
Replies
2
Views
719
Joe Bryant
Joe Bryant
R
Non-PPR, 12 team, flex league draft results (with analysis from the 1
Replies
17
Views
1K
rickyg
R

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Top