Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Commissioner Collusion - what say you? - Update - I’m playing the sketchy commish in the semi’s and Thomas is out


Collusion or not?   

238 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Not cut and dried - on its face it seems shady; but I can understand where someone would put a condition on a trade like that all other things being equal.  I suppose NOTHING should be done now - but in the future amend the rules to explicitly not allow this type of deal in the future???

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This seems not like collusion and instead just a condition on a trade.  I'm assuming this was out in the open. Not wanting to face the player he traded is an entirely reasonable thing for a

Yes, clearly collusion. Once you admit purposeful intention to help the other team, it's over.

Surprised this is even a discussion at FBG. The gymnastics required to legitimize sitting Thomas for Mattison (with a healthy Cook) is pretty entertaining, LOL. There were probably dynamics at pl

3 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

It’s also amazing how people like to sub-post about others without recognizing the irony of the self righteousness of their own statement. 

Polls are an appeal to the masses fallacy. If 100 people polled agreed that penguins wear roller skates we don’t ask NatGeo to do a special 3 episode series on rollerskating penguins. 

logic is fun. 

Wow

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Babooya said:

Team that have less roster talent and depth will have a harder time trading than those who developed their depth? Sounds like a dynasty league

 

i ultimately agree with your opinion but again it is my preference for how the league should operate, certain not a good/evil issue

I've never said it's good or evil-so I do want to make sure that I clear that up.  Being that the OP's league rules did not mention this scenario--and being that there is legitimate debate that there is validity to it and validity against it---the right thing to do would have been to be transparent about the trade and the attached condition the moment the trade went down--so that the league can decide how they want to handle it.  That's why I'm of the belief that full transparency and full documentation of every attribute of a trade needs to be disclosed to the league at the time of the trade. This also makes it so that the condition is documented and can be enforced if it is broken (the commish could have broken the condition and started Thomas--and the league would have been able to do nothing about it because it was kept a secret from them). 

My point about the random additional trade equity that a condition like this opens the door to is just another reason why I feel like a condition like this is something that needs to be completely understood and agreed to by all of hte members of a league. Assuming it's an okay condition unless specified otherwise does not make sense to me.   I am on the belief that if a rule like this is to be allowed--it needs to be completely transparent and understood by all owners--and I do think that blindisiding owners mid season by taking part in a deal like this-- and trying to keep it a secret is sketchy and ethically ambiguous at best.  

Edited by jvdesigns2002
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NE_REVIVAL said:

One of these things are not like the others (the thing that actually occurred). One transaction begins AND is completed in the same calendar week unlike all the other hypotheticals, straw men, scenarios, analogies etc which do not complete in the same week. 

If something happens on a monday and the same thing happens on a friday are they exactly the same? Or is it factually accurate to say they are the same except they occurred in a different time frame? So it is a fact that they are different (time frame) and the only thing open to debate is whether it matters and to some like me it does and to others it doesn't; its all good. The claim that something that begins and completes in the same week is 100% the same thing as something that begins in one week and ends in another is neither logical or factually accurate. It might be "similar" but it is not the same.  As previously stated, if the contingency goes beyond the week of when the transaction was completed I would have a problem with it. Reasonable minds can disagree.    

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.

Edited by davearm
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

 

Breaking my promise to address this:

It didn’t need to be explicitly stated or acknowledged by either of the teams for this to be the same thing. 

Since you didn’t read through, I’ll summarize what we know: 

Team A (commish) did not need to win the week. 

Team B did need to win the week. 

Team A stated they would have started MT were it not for the condition. 

Both team A & team B believed that MT would outscore Mattison that week with a healthy active Cook. 

It did no harm to team A to lose the game.

it did harm to the league, and anyone other than team B competing for a playoff spot for team A to not field his best team. 

Team A & b lied about the trade condition to the league because they knew it was cheating. 

So it really is irrelevant if Team A or Team B used the term “fixing” or “tanking” or “throwing” the game that week. That was the functional effect of their agreement. 

This aspect is not at all ambiguous. We know that they did this.  And if Team A is agreeing to field a lesser lineup for the game against Team B as a condition of the deal, they colluded to throw a game.

Whether team A thought he could win without MT is irrelevant. The only relevant factor here is that both teams believed MT was the better play, and both teams agreed that team B would face an inferior lineup, which gave team B an unfair advantage to win that week as compared to the other teams competing for a playoff spot who had no such advantage that week, and who may have to face team MT later without such a condition. 

I understand that maybe possibly it could be that they were innocent babes who did this deal with the best of intentions, and in the interest of assuming the very best about people and not calling them dirty players or unethical cheaters I’ll concede that much.

but at the end of the day, the functional agreement was for a team to throw a game they didn’t need to win to get a player. It’s been established that this was the case.

We can debate motives, we can debate intentions. But we simply can’t look past the fact that whether they intended to or not, they entered an agreement that one team tanks as a condition of player acquisition. Both teams involved clearly admitted that was the functional effect.

That they lied implies to me that they knew what they were doing, but I’m drawing my own conclusion there about intent. The nuts and bolts don’t change regardless.

i’m out. This time for real. 

 

Team A did not agree to field a lesser lineup. They agreed to sit MT. Perhaps he is a Cook owner and didn't want to drop his handcuff to pick up someone on the WW. And perhaps he had no other rosterable alternative due to bye week or injury that he also did not want to throw back into the WW.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, I Am the Stig said:

Team A did not agree to field a lesser lineup. They agreed to sit MT. Perhaps he is a Cook owner and didn't want to drop his handcuff to pick up someone on the WW. And perhaps he had no other rosterable alternative due to bye week or injury that he also did not want to throw back into the WW.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, I Am the Stig said:

I don't have to answer them because they are not connected in any way shape or form to the trade or to potential outcomes later on. 

But if I'm to entertain your 4 scenarios, based on the current league rules those trade conditions would not go against the league rules at all. 

If the league feels conditions on trades are either against the rules or need to be disclosed then the league needs to write rules to address the potential for abuse beforehand. They now have a real life scenario to base the rules on and not your four hypotheticals. Laws and rules are not predictive in nature, they are reactive. They always have been and always will be. 

My opinion is the trade is fine and should stand. It is also my opinion that if in this leagues feels that the trade does not pass the smell test then I'm all for them addressing it anyway they see fit. It is their league to run based on their standards, not mine and not yours. 

I just don't think that a player who wants to acquire MT WANTS to lose and I don't think that a player who feels the need to trade MT yet doesn't want to play against him that week also is not a manager who wants to lose. It is just very obvious that they are on opposite ends of the playoff race and did what they felt was in their teams best interest to be competitive. 

I believe we are saying the same thing.

Which is, that a lack of a specific rule allowed this controversy to occur, and the way to address it is to create a rule.

Earlier my point was that as soon as you start allowing exceptions, it becomes nearly impossible to cover all situations and prevent future controversies.

In this case, the easiest solution is to state "Trades may only involve player(s) for player(s); no other consideration(s) can be added to facilitate the trade".

But if a league wants to allow exceptions and include them in their rules... more power to them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, NotSmart said:

I believe we are saying the same thing.

Which is, that a lack of a specific rule allowed this controversy to occur, and the way to address it is to create a rule.

Earlier my point was that as soon as you start allowing exceptions, it becomes nearly impossible to cover all situations and prevent future controversies.

In this case, the easiest solution is to state "Trades may only involve player(s) for player(s); no other consideration(s) can be added to facilitate the trade".

But if a league wants to allow exceptions and include them in their rules... more power to them.

I’ll agree to that as a solution. I’m not against fixing a loophole. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, TheWinz said:

Gimme a break!  The 2 sentences contradict each other and you know it.

What prevented the player from grabbing a player off the wire based on the understood trade conditions?  
 

To do so would not have broken the agreement of the trade. If Pittman was available he could have picked him up, started him, benched MT and honored the trade. 
 

The condition was very specific, you can’t start MT this week. That is it. Nothing more. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, I Am the Stig said:

Team A did not agree to field a lesser lineup. They agreed to sit MT. Perhaps he is a Cook owner and didn't want to drop his handcuff to pick up someone on the WW. And perhaps he had no other rosterable alternative due to bye week or injury that he also did not want to throw back into the WW.

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.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

. Ethics are ethics. 

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.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 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.

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. 

 

 

Edited by NE_REVIVAL
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, 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.  

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. 

Edited by Hot Sauce Guy
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, 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

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  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 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.

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. 

  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, 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. 

 

 

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, 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. 

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. 
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, I Am the Stig said:

No they didn’t agree to a lesser lineup. They agreed to sit MT. 

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.

  • Thanks 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, 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. 
 

 

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. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 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.

Can’t say it any better than this. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, 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.

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

 

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

I played in a league a while back that had zero rules of any kind.  Literally anything goes.  It was maybe the most fun league I was ever in.   

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, 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  

 

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 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

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: 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ghostguy123 said:

I played in a league a while back that had zero rules of any kind.  Literally anything goes.  It was maybe the most fun league I was ever in.   

Sounds like a nightmare, but each to their own. :shrug: 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, I Am the Stig said:

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. 

Who's on first what's on second and I don't know is on third.

  • Laughing 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, I Am the Stig said:

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. 

You are trying to make it seem like benching MT and submitting a lesser lineup are 2 different things.  They are not.

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, TheWinz said:

You are trying to make it seem like benching MT and submitting a lesser lineup are 2 different things.  They are not.

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. 

Edited by Hot Sauce Guy
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, 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. 

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. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 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. 

You know what?  I have changed my mind.  I now agree with everything Stig has been saying.  He makes complete sense.

  • Laughing 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, yoman said:

Who's on first what's on second and I don't know is on third.

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 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. 

Are you a mod trying to bait people into calling you a moron?

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, TheWinz said:

You are trying to make it seem like benching MT and submitting a lesser lineup are 2 different things.  They are not.

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, 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. 

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, TheWinz said:

Are you a mod trying to bait people into calling you a moron?

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, 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. 

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:

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 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. 

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. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, 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. 

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?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

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.
 

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. 

Edited by Hot Sauce Guy
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...