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

Just now, 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?

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. 

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

 

1 minute ago, I Am the Stig said:

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

Must be nice to have such keen prognostication abilities. 

I read that somewhere once... 🤔 

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

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. 
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 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. 
 

 

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 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. 

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.

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

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.   

Edited by jvdesigns2002
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
59 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're not going to manufacture a difference where none exists through sheer force of repetition.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, 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. 

 

:lmao: (on so many levels) :lmao:

4 hours ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

 

Breaking my promise to address this:

 

 

Shocking.

4 hours ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

 

 

4 hours ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

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

1 hour ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

 

 

1 hour ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

For the 50th time;

At least.

1 hour ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

 

55 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

 

 

55 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

 

47 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

I’ve said this 37 different ways.

40 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

 

More than that, I’m quite certain.

18 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

 

 

12 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

 

 

 

8 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

 

 

 

6 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

 

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.  🤷🏼‍♂️

  • Laughing 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

1 minute ago, SayWhat? said:

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’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. 

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

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. 
 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, davearm said:

You're not going to manufacture a difference where none exists through sheer force of repetition.

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

14 minutes ago, jvdesigns2002 said:

--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.   
 

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? 

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

 

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.

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

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 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.

No, starting Mattison was his mistake. He wasn’t told to start Mattison  

 

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

No, starting Mattison was his mistake. He wasn’t told to start Mattison  

 

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.

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

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?

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

Are you sitting in a big comfy chair, laughing hysterically as you type?

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

No, starting Mattison was his mistake. He wasn’t told to start Mattison  

 

1. We don’t know that. Based on what we do know, I’m starting to suspect that he was.  but again; neither of us knows this. 

2. I find your assertion of some alleged random waiver player being likely to outscore MT to be laughably disingenuous. If that were the case then why bother trading for MT? Don’t answer that - it’s rhetorical. 

  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, davearm said:

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.

I’m sure he believed MT was, in his opinion the best option but does that mean Mattison was the only or required option to meet the condition s of the trade. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

1. We don’t know that. Based on what we do know, I’m starting to suspect that he was.  but again; neither of us knows this. 

2. I find your assertion of some alleged random waiver player being likely to outscore MT to be laughably disingenuous. If that were the case then why bother trading for MT? Don’t answer that - it’s rhetorical. 

Based on what we do know starting Mattison was not the condition of the trade. 
 

Im not asserting that some WW addition would be better than MT but I am certain that they would be better than Mattison. But up until this very week MT has not proven to be a reliable and productive fantasy player. Can you point to MTs success this year and state that he has been a must start?

Edited by I Am the Stig
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

 

 

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. 

Amazing that so many other posters in here aren’t in concert with reality. Isn’t it?  What an out of touch bunch that believe in those damned sunglasses-wearing penguins.

As for the bolded, not all that keen, really.  Pretty clear ten pages back that the last word is important enough that you simply can’t help but respond with the same opinion, per your own words, “for the 50th time.”  Simply pointing out it might be healthy to take a break.  Godspeed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

everything after this is irrelevant. You just  agreed that he was tanking. 

 

No, I don’t believe he was tanking. One, I don’t agree with the term tanking in this short term but that is just semantics. I feel tanking is a longer more deliberate process to lose. 
 

By that definition, no, this ain’t tanking. He is trying to win a championship. The very notion that trading for such a high caliber player, according to you, kind of flys in contrast to the motivation to lose. 
 

Who trades for last years top WR expecting and planning to lose?

 

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

I’m sure he believed MT was, in his opinion the best option but does that mean Mattison was the only or required option to meet the condition s of the trade. 

Eureka!  A breakthrough!

MT was this owner's best option for the week.  He knew it.  I knew it.  And now with you finally onboard, everyone knows it.

And it necessarily follows that since he wasn't allowed to start his best option, he had no other choice but to start a lesser player, and a weaker lineup.

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

No, I don’t believe he was tanking. One, I don’t agree with the term tanking in this short term but that is just semantics. I feel tanking is a longer more deliberate process to lose.

Do you think losing 1 game in order to have a better shot at winning the whole thing should be allowed?

This is the question at hand.  We can remove all player names and get right to the point.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, davearm said:

Eureka!  A breakthrough!

MT was this owner's best option for the week.  He knew it.  I knew it.  And now with you finally onboard, everyone knows it.

And it necessarily follows that since he wasn't allowed to start his best option, he had no other choice but to start a lesser player, and a weaker lineup.


Nobody has denied that but MT was his flex not his TOP player. 

He was not told to start Mattison. There were certainly better options than Mattison and knowing MTs score that week there were better options than MT too. 
 

MTs season rank is 326. One can believe what they want to about him but it doesn’t make it true. What he has been this season is not what he was last season. 

You may want to believe MT is a must start but he  has been far from that production. 

 

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

Do you think losing 1 game in order to have a better shot at winning the whole thing should be allowed?

This is the question at hand.  We can remove all player names and get right to the point.

Your objective when playing fantasy is to win a championship. 
 

If you are competing to win the league within the rules of the league then losing a game to win the league is acceptable. 
 

This has been debated here before years ago. If you want to win every week then play daily to your hearts content. 
 

If you want to require the best, optimal lineup possible then play best ball. 
 

If you want to eliminate these kinds of trades or tactics in season long fantasy then award the championship based on points and eliminate head to head entirely. 
 

There are lots of options and lots of various rules to play the game the way you want to play. Find one and then find 10 folks who agree with you and you’ve got a league. 

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


Nobody has denied that but MT was his flex not his TOP player. 

He was not told to start Mattison. There were certainly better options than Mattison and knowing MTs score that week there were better options than MT too. 
 

MTs season rank is 326. One can believe what they want to about him but it doesn’t make it true. What he has been this season is not what he was last season. 

You may want to believe MT is a must start but he  has been far from that production. 

Why do you keep on adding Mattison to the conversation?  Who cares who he started?  It only matters who he COULDN'T start.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

 

 

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. 

Do not feel bad or shamed for posting several times on a thread. There are different topics where we all might feel more strongly about than others and there is nothing wrong with that.  The OP started this thread for the sole purpose of starting a discussion and creating a think tank environment where thoughts and angles are shared. Nobody should be clowned for contributing.   Not only that-- the amazingness of your hot sauces gives you more freedom to talk in my opinion.  I just tried the peach one---that one is legit bro. Lol. 

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

Why do you keep on adding Mattison to the conversation?  Who cares who he started?  It only matters who he COULDN'T start.

The implication is he was told to lose. He could have started any number of players to win and it would have met the condition of the trade. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

What if a team drafted all their starters to have the same bye week? They'd be basically giving away one game but enabling them to be at full strength (barring injury) the rest of the season, an advantage over teams with 10-20% of their starters on a bye from weeks 4 thru 13

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Penguin said:

What if a team drafted all their starters to have the same bye week? They'd be basically giving away one game but enabling them to be at full strength (barring injury) the rest of the season, an advantage over teams with 10-20% of their starters on a bye from weeks 4 thru 13

The only answer is they are tanking

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Penguin said:

What if a team drafted all their starters to have the same bye week? They'd be basically giving away one game but enabling them to be at full strength (barring injury) the rest of the season, an advantage over teams with 10-20% of their starters on a bye from weeks 4 thru 13

But they still started the best line up they could every week.  What is everyone missing here?  

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

What if a team drafted all their starters to have the same bye week? They'd be basically giving away one game but enabling them to be at full strength (barring injury) the rest of the season, an advantage over teams with 10-20% of their starters on a bye from weeks 4 thru 13

If a team did that as a condition of a trade, it's problematic. Otherwise it's pretty much irrelevant.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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. 

It does not matter who the players involved are or how they had been performing!  It is irrelevant to the collusion and secret agreement.  

 

A specific trade happen.  It had a secret agreement to sit a player that the new owner believed to be his best starting option (this fact was confirmed).  It doesn't matter who that player is.  

 

This action is collusion and should not have happened based on how that particular league functions.  

 

Changing the players or saying they aren't good or that in a different league where you cab buy players in trade for money or favors is irrelevant to what actually happened.  

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

The only answer is they are tanking

Not at all--that is a decision they made without a handshake agreement with another owner. The difference between tanking and collusion is the involvement of another party.  The second you alter your starting roster decision to be weaker because of input or a condition from another owner ----that is really entering the world of collusion. 

Edited by jvdesigns2002
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Gally said:

It does not matter who the players involved are or how they had been performing!  It is irrelevant to the collusion and secret agreement.  

 

A specific trade happen.  It had a secret agreement to sit a player that the new owner believed to be his best starting option (this fact was confirmed).  It doesn't matter who that player is.  

 

This action is collusion and should not have happened based on how that particular league functions.  

 

Changing the players or saying they aren't good or that in a different league where you cab buy players in trade for money or favors is irrelevant to what actually happened.  

When there is no league requirement to divulge the conditions there are no secrets kept from the league. 
 

The league has had a hands off approach to trades so there is no secret and no league violation. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, SayWhat? said:

Amazing that so many other posters in here aren’t in concert with reality. Isn’t it?  What an out of touch bunch that believe in those damned sunglasses-wearing penguins.

I didn’t say the posters weren’t in concert with reality. I said some of the things they were saying were not in concert with reality. There is a huge difference. One is a personal attack, as you continue to engage in, the other is taking issue with changing the facts to suit an argument. 

49 minutes ago, SayWhat? said:

Simply pointing out it might be healthy to take a break.  Godspeed.

worry about your own health, friend. I’ll put you on ignore so I don’t have to. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

27 minutes ago, jvdesigns2002 said:

I just tried the peach one---that one is legit bro. Lol. 

Glad ya dig it. :suds:

Fun aside; I recently learned that sauce was an inch away from being the one on Hot Ones. I had no idea.  

  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jvdesigns2002 said:

Not at all--that is a decision they made without a handshake agreement with another owner. The difference between tanking and collusion is the involvement of another party.  The second you alter your starting roster decision to be weaker because of input or a condition from another owner ----that is really entering the world of collusion. 

It’s kind of both. Collusion is the agreement. Tanking is the result. 💡 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Penguin said:

What if a team drafted all their starters to have the same bye week? They'd be basically giving away one game but enabling them to be at full strength (barring injury) the rest of the season, an advantage over teams with 10-20% of their starters on a bye from weeks 4 thru 13

No issue whatsoever.

That is a personal decision, effecting a random TBD opponent, and would not be conditional of an agreement with another team.

The playoff implications would also not be of concern for anyone because this only peripherally impacts the random team on the schedule and was not something deliberately agreed upon that did have direct playoff implications.

seems completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, I Am the Stig said:


Nobody has denied that but MT was his flex not his TOP player. 

He was not told to start Mattison. There were certainly better options than Mattison and knowing MTs score that week there were better options than MT too. 
 

MTs season rank is 326. One can believe what they want to about him but it doesn’t make it true. What he has been this season is not what he was last season. 

You may want to believe MT is a must start but he  has been far from that production. 

 

It doesn't matter that MT was flex or WR or QB.  The only thing that matters was that he was the perceived best player to start from all the available options (bench, waiver, etc) according to his owner and the ONLY reason he could not play him was a secret agreement that he could not play him.  He therefore played a perceived lesser lineup.  That is collusion.  Nothing else matters.

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

When there is no league requirement to divulge the conditions there are no secrets kept from the league. 
 

The league has had a hands off approach to trades so there is no secret and no league violation. 

In no league I have ever been has it been ok to have secret agreements and none of my leagues have trade committees.

 

Every trade must be transparent with all conditions included (yes we allow conditional trades of picks - not players).

 

Just because there is no trade committee doesn't mean you can have secret agreements.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Gally said:

In no league I have ever been has it been ok to have secret agreements and none of my leagues have trade committees.

 

Every trade must be transparent with all conditions included (yes we allow conditional trades of picks - not players).

 

Just because there is no trade committee doesn't mean you can have secret agreements.

Yes, all fair points. Another way to phrase the transaction that makes foolish the ethical personal attacks is that the MT element of the trade transacts at the last day of the week, while the balance of the trade goes into effect immediately. League software doesn’t allow it, so it would require the personal ethical behavior of the two willing to trade partners to abide by their fair arms length trade and sit MT :)

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

Uugggh. Soooo close. 
 

They tend to mix them up a little every year so hopefully next year. 🤞🤞

Oh, no - they had my Year of the Dog on instead. 🔥 Season 9, Trevor Noah said it danced on his tongue like Fred Astaire. :) 

But thank you nonetheless for the well wishes. :) 

Edited by Hot Sauce Guy
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, I Am the Stig said:


Nobody has denied that but MT was his flex not his TOP player. 

He was not told to start Mattison. There were certainly better options than Mattison and knowing MTs score that week there were better options than MT too. 
 

MTs season rank is 326. One can believe what they want to about him but it doesn’t make it true. What he has been this season is not what he was last season. 

You may want to believe MT is a must start but he  has been far from that production. 

 

All irrelevant.

Relevant: would have started MT if he was able to.

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...