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

  • 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

9 hours 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.

An important aspect of trading conditional picks is that the underlying "currency" (the pick) is a concrete and enduring thing. Either "pick A" or "pick B" is changing hands at a specific time and it's enforceable by the commissioner or league. You literally can't "renege" on a valid trade. Influence over someone's behaviour will never be valid trade currency in any league I play in.

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

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. :) 

I’ll rewatch that episode. My favorite episode was Charlize Theron. She gave the best critiques of the sauces and I laughed out loud when she flipped off The Bomb. 
 

But I digress. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours 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.

Well, this league had no review process if it did we wouldn’t be on page 18 as this would be cut and dry otherwise. 
 

 

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

Well, this league had no review process if it did we wouldn’t be on page 18 as this would be cut and dry otherwise. 
 

 

If you truly believed this--then the commssioner could literally "loan" his players away to teams that he needs to win to make the playoffs and then trade for them back a week later---because there is no review process--and he's effectively the decision maker.  According to your logic--this tactic would be legal and just fine because there is no literature against it in the rules and there is no review process.   Is this really a position that you want to defend as it's rather baseless. 

Edited by jvdesigns2002
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't read 20 pages, so this may have already been covered.  Nonetheless, despite the admittance of being asked to bench Michael Thomas it's not like he started somebody who was GUARANTEED a zero.  Mattison may not have been the best option, but if he gets some garbage-time work or busts a 20-yard run then this isn't even a conversation.

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

I didn't read 20 pages, so this may have already been covered.  Nonetheless, despite the admittance of being asked to bench Michael Thomas it's not like he started somebody who was GUARANTEED a zero.  Mattison may not have been the best option, but if he gets some garbage-time work or busts a 20-yard run then this isn't even a conversation.

So you think its okay for another owner to dictate to another owner who they can start or bench and keep it a secret from the rest of the league?   That's called collusion. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jvdesigns2002 said:

So you think its okay for another owner to dictate to another owner who they can start or bench and keep it a secret from the rest of the league?   That's called collusion. 

For the record, I voted "collusion".  My point was the owner receiving Thomas didn't obviously throw the game.  I think if the trade value was fair then neither owner has any right to demand/request/suggest a condition of the trade is to not play a recently traded player.

If Mattison scores 2 points, is there 20 pages of a thread regarding collusion?  I seriously doubt it.

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

For the record, I voted "collusion".  My point was the owner receiving Thomas didn't obviously throw the game.  I think if the trade value was fair then neither owner has any right to demand/request/suggest a condition of the trade is to not play a recently traded player.

If Mattison scores 2 points, is there 20 pages of a thread regarding collusion?  I seriously doubt it.

The result of the matchup has no bearing on whether or not there was collusion. You don't use the ends to justify the means.  The issue here is that a commissioner felt it was okay to make a trade that involved including a collusionary condition--which he abided by--and kept it a secret from the league.  He agreed to start an inferior lineup--the moment he did that--it made no difference what the actual result of the match was.  

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jvdesigns2002 said:

The result of the matchup has no bearing on whether or not there was collusion. You don't use the ends to justify the means.  The issue here is that a commissioner felt it was okay to make a trade that involved including a collusionary condition--which he abided by--and kept it a secret from the league.  He agreed to start an inferior lineup--the moment he did that--it made no difference what the actual result of the match was.  

Those are all good points.  Again, I don't deny it is collusion and I voted as such and would have treated it as such in my league.  I guess I don't know what the "punishment" should be.  Revoke the trade?  Does that affect the outcome of the game and, as such, the playoff positioning?  What if those 2 teams elected to process the trade before the following week?  Does that trade get approved then?  The variables involved are terribly intriguing...

Edited by Titans_fan
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Titans_fan said:

Those are all good points.  Again, I don't deny it is collusion and I voted as such and would have treated it as such in my league.  I guess I don't know what the "punishment" should be.  Revoke the trade?  Does that affect the outcome of the game and, as such, the playoff positioning?  What if those 2 teams elected to process the trade before the following week?  Does that trade get approved then?  The variables involved are terribly intriguing...

The punishment is up to the league. If that happened to two team owners in a league that I was commissioner of--any trade that involves a collusionary condition is by nature an illegal trade.  This means that both owners attempted to start illegal lineups--and hence--both would be awarded losses and the trade would be revoked.   That's what I would do.  Being that one of the involved parties here was the commish--I would recommend relieving him of his duties and having the rest of the league vote for another new commish to finish out the season--as the current commish just exposed that his judgement cannot be trusted. That's just my two cents. 

Edited by jvdesigns2002
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, I Am the Stig said:

I’ll rewatch that episode. My favorite episode was Charlize Theron. She gave the best critiques of the sauces and I laughed out loud when she flipped off The Bomb. 
 

But I digress. 

Sadly that was the next season. I ❤️ Charlize. I had Jonas Bros, Hale Berry, Jay Pharoah, Adam Divine & the lovely and charming Aubrey Plaza (she didn’t say anything about the sauces but she did snort milk) :lol: 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect there are lots of leagues that just take a heuristic approach to these situations as they arise. This is supposed to be fun so forget the letter and spirit of the law debate, determine what the "remedy" is and move on.

I find "the law" aspect interesting and as a commissioner I'm always looking for ways to avoid these "thin edge of the wedge" situations. If your commissioner is supposed to embody trustworthiness and sportsmanship to the highest standards, this person should not be one.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jvdesigns2002 said:

If you truly believed this--then the commssioner could literally "loan" his players away to teams that he needs to win to make the playoffs and then trade for them back a week later---because there is no review process--and he's effectively the decision maker.  According to your logic--this tactic would be legal and just fine because there is no literature against it in the rules and there is no review process.   Is this really a position that you want to defend as it's rather baseless. 

Even beyond this. The commish could, per this precedent, make a series of trades all year long where either he or his opponent either started or benched certain players as conditions of the trade.

That seems...problematic. 

Edited by Hot Sauce Guy
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Titans_fan said:

For the record, I voted "collusion".  My point was the owner receiving Thomas didn't obviously throw the game. 
 

even boxers who take a dive wait until the 4th round.

no one wants to obviously cheat. Subtlety is how they might get away with it. In this case, they got caught. 

Personally I see Mattison starting over a healthy MT after going out and trading for MT to be pretty obvious. 

Whenever I trade for a player I can’t wait to plug him into my lineup. It’s like the last step of the trade, tbh. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, habsfan said:

I suspect there are lots of leagues that just take a heuristic approach to these situations as they arise. This is supposed to be fun so forget the letter and spirit of the law debate, determine what the "remedy" is and move on.

I find "the law" aspect interesting and as a commissioner I'm always looking for ways to avoid these "thin edge of the wedge" situations. If your commissioner is supposed to embody trustworthiness and sportsmanship to the highest standards, this person should not be one.

All of this. 

I know my posts in here come off like I have a stick up my butt. It’s just FF and they just made a deal and whatever. 

 But like you, I see all of this with my commish eyes. I can’t read about this situation without taking it personally, like that commish gave us all a bad name by acting unethically.

I think you’re spot on - most leagues won’t have stipulations for every possible way someone can cheat because we play this game for fun & we expect those we play with to not try to walk that razor’s edge between ethical and unethical behavior. 

II dont see this situation as particularly subtle. Rather than the poll asking if it’s collusion, OP should have skipped that question & started the topic with “so this collusion happened, what’s the remedy?” 

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

Sadly that was the next season. I ❤️ Charlize. I had Jonas Bros, Hale Berry, Jay Pharoah, Adam Divine & the lovely and charming Aubrey Plaza (she didn’t say anything about the sauces but she did snort milk) :lol: 

Halle Berry was the most boss I have ever seen anyone on that show. She was a great interview and she owned every sauce. She is my Queen. 

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

Halle Berry was the most boss I have ever seen anyone on that show. She was a great interview and she owned every sauce. She is my Queen. 

Loved her. She only commented on 2. She delightfully said “ooh, this one’s kinda sweet” for mine. Then she said Da Bomb was bitter & disgusting and no one should ever buy it.

But yeah; she said she came hungry for lunch. Cleaned every wing to the bone & didn’t take a sip of milk or water. And still smokin hot at 54. John Wick 3 was just incredible (she was 53 at the time) 

  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jvdesigns2002 said:

If you truly believed this--then the commssioner could literally "loan" his players away to teams that he needs to win to make the playoffs and then trade for them back a week later---because there is no review process--and he's effectively the decision maker.  According to your logic--this tactic would be legal and just fine because there is no literature against it in the rules and there is no review process.   Is this really a position that you want to defend as it's rather baseless. 

And yet a rule can be written to prevent this.

For me, we are in Prime Directive territory here. I am simply looking at this trade through the optics of the league rules and structure. For many leagues this trade is not ethical, legal etc. I get that and I am not arguing against any of that. But as far as this league is set up for now it is:

1. Not collusion because there is no stated review or disclosure process for the league.

2. Not tanking, because both teams made a move that both felt improved their teams. One for long term success and the other for short term success. That the results of the matchup had some league consequences none where greater than for the two teams playing and their results are what they are playing for.

I don't believe in universal league rules so when judging any debate like this I will always default to the rules specific to the league. In this case they were woefully deficient in rules especially considering the buy in price. Nothing that I have said means I agree with it necessarily but I am simply being as objective as possible with the information at hand. I am not bringing any bias into the discussion. In just about any other league this would be collusion but not in this particular league by the narrowest of margins. And that is where the Prime Directive comes into play. This is their league setup and their league consequence. They will have to figure out a solution that improves their league moving forward on their own. 

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

 

1. Not collusion because there is no stated review or disclosure process for the league.

 

Whether there is a trade committee or not has no bearing whether its collusion of not.  Thise two things have absolutely no relationship at all.

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

 

2. Not tanking, because both teams made a move that both felt improved their teams. One for long term success and the other for short term success.  That the results of the matchup had some league consequences none where greater than for the two teams playing and their results are what they are playing for.

Tanking doesn't necessarily have to be associated for multiple games.  You can tank for one game.  

 

For many of you the term tank seems to be a bit strong and requires an effort that goes into multiple games and a 100% active effort to lose.  If that is what is required for to consider it a tanking effort then let's use a different term.

 

Actively trying to win means you are doing everything in your power to win the game.  Every team should actively try and win every game based on the items you have in hand at the time you set a lineup.  This did not happen here because of the secret agreement to not play the player the owner wanted to play (this has been conceded as fact based on the OP statements).  Therefore the owner did not actively try and win the game.  When coupled with the secret agreement it is what makes this collision (regardless of there being no trade committee).

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

Every team should actively try and win every game based on the items you have in hand at the time you set a lineup. 

One example I can think of where I dont agree.

I played a guy on a thursday once who was NOT a guy who would be in my best possible lineup because i was working on a trade where I deal a better player who played on Sunday for draft picks (I was in a rebuild).  

I did end up trading the player for picks (though that fact would be irrelevant based on your stance).

But what if my trade would have fallen through?  Was I tanking?

Edited by ghostguy123
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, I Am the Stig said:

 

I don't believe in universal league rules so when judging any debate like this I will always default to the rules specific to the league. In this case they were woefully deficient in rules especially considering the buy in price. Nothing that I have said means I agree with it necessarily but I am simply being as objective as possible with the information at hand. I am not bringing any bias into the discussion. In just about any other league this would be collusion but not in this particular league by the narrowest of margins. And that is where the Prime Directive comes into play. This is their league setup and their league consequence. They will have to figure out a solution that improves their league moving forward on their own. 

There are some rules that have intentions behind them that can be enforced based on that.  There are also some rules that don't have to be written that are typically adhered to when it comes to playing fantasy football like don't sit the players you think will score the most that week.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ghostguy123 said:

One example I can think of where I dont agree.

I played a guy on a thursday once who was NOT a guy who would be in my best possible lineup because i was working on a trade where I deal a better player who played on Sunday for draft picks (I was in a rebuild).  

I did end up trading the player for picks (though that fact would be irrelevant based on your stance).

But what if my trade would have fallen through?  Was I tanking?

Why couldn't you have played the guy and traded him?  Once he has played he is locked into your lineup but it shouldn't prevent you from trading him to someone else.  I have done trades like this before.

 

But to answer your question, that is a grey area but the difference is that no other owner is telling you not to play him so there is no collusion.  I would not consider this tanking as much as trying to make a trade.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, I Am the Stig said:

Well, this league had no review process if it did we wouldn’t be on page 18 as this would be cut and dry otherwise. 
 

 

If the participants disclosed all agreements of this trade and not colluded then we wouldn't be on page 18 of this thread and the league would have disallowed it right away.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Gally said:

Why couldn't you have played the guy and traded him?  Once he has played he is locked into your lineup but it shouldn't prevent you from trading him to someone else.  I have done trades like this before.

I dont get it.

The other owner wanted to use the guy that week.

I have no idea what you are suggesting

Edited by ghostguy123
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Gally said:

Whether there is a trade committee or not has no bearing whether its collusion of not.  Thise two things have absolutely no relationship at all.

Sorry but it does. It was a condition of the trade and the trade is the transaction. IF there was no trade and they discussed roster lineups that is collusion because it was secret in every way possible. The trade was not secret but the full condition was not disclosed. The trade did not happen in secret but there was no requirement to disclose the extra condition based on current league rules.

 

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

If the participants disclosed all agreements of this trade and not colluded then we wouldn't be on page 18 of this thread and the league would have disallowed it right away.

That is why it is great discussion, but it is not collusion by only the slimmest of margins. 

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

Sorry but it does. It was a condition of the trade and the trade is the transaction. IF there was no trade and they discussed roster lineups that is collusion because it was secret in every way possible. The trade was not secret but the full condition was not disclosed. The trade did not happen in secret but there was no requirement to disclose the extra condition based on current league rules.

 

??

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ghostguy123 said:

??

They made a trade that was public knowledge to the league. 

The league, regardless of the players involved have no say and no recourse to either discuss, veto or question the trade. There simply is no league requirement to disclose the conditions of the trade. 

There was nothing "secret" about the trade. Everyone saw the trade. 

Where it went sideways was the league questioning the new MT owners decision to sit MT. Again, this is another question that is frankly none of the leagues business unless rules specifically state that all managers must start their most obvious players or best lineup based on projected points. 

 

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

They made a trade that was public knowledge to the league. 

The league, regardless of the players involved have no say and no recourse to either discuss, veto or question the trade. There simply is no league requirement to disclose the conditions of the trade. 

There was nothing "secret" about the trade. Everyone saw the trade. 

Where it went sideways was the league questioning the new MT owners decision to sit MT. Again, this is another question that is frankly none of the leagues business unless rules specifically state that all managers must start their most obvious players or best lineup based on projected points. 

 

So its NOT collusion?

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

And yet a rule can be written to prevent this.

For me, we are in Prime Directive territory here. I am simply looking at this trade through the optics of the league rules and structure. For many leagues this trade is not ethical, legal etc. I get that and I am not arguing against any of that. But as far as this league is set up for now it is:

1. Not collusion because there is no stated review or disclosure process for the league.

2. Not tanking, because both teams made a move that both felt improved their teams. One for long term success and the other for short term success. That the results of the matchup had some league consequences none where greater than for the two teams playing and their results are what they are playing for.

I don't believe in universal league rules so when judging any debate like this I will always default to the rules specific to the league. In this case they were woefully deficient in rules especially considering the buy in price. Nothing that I have said means I agree with it necessarily but I am simply being as objective as possible with the information at hand. I am not bringing any bias into the discussion. In just about any other league this would be collusion but not in this particular league by the narrowest of margins. And that is where the Prime Directive comes into play. This is their league setup and their league consequence. They will have to figure out a solution that improves their league moving forward on their own. 

I may appear to be contradicting myself but this is where spirit of the rules become important. Their rules may be woefully deficient, I don't know. What I do know is that no set of bylaws or rules will ever withstand the ingenuity of unethical players. Not only is it impractical to have a written rule for every situation it's impossible to stop people intent on bending rules simply by writing more of them.

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

They made a trade that was public knowledge to the league. 

The league, regardless of the players involved have no say and no recourse to either discuss, veto or question the trade. There simply is no league requirement to disclose the conditions of the trade. 

There was nothing "secret" about the trade. Everyone saw the trade. 

Where it went sideways was the league questioning the new MT owners decision to sit MT. Again, this is another question that is frankly none of the leagues business unless rules specifically state that all managers must start their most obvious players or best lineup based on projected points. 

 

Where it went sideways was when the receiving Thomas owner admitted there was a condition he not play him this week - otherwise he would have started him.  How you can say there was nothing secret about the trade is mind blowing to me.  The questions didn't happen when the trade was announced.  They started when Thomas was not in the lineup with only Mattison as the alternative.  And everyone's suspicions proved to be true.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Judge Smails said:

Where it went sideways was when the receiving Thomas owner admitted there was a condition he not play him this week - otherwise he would have started him.  How you can say there was nothing secret about the trade is mind blowing to me.  The questions didn't happen when the trade was announced.  They started when Thomas was not in the lineup with only Mattison as the alternative.  And everyone's suspicions proved to be true.

Well there you have it, a judge thinks it was bogus!  

Maybe the two owners should get nothing.......and like it?

 

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

Again, this is another question that is frankly none of the leagues business unless rules specifically state that all managers must start their most obvious players or best lineup based on projected points. 

Sounds like you don't believe there are unwritten rules that all FF'ers should abide by.  If you were a commish and saw a team had benched a healthy Mahomes and started his backup, Chad Henne, would you say anything?  What if the guy said he was doing it because he wanted to lose?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, habsfan said:

I may appear to be contradicting myself but this is where spirit of the rules become important. Their rules may be woefully deficient, I don't know. What I do know is that no set of bylaws or rules will ever withstand the ingenuity of unethical players. Not only is it impractical to have a written rule for every situation it's impossible to stop people intent on bending rules simply by writing more of them.

This 1000%!!!!

Sketcher gonna sketch

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

I dont get it.

The other owner wanted to use the guy that week.

I have no idea what you are suggesting

If he wanted to use him that week and he played on Thursday you would have had to make the deal before the Thursday game so you would know whether to have him in your lineup or not.  So I guess I don't follow your initial scenario.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Judge Smails said:

Where it went sideways was when the receiving Thomas owner admitted there was a condition he not play him this week - otherwise he would have started him.  How you can say there was nothing secret about the trade is mind blowing to me.  The questions didn't happen when the trade was announced.  They started when Thomas was not in the lineup with only Mattison as the alternative.  And everyone's suspicions proved to be true.

What was the commish’s position on the whole thing?

 

beyond belief you don’t include it, but keep the guy in the league. 
 

he’s just a dirty commish hell bent on cheating in the lightest way possible?

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Babooya said:

he’s just a dirty commish hell bent on cheating in the lightest way possible?

Whether he didn't think there was anything wrong with what he did or knew there was, either way he doubled down by lying and clearly isn't your league's standard bearer in the fair play department going forward. The next time a transaction needs scrutiny, good judgment and a ruling, is that the person you want to entrust the outcome to?

Edited by habsfan
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, habsfan said:

Whether he didn't think there was anything wrong with what he did or knew there was, either way he doubled down by lying and clearly isn't your league's standard bearer in the fair play department going forward. The next time a transaction needs scrutiny, good judgment and a ruling, is that the person you want to entrust the outcome to?

Because as mentioned. That trade could have been structured that the MT element of the trade transacts Sunday night or Monday night, the rest immediately, but given software limitation it’s processed at the same time with the agreement that the two trade partners follow the agreement.

no tank. No direction to start anybody. No ethics. Just parameters of a trade . 
 

you don’t know what his perspective is amongst the performative hysteria

 
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did not read through all 20 pages, so if someone brought this up, I apologize. What if the condition of the trade for the week owner A was playing owner B was owner A had to sit Mahomes for his back-up QB (hypothetically) and not the player (MT) who was included in the trade. Would that change whether it was collusion of not? What if the condition of the trade was owner A had to sit all of his best players who would have started for their back-ups. Would that make it collusion? Not going to say what I think, interested to hear opinions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Babooya said:

Because as mentioned. That trade could have been structured that the MT element of the trade transacts Sunday night or Monday night, the rest immediately, but given software limitation it’s processed at the same time with the agreement that the two trade partners follow the agreement.

no tank. No direction to start anybody. No ethics. Just parameters of a trade . 
 

you don’t know what his perspective is amongst the performative hysteria

 
 

 

Respectfully this is preposterous. We do know the parameters, we do know what each of the owners was limited to as conditions of the deal.

could haves and would haves are irrelevant since we know exactly what happened.

it was collusion at best, throwing a game at worst, and likely a combination of the two. This isn’t hard. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, dhockster said:

Did not read through all 20 pages, so if someone brought this up, I apologize. What if the condition of the trade for the week owner A was playing owner B was owner A had to sit Mahomes for his back-up QB (hypothetically) and not the player (MT) who was included in the trade. Would that change whether it was collusion of not? What if the condition of the trade was owner A had to sit all of his best players who would have started for their back-ups. Would that make it collusion? Not going to say what I think, interested to hear opinions.

This has been eluded to, yeah. That’s the slippery slope of terrible things that can happen if this trade were allowed to set precedent.

it’s a ridiculous condition to add to a deal & amounts to roster tanking. The degree of tanking may be 1 player or as you correctly describe, it could be several players. It could also be a different week against a different team.

it’s why this condition should never be allowed in any format. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

11 minutes ago, Ben & Jerry's said:

and a valid argument can be made that the willingness to sit MT for the week was part of the consideration.  

doesn’t even require an argument. We know it for a fact. The MT owner (commish) admitted to the league that it was a condition of the deal.

not only was he willing to do so, he was obligated to do so to complete the trade. Also, he didn’t need the W & the team sending him MT with that condition did. 

56-44 seems really even for collusion this apparent. 💡 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Stinkin Ref said:

the side condition disrupted the competitive balance of league that week.....it really stops there

Flag thrown. Clear penalty. Thank you, Ref. 

Edited by Hot Sauce Guy
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gally said:

If he wanted to use him that week and he played on Thursday you would have had to make the deal before the Thursday game so you would know whether to have him in your lineup or not.  So I guess I don't follow your initial scenario.

The guy I was going to trade played on SUNDAY, but since I was trying to deal him I had to start a guy on thursday that I normally would not have started.

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

 

56-44 seems really even for collusion this apparent. 💡 

I think the poll should be run again.  Might have a hit different results.

We also need an option for "do nothing but add a rule to prohibit deals like this" (assuming the league votes for the rule)

  • Like 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...