Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Fantasy Football leagues do tons of things real NFL teams don't allow. 
"I'll help you win this week by benching Michael Thomas" was a condition of this trade.
I'm assuming the guy trading MT away wanted to use the player he got in return that week.
not wasting my time answering a bunch of other scenarios....we could be here all day.....I've already said they are all different....
probably had to do with the other players involved and them playing that particular week....
The principle at stake here is the same whether we're talking fantasy football or real football.
Starting with letting regular people like us run the teams and make the rules.
My only point was it's entirely reasonable for a GM to not want to face a player he traded away and it felt like the opposite of tanking.
Yes you're avoiding the question because you would call that collusion if that was the case and it doesn't fit your agenda. Convenient.
Yes it's worth it for team A. No one is saying it's not, you seem to be arguing something that isn't being contested.
Again, without knowing the entire trade nobody here knows whether or not “the Thomas condition” was indeed a setback to his lineup last week. If he got another piece that was an upgrade, sitting Thomas may have been offset compared to simply not making the trade at all. Put another way, it’s possible his lineup was better by making the trade and putting Thomas on his bench vs not making the trade at all.
The result doesn't matter, the intention does. The owner admitted that he benched Thomas on purpose and that he would have started him otherwise.
Then don't make the trade that week and wait until the following week. This is 100% collusion as one team is purposely playing a worse lineup against the other guy in order to get a trade to be accepted. That is close to the definition of collusion.
That is completely different. This is one team purposely playing an inferior lineup. That is a lack of integrity and the definition of collusion by one team getting a player from another team if he purposely fields a lesser team against that opponent. If it was that big of a deal, then wait one week and then make the deal. No need for purposely playing a lesser lineup.
close or pretty much.....lol...
That is different than agreeing to not play Thomas as part of the deal. That is analyzing the matchups and making an independent decision to play what you think is the best lineup. Not agreeing to bench a guy solely for the purpose of the deal.
Wut? Well obviously the owner admitted he would have started Thomas had that condition not been part of the deal. That's not collusion, that's a condition of the deal that's not very material in the grand scheme of this week + the rest of the season (or longer, if dynasty).
Ok....it is collusion. Two teams agreeing to give one team an advantage that is unknown to the rest of the league
Collusion: secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.
Yes his line up may have been better overall. The scenarios are separate though. Those arguing collusion are saying that "conditions of a trade being that you can't play him that week" is bogus and should not be allowed. Never would in any sports league, and I feel shouldn't be allowed in fantasy.
I am guessing that if they announced it before the trade happened then the league would not have been ok with it. As a Commish I would not have been ok with it.
I'm starting to waiver in my opinion based on this post and some really compelling arguments made by others in here......I too do not like the "intangible" part of the deal the more I think about it.....it feels "yucky"....
If I had made a deal with this condition, which I’ve never done, I wouldn’t have given a second thought to the fact that this “condition” wasn’t announced to the rest of the league. That’s because I wouldn’t have felt it was a big deal, it was only impacting my game vs my trade partner, and it wasn’t agreed to in order to “cheat or deceive” anyone else. To think they’re somehow “cheating” here is a really massive leap.
I understand why two owners might want to collude in this way.
the intent may not to be "cheating".....but it could affect the competitive balance of the league in terms wins/losses/playoffs etc.....
That information is irrelevant. The stakes ahouldn't matter to determine if the action was improper.
The team that received Thomas got 2 other players in the deal. Carlos Hyde, who was hurt. And Mattison. Which made sense as he had Cook. So got his backup. So forgetting about the overall fairness of the trade, for this week Hyde was not active and Mattison was a pure backup to a healthy Cook vs the Bears D. All other players were injured or on a bye. So his only options to field a starting lineup were an active, healthy Thomas at home vs the Niners or Mattison backing up Cook. Dodds had Thomas as #8 WR, and Thomas #55 RB I believe. Flex was #25 vs #150 or something.
