Mark Football
Footballguy
When the players hit the field the trade had already been made. So he did not have the power.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Commissioner Collusion - what say you? - Update - I’m playing the sketchy commish in the semi’s and Thomas is out (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Judge Smails
- Start date
The Future Champs
Footballguy
This is irrelevant, because the collusion happened when the trade was made, not when the players hit the field.
The Future Champs
Footballguy
And, in fact, he did have the power to start Thomas. The only reason he didn't was he'd made a secret agreement not to, which he lied about.
Last edited by a moderator:
Stompin' Tom Connors
Footballguy
What bias in the poll options are you referring to? Its nearly even voting. Not sure what that has to do with any point I made.
You may be the only one reading spin into this -- OP stated that the condition was made in secret, so just restating that fact -- this was indeed a covert side agreement that only came to light when OP and league questioned why the owner started a guy like Mattison and not Thomas.
Not sure what your point about trade negotiations being private in nature have to do with this either -- when a trade is concluded in FF, everyone sees the terms of the trade by nature of players swapping teams. Pretty transparent. The only reason this condition came to light was because of an inexplicable benching.
The "he did his best to win without Thomas/he played the lineup he would have played without Thomas" is a moot point. Because Thomas was on his team when the games started. And he wasn't started because it was a condition of the trade.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
That’s how I see it as well. The collusion was during the deal. Two managers entered into a secret transaction about lineups.
It’s literally the definition of collusion.
They didn’t post a message to the league, above board, indicating that this was their conditional deal. And that’s likely because it sounds super shady when it’s all spelled out & people woulda been up in arms about it.
It may not be cheating, but it’s shady, and from all accounts it sounds like the two teams knew it was shady.
The Future Champs
Footballguy
col·lu·sion
/kəˈlo͞oZHən/
noun
secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.
"the armed forces were working in collusion with drug traffickers"
/kəˈlo͞oZHən/
noun
secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.
"the armed forces were working in collusion with drug traffickers"
Mark Football
Footballguy
We will have to disagree. At no time do I think team A conspired with team B to screw anyone over with a secret deal. They were both trying to win. Making a trade that was not prohibited in their league rules.
Football Jones
Footballguy
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 play which made them want to do the trade now instead of waiting until after they play each other (like maybe a trade deadline), but that's just too bad. You can't allow not starting your best lineup (EVER). The simple reason is it can affect other teams (i.e., the playoff race).
Crime committed & league integrity at stake here.
There were probably dynamics at play which made them want to do the trade now instead of waiting until after they play each other (like maybe a trade deadline), but that's just too bad. You can't allow not starting your best lineup (EVER). The simple reason is it can affect other teams (i.e., the playoff race).
Crime committed & league integrity at stake here.
Last edited by a moderator:
Judge Smails
Footballguy
The Future Champs
Footballguy
The beauty of this is that they will execute the same trade, b/c to do otherwise would acknowledge the harmful collusion, and Team B might well feel a bit of pain when the trade finalizes.
The guy that didn't want to face the player he traded away isn't the one that is seen as tanking.
I suppose in a way, getting the other guy to agree to tank is indeed the opposite of tanking.
Regardless, we should be able to agree that anyone tanking is a bad thing.
Well, we did have a pretty impactful injury to Drew Brees happen between then and now to muddy up Thomas' outlook, so it's not quite as clean as you portray it.
Deamon
Footballguy
You can't use these conditions.
What about "If you sit Thomas this week, I'll trade you Cook next week". Is this not the same? It's simply a 'condition" of a trade they're making next week.
What about "I'll trade you Thomas, but you have to start the Jets defense". Also just a condition of the trade, would this be okay? He doesn't have the option to start Thomas and a better D that week according to you, because he'd never have Thomas without this condition.
What about "I'll trade you Thomas if you make me dinner all week". Just a trade condition?
Deamon
Footballguy
True. But some say MT's outlook increases with Drew out. Not really relevant to this thread I suppose.
habsfan
Footballguy
This was my argument as well. It's fine to seek a pragmatic solution to this exact scenario and move on but you've allowed one team to influence another team's line-up and in my opinion, opened the door to any number of future creative trade "sweeteners" that reside outside the league's regular "economy".
As far as it being reasonable that the team trading MT doesn't want to face him - sure, feeling is completely reasonable. What isn't reasonable to me is the way they got their cake and ate it too. NFL teams don't want to face impact players they trade away either. That's why they avoid trading within their division or to certain teams. I know FF isn't real football but imagine the controversy if Fournette had to be inactive against Jax if TB played Jax this year? Is everyone cool with that?
I Am the Stig
Footballguy
Then why even make decisions? Everyone should just be mandated to submit a lineup based on projections.
If you want to start Kallen Ballage over David Montgomery, to bad, you can’t because of projections.
The irony is MT had a bad week and the complainer is probably really upset because the sub WR had a better day than MT.
This is why you just let people run their team their way.
Birdie048
Footballguy
I admit not reading all 5 pages of comments...
My thoughts are "Conditional trades" are not permitted. They create situations were ethics are being challenged. This is a slippery slope and once on the hill, there is no real chance of stopping the slide to the dispersion of the league, especially if the commission is involved in the initial effort.
My thoughts are "Conditional trades" are not permitted. They create situations were ethics are being challenged. This is a slippery slope and once on the hill, there is no real chance of stopping the slide to the dispersion of the league, especially if the commission is involved in the initial effort.
I Am the Stig
Footballguy
If they want a player they don’t yet have then yes.
Either way the manager was never going to play against MT that week.
TheWinz
Footballguy
Huh? Obviously the guy getting Michael Thomas WANTED to start him, but was FORCED to bench him as a condition of a trade. The guy getting MT should have started him and won, then sat back and watched as the guy he swindled went nuts.
I Am the Stig
Footballguy
tombonneau
Footballguy
I'm five pages late on this but this seems to sum it up. Had they just announced conditions to trade - they are not uncommon in my dynasty - it would have had reverse effect as everyone would have laughed at the guy because he lost due to a trade stipulation.
ETA:
I also voted this is not collusion and nothing should happen. I don't think this is anything dirty or deceptive. Just a condition needed to be met by what is likely a typical PIA trade partner.
Last edited by a moderator:
habsfan
Footballguy
Salary caps are part of the league's normal "economy" - everyone has one and has to operate within the confines of them. This is not salary cap, money or draft picks. This is telling an opponent they can't play someone as a form of trade compensation.
I Am the Stig
Footballguy
Not really. Rostering is a part of the game economy. What would not be a part of the game’s economy is if the MT owner demanded the trade partner wash and detail his car or actual cash.
I Am the Stig
Footballguy
Considering that taking on “4 scrubs” would require dropping players this likely would not meet the condition of the receiving team improving their roster overall and would not be accepted anyway.
But even if the manager accepted the terms, if he honestly believed it would help his team in the long run then what is it to you?
He doesn’t need to accept the condition unless he wants the player.
League: You can’t make who someone plays a condition of a trade. You can’t tell another manager how to run their team.
Same League: You must play the absolute “best” players regardless of context or circumstances.
Birdie048
Footballguy
Allowing a league owner (especially the commissioner) to manipulate the rules is more than an ethical dilema. If the league does not have clear defined rules, then that is the fault of the commissioner or by design by them. When ethical ploys starts, others will jump on the bandwagon and create more turmoil and questionable manuevers pushing the other owners to depart. There will be a mass exodus leaving those of poor character left holding empty their false trophy.
I Am the Stig
Footballguy
What rule was broken? The MT owner was not going to play against MT one way or the other.
And what keeps being overlooked is that playing MT would likely have been a bad decision.
I know I should have played Justin Jefferson over MT this week. If I had should my league condemn me for not playing my “strongest lineup”?
The receiving player accepted the terms likely on the basis that MT has been a dud so far but traded for him in the hopes of a emergence to form. But considering his poor performance thus far it would have been reasonable to stash him until he returns to form.
The owner simply wanted to make sure that he was not a victim of that return to form game, which didn’t happen anyway.
If I was trading for MT I would have easily accepted those terms.
Pipes
Footballguy
Birdie048
Footballguy
If you league does not have Collusion rules, then none. But >95% of the players with common sense would want nothing to do with that league.
Conditional deals should be banned in the rules. It is often understood, yet neglected to be defined. Commissioner should have included it.
habsfan
Footballguy
I'm not sure what you mean by "rostering" but influencing who your opponent plays or doesn't play is not a commonly accepted part of any league's "economy". If you're okay with Team A influencing who Team B sits or starts, why would you care if a car wash was involved?
Last edited by a moderator:
I Am the Stig
Footballguy
All trades are done in private. And the terms were within the parameters of FF.
There was no quid pro quo here. Both teams presumably wanted to win and want to win going forward.
This isn’t a situation of throwing a game to benefit the other team. Collusion would be asking the other team to bench already owned players because they need the win and the other player doesn’t.
This was a condition to receive a player that they did not yet own. Again, the MT owner was not going to play AGAINST MT that week one way or the other. If the term was not accepted the MT owner would have used it benched MT.
The league trade deadline was likely approaching so it was truly a now or never trade.
I Am the Stig
Footballguy
habsfan
Footballguy
Coming at this from a different angle and then I'm done. Suppose I agree to this and then I go ahead and start MT anyway. What rule have I broken? As the other owner, what are you going to do about it?
Pipes
Footballguy
Yes they are all done in private but disclosed to the league before the game is played. Had this part been disclosed to the league prior to the game then I'm ok with it. If it was I apologize but I'm not reading 5 pages to find that out. Any "conditions" of a trade should be disclosed at the time of the trade.
My dynasty league allows conditions but they must be disclosed. One guy loves them he just made a trade for Mike Evans are part of the trade was if he finishes the season as a top 10 WR from week 9 on the 2021 2nd round pick included in this trade goes to a 1st rounder. That was included in the comments section for the entire league to see. Nothing secret about something like that.
Collusion doesn't necessarily involve throwing games. It's a secret agreement with the intent to deceive. Since they didn't disclose this they were deceitful and there was teams negatively (and positively) impacted by this.
Last edited by a moderator:
I Am the Stig
Footballguy
What these trade, collusion complaints ultimately boil down are:
1. Someone in the league presumably significantly strengthened their roster and people usually cry collusion and competitive balance.
2. People on the outside of the playoffs looking in hoping that things break their way to get into the playoffs. This hope lies in that other managers NEED to play in a predictable fashion that can be beneficial to themselves. When managers behave in unpredictable ways that “affect” the 8th place team they tend blame ethics for their own teams lack of autonomy.
These types of posts ALWAYS pop up every year at about this time and that is because time is running out.
1. Someone in the league presumably significantly strengthened their roster and people usually cry collusion and competitive balance.
2. People on the outside of the playoffs looking in hoping that things break their way to get into the playoffs. This hope lies in that other managers NEED to play in a predictable fashion that can be beneficial to themselves. When managers behave in unpredictable ways that “affect” the 8th place team they tend blame ethics for their own teams lack of autonomy.
These types of posts ALWAYS pop up every year at about this time and that is because time is running out.
I Am the Stig
Footballguy
Absolutely none. But you may have lost a trade partner down the road.
And you hit on the fundamental truth in this. Ultimately the recipient made their own decision. They had every right and ability to play MT and yet they didn’t. They kept their word but they were not “forced” to do anything they didn’t want to do.
And frankly, sitting MT would not have been unreasonable. I suspect the complainer NEEDED the MT owner to lose this week and starting MT would have secured that.
You play for yourself not the league.
I Am the Stig
Footballguy
In the case of a dynasty league where future considerations that the league needs to be aware of yes, these things obviously need to be disclosed. Draft picks and which draft picks obviously need to be disclosed if you hope to receive them. But don’t confuse “disclosing a conditional pick”as seeking league permission. It is simply a matter of accounting that allows the league to know who owns what possible picks.
If the league does not vote on trades then there is no obligation to disclose any terms. And to have done so would put the control of a teams roster in the hands of the entire league. Again, let people make their own decisions or just play best ball.
Sitting MT for Alexander Mattison last week was absolutely unreasonable. And the owner involved in this freely admitted as much. So please stop with this "not unreasonable" nonsense.
This trade stipulated that one team bench a better player and start an inferior player. This fact is not in dispute. We can argue the ethics of that, but to deny it even happened in the first place is not accurate, or helpful.
Football Jones
Footballguy
Right answer:
Something else should've been done to even out the trade instead of one team tanking (potentially affecting the playoff race). Tanking can never be a condition in a deal. Furthermore, all conditions need to be stipulated at the time of the trade or it's incomplete.
Lots of options to make a legitimate deal (draft pick, player added/player swap, etc.). Plenty of ways to do it without potentially screwing other teams. It's never ok to fudge your starting lineup.
Something else should've been done to even out the trade instead of one team tanking (potentially affecting the playoff race). Tanking can never be a condition in a deal. Furthermore, all conditions need to be stipulated at the time of the trade or it's incomplete.
Lots of options to make a legitimate deal (draft pick, player added/player swap, etc.). Plenty of ways to do it without potentially screwing other teams. It's never ok to fudge your starting lineup.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
No. Never. Because that’s not a normal thing to do in FF.
What matters is that they made this shady side deal outside of the normal bounds of a trade, and it wasn’t his choice to start who he wanted. Because that was a condition of the deal. That’s the collusion part. He conditionally could not start who he wanted.
That said, technically, literally speaking you’re correct. Ironically, had they made this secret bargain that the recipient bench Thomas & then the Thomas recipient reneged on that promise & starred him, that’s a jerk move between trade partners - but it would have been way less shady to the league. That’s just one manager lying to another to get a deal to go through. Not at all cool. But not as bad as what actually happened.
I find that amusing.
If you trade me Thomas, I won't start him against you is literally the definition of a quid pro quo.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
This, to me; is the crux.
It doesn’t matter what happens after the fact. It doesn’t matter that Thomas had a bad game or Brees got hurt or what someone had for breakfast the next day,
Two owners made a side-deal in secret, agreeing to bench a top FF asset that one was trading for. The rest of the league did not know this condition, and the owners lied about it to them, presumably because they knew it was wrong.
They literally colluded. Not in a “hey throw this game & I’ll trade you Thomas” kind of way, but that’s not the only kind of collusion. Case closed.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
Why not just do the trade after the week is over?
However, if the league trade deadline was a factor maybe you cant do that.
I say it was a condition of the trade and is allowable, however that condition should be made public to the league.
However, if the league trade deadline was a factor maybe you cant do that.
I say it was a condition of the trade and is allowable, however that condition should be made public to the league.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
It’s a good point; and one I made also. This would be is d-bag move between two owners, but it’s way less shady than what actually went down.
I Am the Stig
Footballguy
And yet the point difference was just 1 point. Did it end up THAT unreasonable? I mean, sitting MT with a bad ankle, hamstring, interpersonal team strife and a noodle arm Drew Brees is “unreasonable”?
I wish I had benched MT last week. Stop worry about how other managers run their teams.
The game is to unpredictable to say anything with certainty.
Here is a list of unreasonable starts for last week:
Boston Scott
MVS
Alex Collins
Ahmed
Ballage
Keelan Cole
Pittman
The reality is MT did not come close to meeting his projections last week. He has not done a thing this season to even consider him a “top 5” WR. It is week 11 and in .5 PPR MT has 14.5 points on the season. Stop acting like this was a crime against FF. Antonio Brown has 14.7 points on the season after not playing football for a year. Stop with what is “reasonable”.
Or they just didn’t think it was as big of a Fn deal as some of you do.This
I’ve never made a trade of the sort, but if I had, I’m not sure I would’ve considered it all that relevant in the grand scheme of things and felt a need to announce it to the league. I’d be surprised if there was “secretive “ talk between the two owners about keeping that condition silent.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Ethical behavior isn’t usually stipulated in the league constitution. It’s assumed that managers will behave ethically.
When you see a Salvation Army bucket, do you reach in and grab a handful of money because there’s no sign posted saying you can’t?
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Their level of concern about it is irrelevant. In fact, whatever feelings they may have experienced are also irrelevant. They could cackle in sinister laughter after making the trade, wallow in sadness, or literally jump for joy.Or they just didn’t think it was a big of a Fn deal as some of you do.
I’ve never made a trade of the sort, but if I had, I’m not sure I would’ve considered it all that relevant in the grand scheme of things and felt a need to announce it to the league. I’d be surprised if there was “secretive “ talk between the two owners about keeping that condition silent.
Regardless of their emotional state or thought process, by definition they collided.
Similar threads
