Is collusion possible before Week 5?!?! - long post - Fantasy Football Cafe 2014 Fantasy Football Cafe


Return to Football Talk

Is collusion possible before Week 5?!?! - long post

Moderator: Football Moderators

Postby Matthias » Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:47 pm

bobbing_headz wrote:But then again almost any trade could argued for or against.


This is the OP's point. Any trade can really be argued for or against (as someone else mentioned, Tomlinson for Benson is clearly a ridiculous trade but someone could create an argument of, "Well, you never know" and, "Chicago's offense has looked alive this year." But if any trade except the absolutely insane ones could be argued for, then can you really ever prove collusion?

Basically, the logic goes:

Q. When can you veto a trade?
A. When there is collusion.

Q. When is there collusion?
A. When a trade is so imbalanced that it has no logic.

Q. When is a trade so imbalanced that it has no logic?
A. Ummm...... basically never. Because you never know what's going to happen. Someone might think that someone else is just about to break out. And a person has a right to manage their team as they like. So even though I wouldn't trade Tomlinson for Benson, I could see how someone else might think it's a great idea so I wouldn't veto it. Besides, on Sunday Tomlinson and Thomas Jones might blow out their ACLs and then it would be an absolutely unfair trade on the side of the guy who got Benson. So you never know. So you can't veto.

And I think everyone agrees with the first two answers. It's the answer to the third that people start parting ways.

And it doesn't have to be a huge, enormous trade to be collusive. I was in a baseball league with people I didn't know this spring (but answered a posting on the Cafe) and one week into the season the Commissioner was trying to trade someone Tony Clark and Brandon McCarthy (his 18th and 21st round choices) to someone else for their Curt Schilling and Kevin Millwood (his 3rd and 13th round selections). This, one week into the season. And the guy giving up Schilling wasn't loaded at pitcher or anything. Me and another guy vetoed, made a stink, and eventually found the commissioner admitting in a Cafe trade forum that his trades weren't really legit. But we only found that out because we raised a stink in the first place and took the effort to prove it.

So, no, you don't have to have a blockbuster deal to have collusion. And if you allow 3-4 shady but not completely insane deals, that should be all it takes to ruin the competition and the entire purpose of a league.
Matthias
General Manager
General Manager


Posts: 2398
Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Fritzenhammer » Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:56 pm

A. Yes.

B. Any action which has as it's primary intent, something other than the improvement of the manager's team. (ie the improvement of another team, stacking another team for a matchup against a key opponent, etc)

C. Veto it. Taking advantage of an inexperienced manager is as bad as collusion. The manager should have the opportunity to reconsider the trade after hearing feedback from the league. However, if he still wishes to go through with it at that point, it should be allowed - it's his mistake to make. Unless it wildly unbalances the league, the decision should be his.


So, the veto is not JUST for collusion, but MAINLY for collusion. Trades need to be considered FIRST from the point of view of the motivation of the owners involved, and if the justification is there, the value of the players should only come into play if it is a league balance destroying mismatch. Most people vote against trades if they feel there is any mismatch whatsoever, regardless of the motivation of the owners which is a bigger problem than collusion or mismatched value IMHO.

FH
Fritzenhammer
Water Boy
Water Boy


Posts: 86
Joined: 27 Apr 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby The Jury » Sat Sep 23, 2006 9:48 pm

If two players on different fantasy teams have comparable numbers so far this season, I objectively think a trade of these 2 players should NOT be vetoed. Obviously there are opinions on both players, as well as projections, but these are all just speculation. Nobody can predict the future.

As such, it is wrong, IMO, for a trade to vetoed just because people THINK one player will outperform another, even though both are putting up comparable numbers so far.

Obviously, if a trade of Holt for Berrian went down in my league, I would be outraged. But looking at it objectively, I can't say that my opinion of Holt outproducing Berrian is more valid than someone else's opinion of Berrian outproducing Holt. So I would angrily and frustratedly watch the trade go through.

BUT, the most important thing is to be in a good league. If you are in a good, competitive league, then you are not presented with these controversies in the first place ;-D
Respect Stevie McNair. Bow down to the pouch.
The Jury
Special Teams Staff
Special Teams Staff


Posts: 129
Joined: 17 Feb 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Previous

Return to Football Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Start & Sit Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2014 NFL season kicks off in 21:43 hours
(and 35 days)
2014 NFL Schedule


  • Fantasy Football
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact