You be the judge...

[RCR]

Team A and Team B are fighting for the last playoff spot the final week or so of the regular season, but are not playing each other. In order to better his chances, Team A proposes a trade to B's opponent (Team C) that sends a strong RB(say, Edgerrin James) that he didn't need this week in exchange for a Tier 2/3 WR(ex: Nate Burleson) he doesn't really need or want. The trade deadline was week 12 of a 13 week regular season.

This happened in a league last year, but Team A still ended up losing out (Team C was also a non-contender). It takes 5 teams to veto a trade. If the league fails to vote it down, should the League Manager cancel the trade as collusion, or let it stand as acceptable (if imaginative) strategy? Even if Team A makes the playoffs, he's without a strong player.

[The Lung]

• 1. All league-related transactions will be executed with the intent of improving the owner's team and/or its standing within the league.
• 2. No owner may drop or "dump" players from their team for any reason other than improving their own team and/or its standing within the league.
• 3. No owner will engage in any action that may be deemed to be collusive (two or more owners agreeing to make moves that benefit one team, but not the other).
• 4. No owner will make any roster moves (including waiver claims, trade proposals, etc.) whose sole purpose is to hamper the play of other owners.
• 5. No owner will take any action whose purpose is to, in any way, interfere with fair play in a league.

This should never be allowed.

[aqua]

I would not allow this - Trades need to be for the purpose of improving your team. I also do not allow the league to vote on trades (but that is another matter).