Fellow fantasy football enthusiasts and league commissioners:
A one-for-one trade has been accepted in my league.
Team A, with a record of 1-6, gives up Maurice Jones-Drew (ranked 2nd overall RB in my league). Team B, with a record of 3-4, gives up Reggie Bush (ranked 36th overall RB in my league).
I am the commissioner, and I have stated my disapproval of this trade publicly due to its obvious lopsidedness along with the fact that Team A (giving up MJD) has barely been participating in the league, regularly starting players on bye weeks and not setting his roster. Additionally, this is an optional buy-in league, and 6 out of the 10 participants have paid entry fees -- Team A and Team B, however, opted not to submit an entry fee, so there is no vested monetary interest.
My concerns are obvious. Unfortunately, my opponent for this week is Team B. The legitimacy of my disapproval is now being questioned by Team B, who suspects that I want to veto this trade simply because I don't want to face MJD this weekend.
I have presented absolute facts and have withheld any opinion or judgment. With the facts, what are your thoughts?
You have to veto this trade, especially given Team A's lack of participation. This is textbook collusion, in my book. Team B may get upset, but the other owners in the league (especially the ones with money vested) will agree.
sounds like collusion to me...ask them to explain their reasoning and since i'm sure they wont have a good explanation, veto it, warn them this wont be tolerated and another strike like this is cause for being banned from the league
Dan Lambskin
Hall of Fame Hero
Posts: 7054
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Yards this season: 0
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: being a fan of the worst franchise in the NFL
Dan Lambskin wrote:sounds like collusion to me...ask them to explain their reasoning and since i'm sure they wont have a good explanation, veto it, warn them this wont be tolerated and another strike like this is cause for being banned from the league
What he said
I'm not a big fan of bagging most deals, but when it's one of these bench-fodder for a top-3 guy, there's not much of an explanation that will justify thinking anything other than collusion...
Goody wrote:Optional buy-in league? That is a recipe for disaster and makes zero sense....
No, it's fine. This is a league among co-workers. Bragging rights for first place. Money for first place among the people who paid. It's basically two leagues in one. There's no potential disaster or anything.
Dan Lambskin wrote:sounds like collusion to me...ask them to explain their reasoning and since i'm sure they wont have a good explanation, veto it, warn them this wont be tolerated and another strike like this is cause for being banned from the league
What he said
I'm not a big fan of bagging most deals, but when it's one of these bench-fodder for a top-3 guy, there's not much of an explanation that will justify thinking anything other than collusion...
What they said.
It looks bad but a good commish should always investigate a deal before a veto. I would love to hear the rational behind dealing MJD for Bush at this stage in the season.
An owner can have a huge man-crush on Bush (Reggie that is) but you still have to get value out of dealing a MJD even if it is just a draft pick, WR3 or whatever.. the deal straight up sucks.
Goody wrote:Optional buy-in league? That is a recipe for disaster and makes zero sense....
No, it's fine. This is a league among co-workers. Bragging rights for first place. Money for first place among the people who paid. It's basically two leagues in one. There's no potential disaster or anything.
lol. Are you the kind of guy who tells the fireman you are fine as yours clothes and body burn to a crisp?
Cafe Home
Fantasy Baseball
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by MattJH » Fri Oct 30, 2009 8:34 am 
