Would you be suspicious of collusion? - Fantasy Football Cafe 2014 Fantasy Football Cafe


Return to Commissioner's Corner

Would you be suspicious of collusion?

Moderator: Football Moderators

Would you be suspicious of collusion?

Postby Corey2444 » Sat Oct 09, 2010 11:04 pm

PostPosted: 08 Oct 2010 01:47 pm Post subject: Collusion? Definately lop-sided trade
Look and you tell me

Team 1

Terrell Owens WR, CIN - Fantasy Avg: 16.85
LaDainian Tomlinson, RB, NYJ - Fantasy Avg: 18.08
Chad Ochocinco WR, CIN - Fantasy Avg: 14.65
Ray Rice RB, BAL - Fantasy Avg: 10.35

for

Team 2

Donald Driver WR, GNB - Fantasy Avg: 15.20
Ben Roethlisberger QB, PIT - Fantasy Avg: ---Suspended---
Michael Turner RB, ATL - Fantasy Avg: 11.18
Fred Jackson RB, BUF - Fantasy Avg: 4.18


I'm in an RTS PPR league. The rules for trades are 5 veto within 24 hours to block. The problem with this rule is sometimes people don't log in during the week to check trades. There were 4 veto.
Corey2444
Cheerleader
Cheerleader


Posts: 11
Joined: 9 Oct 2010
Home Cafe: Football

Re: Would you be suspicious of collusion?

Postby u_fig_eater » Sat Oct 09, 2010 11:19 pm

No.
Ball Breaker Keeper League: Beast Mode 8-5 #2 seed
u_fig_eater
Offensive Coordinator
Offensive Coordinator

User avatar
Mock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 913
Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Home Cafe: Football

Re: Would you be suspicious of collusion?

Postby DaSh 1s » Sun Oct 10, 2010 2:05 am

Wait, whats wrong with it? What side do u think is better?

PS why do you post when your drunk?
DaSh 1s
Water Boy
Water Boy

User avatar

Posts: 96
Joined: 1 Aug 2007
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Would you be suspicious of collusion?

Postby JoshKnows46 » Sun Oct 10, 2010 3:10 am

nope
I only live by 3 rules: Eat Twat, Smoke Pot, and Smile Alot
JoshKnows46
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar
Fantasy Expert
Posts: 1012
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Louisiana

Re: Would you be suspicious of collusion?

Postby Matthias » Sun Oct 10, 2010 6:26 am

Corey2444 wrote:PostPosted: 08 Oct 2010 01:47 pm Post subject: Collusion? Definately lop-sided trade
Look and you tell me

Team 1

Terrell Owens WR, CIN - Fantasy Avg: 16.85
LaDainian Tomlinson, RB, NYJ - Fantasy Avg: 18.08
Chad Ochocinco WR, CIN - Fantasy Avg: 14.65
Ray Rice RB, BAL - Fantasy Avg: 10.35

for

Team 2

Donald Driver WR, GNB - Fantasy Avg: 15.20
Ben Roethlisberger QB, PIT - Fantasy Avg: ---Suspended---
Michael Turner RB, ATL - Fantasy Avg: 11.18
Fred Jackson RB, BUF - Fantasy Avg: 4.18


I'm in an RTS PPR league. The rules for trades are 5 veto within 24 hours to block. The problem with this rule is sometimes people don't log in during the week to check trades. There were 4 veto.

Interesting trade.

Turner and Rice basically cancel each other out. They're both high 1st round draft picks that are underperforming.

So then you have TO, LT2, and Ochocinco for Driver, Big Ben, and Jackson. Roethlisberger is back this week although I'm not sure if it's clear if he's starting. Fred Jackson should be the de facto starter with Lynch traded off to Seattle but I'd still put Lt2 > Jackson. TO vs Driver? Tough call. Ochocinco vs Big Ben? Depends on need.

It looks like Team 1 is getting the better end of the deal but not sure if I'd say I'd suspect collusion unless I knew more including the relationship between the two owners.
Matthias
General Manager
General Manager


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

Re: Would you be suspicious of collusion?

Postby CBMGreatOne » Sun Oct 10, 2010 9:37 am

There are very good players on both sides so I wouldn't suspect collusion.
CBMGreatOne
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar

Posts: 1845
(Past Year: 11)
Joined: 30 May 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Would you be suspicious of collusion?

Postby chchelse » Sun Oct 10, 2010 10:42 am

What always amazes me about collusion posts is how people veto these trades. I have no idea what they base their veto on. I have never played in a league where the players have the right to veto my trade and never will. How could my opponents ever be objective about a trade I have proposed?

This trade looks like this, to me. One guy is selling high on TO after his stellar game last week and is getting rid of two WR from the same team, which I don't believe is ever good to have. Plus, Palmer is a weak armed, inconsistat QB, who has been getting poor press clippings since the season began. This seems to be a smart move on this owners part. He is also getting rid of LT, which also seems to me to be a sell high guy. All the media have been exclaiming over and over again how he will eventually break down. So this move makes sense, too. As said before, I think Rice vs Turner is a push, although I would prefer Rice more than Turner, epecially since it is a PPR league. I also think that Team 1 is buying low on Roethleberger and F Jakson who has suddenly become the #1 RB in Buffalo and put up very good numbers there last year. D Driver is sn't a very sexy player, but consistantly puts up good numbers.


So, my opinion is that player 1 is being a smart owner, but running some risk, giving up players that are producing yet speculating on future performance. There is no collusion here, and anyone who veto's this trade is not being objective, or just being annoying.
chchelse
Offensive Coordinator
Offensive Coordinator


Posts: 730
Joined: 16 May 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: East Bethel

Re: Would you be suspicious of collusion?

Postby Matthias » Sun Oct 10, 2010 11:44 am

chchelse wrote:What always amazes me about collusion posts is how people veto these trades. I have no idea what they base their veto on. I have never played in a league where the players have the right to veto my trade and never will. How could my opponents ever be objective about a trade I have proposed?

This trade looks like this, to me. One guy is selling high on TO after his stellar game last week and is getting rid of two WR from the same team, which I don't believe is ever good to have. Plus, Palmer is a weak armed, inconsistat QB, who has been getting poor press clippings since the season began. This seems to be a smart move on this owners part. He is also getting rid of LT, which also seems to me to be a sell high guy. All the media have been exclaiming over and over again how he will eventually break down. So this move makes sense, too. As said before, I think Rice vs Turner is a push, although I would prefer Rice more than Turner, epecially since it is a PPR league. I also think that Team 1 is buying low on Roethleberger and F Jakson who has suddenly become the #1 RB in Buffalo and put up very good numbers there last year. D Driver is sn't a very sexy player, but consistantly puts up good numbers.


So, my opinion is that player 1 is being a smart owner, but running some risk, giving up players that are producing yet speculating on future performance. There is no collusion here, and anyone who veto's this trade is not being objective, or just being annoying.

Quite frankly, you're the one not being objective. You're looking at things how you see them. You have no idea on the composition of the league, who the owners are, what their relationships are, what their records are, if this is for big money, if there is any history here, or anything else. All these things are important factors to decide if there is collusion. Most everything else is just psychobabble.
Matthias
General Manager
General Manager


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

Re: Would you be suspicious of collusion?

Postby thejusman1 » Sun Oct 10, 2010 11:52 am

I don't think it's vetoable. The side getting Ray Rice definitely seems like he's getting the better players, but he's buying high on LT and T.O. and selling low on Fred Jackson and Big Ben, both of whom I believe will end up to be solid starters. I would even go as far to say this is a pretty even trade, with one side assuming more risk/reward, and the other buying into the production of the last few weeks.
thejusman1
Defensive Assistant
Defensive Assistant

User avatar

Posts: 454
Joined: 27 Apr 2008
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Would you be suspicious of collusion?

Postby chchelse » Mon Oct 11, 2010 8:27 am

Matthias wrote:
chchelse wrote:What always amazes me about collusion posts is how people veto these trades. I have no idea what they base their veto on. I have never played in a league where the players have the right to veto my trade and never will. How could my opponents ever be objective about a trade I have proposed?

This trade looks like this, to me. One guy is selling high on TO after his stellar game last week and is getting rid of two WR from the same team, which I don't believe is ever good to have. Plus, Palmer is a weak armed, inconsistat QB, who has been getting poor press clippings since the season began. This seems to be a smart move on this owners part. He is also getting rid of LT, which also seems to me to be a sell high guy. All the media have been exclaiming over and over again how he will eventually break down. So this move makes sense, too. As said before, I think Rice vs Turner is a push, although I would prefer Rice more than Turner, epecially since it is a PPR league. I also think that Team 1 is buying low on Roethleberger and F Jakson who has suddenly become the #1 RB in Buffalo and put up very good numbers there last year. D Driver is sn't a very sexy player, but consistantly puts up good numbers.


So, my opinion is that player 1 is being a smart owner, but running some risk, giving up players that are producing yet speculating on future performance. There is no collusion here, and anyone who veto's this trade is not being objective, or just being annoying.

Quite frankly, you're the one not being objective. You're looking at things how you see them. You have no idea on the composition of the league, who the owners are, what their relationships are, what their records are, if this is for big money, if there is any history here, or anything else. All these things are important factors to decide if there is collusion. Most everything else is just psychobabble.



Actually, I am being quite objective, given the limited information. Your argument that I cannot be objective, because I don't know everything about the make-up of the league is absurd. Given that rationale, and taking it to its end, no one could make an objective statement about anything because we certainly cannot know everything about anything. And, we certainly could not answer the majority of the questions posed on these boards.

The fact of the matter, concerning the topic, and not your mean-spirited digression, is that in almost all of these "collusion" cases, it is simply one or more owners thinking that one team is getting a competative advantage over their team and so they cry collusion, and veto trades, in an attempt to retain or increase their perceived chances of winning their league. I believe this shows a lack of personal integrity.

Bottom line. Unless one can prove that two owners got together, to knowingly give one of the teams a competative advantage, there is no collusion.
chchelse
Offensive Coordinator
Offensive Coordinator


Posts: 730
Joined: 16 May 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: East Bethel

Next

Return to Commissioner's Corner

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Start & Sit Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2014 NFL season kicks off in 17:02 hours
(and 42 days)
2014 NFL Schedule


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