Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
 

Standard yahoo scoring. The league is for money and A and B are friends. Player A is 4-2, player B is 1-5.

Player A trades Eli Manning (3rd string QB), Willie Parker (RB2), and Donald Driver (WR2) to player B for LaDainian Tomlinson and Braylon Edwards.

B's team is:

WR: Braylon Edwards, Brandon Marshall, Colston, Boldin
RB: LT, Reggie Bush, Marion Barber (and Michael Bennett, Travis Henry)
QB: none (Schaub just got hurt).

Relevant free agents:

QB: Garcia, Cutler, Huard, Rivers, Campbell, Culpepper

WR: Roddy White, Bobby Engram, Ronald Curry, and a million in the 40s.

Given the free agents available, is this trade kosher or not?

Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
 

That isn't even close to anything that would resemble collusion.

Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
 

It's fine

Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
 

Allow the trade and stop being a nit

Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
 

I never understand these questions. The only way a trade should be disallowed is if you think it was collusive. I could trade Tomlinson for Laddell Betts...as long as I truly believe in my heart that I'm making the right move, the league should have to allow it.

and since you know the owners and we don't, shouldn't you be able to judge this better?

I think you have two options:

-Allow the trade

OR

-Disallow the trade, kick both owners out of the league and don't return their money, stop being friends with those cheaters



There is no middle ground. You can't disallow a trade just because its slightly lopsided in YOUR VIEW.

Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
 

i think its very suspicious.

Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
 

Fine, explain how a lineup of Eli/Driver/Parker is higher EV than a lineup of Garcia/Edwards/LT.

Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
 

Also just to add:

If I were the commish, I would implant the following rules:

If a good number of owners complain about a trade, then both owners must publicly post a message detailing why they think the trade was good for their own team. After that the owners vote to either allow the trade or kick them both out of the league immediately.

Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Fine, explain how a lineup of Eli/Driver/Parker is higher EV than a lineup of Garcia/Edwards/LT.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't for you to decide. It looks like a team doing bad is trying to get a little more depth across the board.

It doesn't have to be fair.. trades don't need to be fair. They just need to not be cheating.

Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
 

B's defense is that he likes the players he's getting (like he "likes" Colston and keeps playing him even though he sucks this year). Even if that's true, from the policies and documentation I've read, if the trade is clearly against a team's best interests (in the standings), it's not acceptable.

In other words, HE DOESN'T HAVE TO THINK HE'S CHEATING FOR THE TRADE TO BE UNACCEPTABLE.

Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
 

Manning+Parker for LT seems fair.

Throwing in Edwards for Driver seems really bad.

Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
 

[ QUOTE ]
This isn't for you to decide. It looks like a team doing bad is trying to get a little more depth across the board.

It doesn't have to be fair.. trades don't need to be fair. They just need to not be cheating.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it is. If the trade is CLEARLY -EV, it's covered under the dumping/collusion/owner conduct rules, REGARDLESS OF INTENT TO CHEAT.

Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Allow the trade and stop being a nit

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This isn't for you to decide. It looks like a team doing bad is trying to get a little more depth across the board.

It doesn't have to be fair.. trades don't need to be fair. They just need to not be cheating.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it is. If the trade is CLEARLY -EV, it's covered under the dumping/collusion/owner conduct rules, REGARDLESS OF INTENT TO CHEAT.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is not how my league is run. These owners paid their money, as long as they aren't cheating than it is my opinion that there is never a reason to veto a trade. I've played FF for 13 years and never been in a league that did it another way.

If your rules say differently why are you asking here?

Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
 

when it comes to Edwards vs Driver, before the season starts ANYONE makes that trade, and the guy getting Driver WINS the trade. Edwards has tough games coming up, and has been overperforming. This really isn't THAT bad.

Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
 

What if Driver goes off for a career year and Braylon goes out with an injury after you veto the trade? This owner had a shot to make a run and now you decided the way he valued players was inappropriate and you cost him his chance to win.

That is why its not right to veto without collusion.

Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
 

[ QUOTE ]
when it comes to Edwards vs Driver, before the season starts ANYONE makes that trade, and the guy getting Driver WINS the trade. Edwards has tough games coming up, and has been overperforming. This really isn't THAT bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah there's no way this trade should be vetoed, but I think the guy getting LT+Edwards is getting the better deal.

Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
when it comes to Edwards vs Driver, before the season starts ANYONE makes that trade, and the guy getting Driver WINS the trade. Edwards has tough games coming up, and has been overperforming. This really isn't THAT bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah there's no way this trade should be vetoed, but I think the guy getting LT+Edwards is getting the better deal.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason it's a better deal is because 2 roster spots can produce what 3 can. In a situation with depth issues though that becomes less relevant. So ya I agree, giving a good team the chance to produce so many points out of 2 guys is obviously pretty rough for anyone chasing that guy. But it ain't collusion.

Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
 

I don't care what rules you would implemenmt if you could make your own league. I care what the rules of my league state, namely:

1. All league-related transactions will be executed with the intent of improving the owner's team or its standing
within the league.

3. No owner will engage in any action that might be deemed to be collusive (two or more owners agreeing to make moves that benefit one team, but not the other).

This is the standard I have to judge by. Does this trade (throw Garcia in so it's Garcia/LT/Edwards for Driver/Parker/ELi) meet that standard, where one team is clearly expected to be negatively impacted by the trade?

Losing LT seems beyond obviously -EV to me, to the point I'd prop bet at at least 1.5:1.

Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't care what rules you would implemenmt if you could make your own league. I care what the rules of my league state, namely:

[/ QUOTE ]

lol christ, good luck im outta this thread.

ps your rules are terrible. You should never be in a situation where you judge someone else's value of players.

Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
 

[ QUOTE ]


It doesn't have to be fair.. trades don't need to be fair. They just need to not be cheating.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree completely. Most people don't try to make even trades. They try to get the better end of the deal. Just because a trade isn't "even" in your mind doesn't mean something is fishy.

Besides, this if this really is collusion, it could have been a lot worse.

Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
 

Ever read the yahoo rules? I didn't make em.

Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
 

OP,

Where is your team in this league?

I ask because the trade seems a lot more balanced than almost all OPs of this type in the forum and you seem to be arguing on technicalities and not intent. Also, you won't likely win a lot of friends if you have a top team and veto this.

Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ever read the yahoo rules? I didn't make em.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this is a yahoo league definitely don't veto. I was under the impression you guys wrote some rules.

The way I explained it isn't my magical fantasy ruleset. It's an extremely competitive league with very very good owners. This is just how things should be dealt with in fantasy.

I repeat.. it is not acceptable for you to place value on what other people think will improve their team. It is not okay to say "I don't think that deal is good enough for your team so I veto". If people are cheating, quit the league. If they aren't let the trade go through.

Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't care what rules you would implemenmt if you could make your own league. I care what the rules of my league state, namely:

1. All league-related transactions will be executed with the intent of improving the owner's team or its standing
within the league.

3. No owner will engage in any action that might be deemed to be collusive (two or more owners agreeing to make moves that benefit one team, but not the other).

This is the standard I have to judge by. Does this trade (throw Garcia in so it's Garcia/LT/Edwards for Driver/Parker/ELi) meet that standard, where one team is clearly expected to be negatively impacted by the trade?

Losing LT seems beyond obviously -EV to me, to the point I'd prop bet at at least 1.5:1.

[/ QUOTE ]


brutal brutal case of sour grapes. Listen go by what these players actually represent. In my pool Eli has 111 points. LT has 147. Parker has 81.

Driver has 89, edwards 124. So in my pool we're talking 316 vs 271 that's FAIR. End of story. If you think it's collusion you're just miffed that this *could* cost you the win.

Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
 

Great, you're comparing different scoring systems and neglecting the value of the QB who's available for free. Great analysis. And you can't add. It's 281 (3 players) vs. 271 (2 players).

Let's use your numbers (not that it's perfect for predicting the future, but hey): LT is 66 points better than Parker. Edwards is 35 points better than Driver. That's 101 points. Eli has 111 points total. So put Jeff Garcia at 80 (which is probably low), and this trade is way imbalanced.

Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
 

I'm arguing that intent doesn't matter, but if I have to argue intent, how is: This person didn't take offers for either player, or both, from 6 people in the league who would have certainly offered something better (and probably did, since trade requests are common), and instead made a clearly -EV trade with his best friend in the league.

Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Great, you're comparing different scoring systems and neglecting the value of the QB who's available for free. Great analysis. And you can't add. It's 281 (3 players) vs. 271 (2 players).

Let's use your numbers (not that it's perfect for predicting the future, but hey): LT is 66 points better than Parker. Edwards is 35 points better than Driver. That's 101 points. Eli has 111 points total. So put Jeff Garcia at 80 (which is probably low), and this trade is way imbalanced.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if you want to follow the rules to the word.. it talks about the owners INTENT. As long as he is trying to improve his team it is acceptable. What you feel about it has NO BEARING on the situation at all.

Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
 

God damn you can't read at all, can you? Try rule 3 again.

Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
 

The reason those rules exist is so that some noob who doesn't really understand football doesn't screw the league up for everyone. I don't know NFL players as well as MLB players, but if I'm in a league and Eric Byrnes plus IRod are traded for Arod, I'm going to object. I don't care if the other owner thinks he's getting a good deal with a +outfielder and a modest improvement over replacement level catcher for the best shortstop, and one of the best fantasy players in the game. A trade like that would ruin the fairness of the league.

Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
 

[ QUOTE ]
God damn you can't read at all, can you? Try rule 3 again.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do understand what a collusive action means right? That means the owners agree to try to benefit one team. Not that one owner agrees to a trade that everyone else thinks only benefit one team. Rule 3 does not encompass an unbalanced trade.. it encompasses a collusive one.


Main Entry:
col·lu·sion Listen to the pronunciation of collusion
Pronunciation:
\kə-ˈlü-zhən\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin collusion-, collusio, from colludere
Date:
14th century

: secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose

You are being a real jerk here. You come and ask advice.. everyone disagrees with you.. and you get personal about things. I'm sorry you don't like the trade but there is no grounds for veto at all.

Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
 

[ QUOTE ]
God damn you can't read at all, can you? Try rule 3 again.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you already knew, just [censored] veto it and stfu. If you want our opinion, it's quite clear: your rule is ridiculous because nobody can really KNOW a trade won't benefit a team, especially when it is in a case like this where it's pretty close. The guy seems to be trying to make a trade to improve his team, it seems fine to me (and what's to stop him from doing the trade and pikcing up Jeff Garcia anyway?)

Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
 

OP,

Why did you bother asking this here? You're going to do what you want, anyway. It's pretty obvious that you just wanted a bunch of people to validate your opinon. It didn't happen and now you're being a dick.

Just go tell your buddies "It's my way or the highway" and be the guy who can never find anyone to join another fantasy football league because he's a control freak.

*edit* Also, as far as rule 3 goes, your reading comprehension sucks.

Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
 

[ QUOTE ]
God damn you can't read at all, can you? Try rule 3 again.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't believe you've played fantasy football for any amount of time and get worked up over a trade like this. Is it perfect? No of course not, but to suggest that this should be vetoed as collusion is really stupid.

Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
 

This trade is fine get over it.

Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
 

[ QUOTE ]
3. No owner will engage in any action that might be deemed to be collusive (two or more owners agreeing to make moves that benefit one team, but not the other).

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP.

For the few people who've offered constructive opinions on both sides, sorry, but there are just too many opinionated retards who can't read to try to get a gauge of intelligent opinion here, which was the point of the thread. Sorry.

Of course I consider the trade to be against the rules, and I already cast a veto vote. I wanted people *who could read the rules and apply them* to give their opinions, but of course 80% of the thread is just geniuses who can't read and "know how it should be done in fantasy football" based on divine inspiration or something.

Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
 

[ QUOTE ]
This trade is fine get over it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
3. No owner will engage in any action that might be deemed to be collusive (two or more owners agreeing to make moves that benefit one team, but not the other).

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP.

For the few people who've offered constructive opinions on both sides, sorry, but there are just too many opinionated retards who can't read to try to get a gauge of intelligent opinion here, which was the point of the thread. Sorry.

[/ QUOTE ]

You really aren't wanting to veto it because it MIGHT be collusive are you?

OP, 100% honest question -- Do you think this trade involves collusion (cheating, reread my definition if you have to)?

Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
 

I believe this trade, in any identical league with different players, is against the rules because of its lopsidedness. I also believe that in this instance it is flat out collusion, but I certainly wouldn't be asking you guys for help determining *that*, since you don't know either person or the way the league has played out.

Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
 

I LOL at threads like this where the OP asks a question, then everyone tells OP the answer and OP is like WTF you're all wrong.

Why ask the question when you already made up your mind? Get out of your convoluted fantasy world that your brain lives in.