Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?

[grando]

I agree with Victor in this thread - if this isn't collusion I don't really understand what is...

[chim17]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No.. collusion is two teams trying to better only one. One person willingly making his team worse to help another. If someone is trying to better their team.. regardless of what the trade is.. veto is inappropriate.

[/ QUOTE ]
How do you make this determination then? As this thread is showing, it's easy to justify even clearly unfair trades, and obviously no one is stupid enough to try to pass through LT for Amani Toomer if they were actually trying to collude.

[/ QUOTE ]

He says he knows the guys. That's why this whole thread was pretty pointless. In my league I would ask the owner why they did the trade and if they seemed to justify a way they benefitted in their mind thats fine.

How pissed would you be if before this season you had a real feeling Braylon Edwards would go off. You traded Steven Jackson for Braylon Edwards, Derek Anderson, and Earnest Graham (you were handcuffing Cadi, obviously). Everyone in your league goes off calling it collusion and the trade is not done. Not only are you insulted that they would insinuate you cheated but now your championship run is a winless team. I realize this is an extreme example but I have made reaches at players before because I felt their situation was great. It isn't anyone else in my leagues right or responsibility to judge how I value talent.

If you have a need to veto trades that mean you think owners are cheating. I hope people that veto trades don't play with those same players the next year or they are either ok playing with cheaters or are abusing the veto power.

[Victor]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wow, I'm with Victor here. I think it's definitely the commish's job to prevent unfair trades, and I hate playing with people who don't know anything about fantasy football and blatantly rip themselves off. No, not because I don't want to have fun or care that the dude is ruining his own team, but because the competitive balance of the league is screwed if there's a guy who's trading away all of his best players to one other person. Why would you ever want to play in a league like that?

[/ QUOTE ]

The answer to this is to pick your leagues better. The answer is not to play GM for another owner. Don't join leagues with idiots.. but when you join a league don't tell a certain owner that there idea of a trade is not acceptable.

[/ QUOTE ]

so if op did pick a league without idiots and this trade was attempted, would it be reasonable to assume it was collusive?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.. collusion is two teams trying to better only one. One person willingly making his team worse to help another. If someone is trying to better their team.. regardless of what the trade is.. veto is inappropriate.

[/ QUOTE ]

you really didnt answer my question.

i said, assuming team b is "decent and aware" at ffb, you would have assume to collusion here. you dismissed my assertion and gave me a definition that i already knew.

in other words, there are 2 conclusions:

a) team b is terrible at ffb
b) team b is cheating with team a

[lastchance]

Well, duh.

But obviously, you shouldn't veto trades b/c of A, and you should veto trades when B happens.

IN this case, it's likely A. Therefore, don't veto.

[Victor]

"But obviously, you shouldn't veto trades b/c of A,"

ya, im not arguing that you should.

im arguing that i doubt team b is dumb enough to make this trade in good faith.

also, from op it seems parker and driver are both 2nd best at their positions on the team.

makes it even more shadier imo.

[.Alex.]

[ QUOTE ]
How pissed would you be if before this season you had a real feeling Braylon Edwards would go off. You traded Steven Jackson for Braylon Edwards, Derek Anderson, and Earnest Graham (you were handcuffing Cadi, obviously). Everyone in your league goes off calling it collusion and the trade is not done. Not only are you insulted that they would insinuate you cheated but now your championship run is a winless team. I realize this is an extreme example but I have made reaches at players before because I felt their situation was great. It isn't anyone else in my leagues right or responsibility to judge how I value talent.

If you have a need to veto trades that mean you think owners are cheating. I hope people that veto trades don't play with those same players the next year or they are either ok playing with cheaters or are abusing the veto power.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then you would have drafted Edwards in round 3 before anyone else could take him instead of trading away the #2 pick in the draft. If he was taken in rd 5 by the guy who already had LT and then traded to you for Jackson, you better believe there would be an uproar. It's really common sense. There's very rarely a time when a trade can be justified when the objective values of the players involved (based on the collective opinion, espn rankings, etc.) is so uneven.

I agree with your last paragraph though. I'd be very wary of playing with the people in the OP in the future, especially in a money league.

[MCS]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, wtf does his record have to do with how fair the trade is. So just because he's 1-5 means that LT wasn't getting the job done for him and should be traded away to "shake things up"?

[/ QUOTE ]

In general, if your team is bad, it's reasonable to make a trade where you are losing expected points but increasing variance. So trades that would be bad preseason may not be as bad midseason.

And again, if these guys are really that awful, then never play with them again. Fantasy sports are supposed to be fun and people forget that.

[mlagoo]

i dunno... i feel bad commenting because i'm not a big fantasy football player, but i just think this one point hasn't been made by anyone by the op.

like, if it's a pretty lopsided trade between two people that are best friends, one of whom has a legit shot at winning the league, and one of whom likely has no chance, and the guy with no chance is giving a very good deal to his friend... that's definitely fishy. i'm not saying it's necessarily collusive and should be disallowed... but i can see why the op made this thread.

i think he might have got a better reception if he had included the tidbit that they are best friends in the op though (maybe he did and i didn't catch it, i dunno).

[ProfessorBen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How pissed would you be if before this season you had a real feeling Braylon Edwards would go off. You traded Steven Jackson for Braylon Edwards, Derek Anderson, and Earnest Graham (you were handcuffing Cadi, obviously). Everyone in your league goes off calling it collusion and the trade is not done. Not only are you insulted that they would insinuate you cheated but now your championship run is a winless team. I realize this is an extreme example but I have made reaches at players before because I felt their situation was great. It isn't anyone else in my leagues right or responsibility to judge how I value talent.

If you have a need to veto trades that mean you think owners are cheating. I hope people that veto trades don't play with those same players the next year or they are either ok playing with cheaters or are abusing the veto power.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then you would have drafted Edwards in round 3 before anyone else could take him instead of trading away the #2 pick in the draft. If he was taken in rd 5 by the guy who already had LT and then traded to you for Jackson, you better believe there would be an uproar. It's really common sense. There's very rarely a time when a trade can be justified when the objective values of the players involved (based on the collective opinion, espn rankings, etc.) is so uneven.

I agree with your last paragraph though. I'd be very wary of playing with the people in the OP in the future, especially in a money league.

[/ QUOTE ]

This post shows you have little understanding of drafting dynamics.

[dkgojackets]

This thread has gone downhill since OP left, but did he ever say what his record was in this league? My guess is he's competing for a playoff spot with team A and 1) uses veto power unfairly to make sure team A doesn't improve 2) is pissed he didn't take the time to see that team B needed a QB and was too lazy to offer his own trade.

The guy has one win on the season. Who are you to say that he should keep what he has now because otherwise he'll do worse? Let the guy try something to get back into contention, because what he has now is not working.