Football Forum

View the Forum Registry


Self-edit this thread


0 Subject: Is this collusion? Or a reasonable strat for H2H

Posted by: culdeus
- Donor [5480118] Fri, Sep 19, 2003, 09:38

In a league two people have made it known that they intend to basically "share" a bench spot.

To to this they will...

1. Team A sends WR on bye to Team B for RB on bench of Team A to fill bye week needs.

2. Next week they reverse the trade

3. Later on they mirror the trade except Team B send the guy on bye to Team A

They have made their intentions known to everyone and said "veto it" if you don't like it.

Is this fair?
1Ender
      Donor
      ID: 298291613
      Fri, Sep 19, 2003, 09:43
I'd veto. It may be possible to do it, but that doesn't make it right. It just feels wrong and is not in the spirit of the game IMO. I'll think about it some more and get back if I come up with anything else, but at the moment it just sounds wrong.
2Khahan
      ID: 3127107
      Fri, Sep 19, 2003, 09:45
Its collusion. They are agreeing to share players between each other and have made it known.
They are giving themselves an unfair advantage over all the other players by agreement between the 2 of them.
3Sludge
      Sustainer
      ID: 3065149
      Fri, Sep 19, 2003, 09:49
When I define collusion to someone who asks me what I, as commissioner, would define as collusion, this is the exact example I use.
4Battles
      ID: 5851217
      Fri, Sep 19, 2003, 09:55
Collusion. You know I'd be telling them what I thought if it was our league.
5Slowhand
      Leader
      ID: 56744223
      Fri, Sep 19, 2003, 10:01
Definately collusion;I'm a commissioner in two leagues and would veto this type of trading in a heartbeat.It amounts to each of those teams having an extra roster spot.
6Ender
      Donor
      ID: 298291613
      Fri, Sep 19, 2003, 10:02
Yep. That's the best way to describe it. I couldn't put it in words for some reason in post 1, but it effectively gives them each an extra roster slot.
7Myboyjack
      Leader
      ID: 108231015
      Fri, Sep 19, 2003, 10:05
collusion.
8culdeus
      Donor
      ID: 5480118
      Fri, Sep 19, 2003, 10:23
Ok, I emailed them some of the responses here and vetoed the trade myself.

They didn't really make a good argument for it, only basically posting a contract between themselves in a CYA sort of way.

The only justification (and a very poor one at that) is there is the heightened injury risk taken on by more games played by the players you have. It be interesting to see how they handled trading back a guy that was out for the season.

Thanks
9Challenger
      ID: 135231212
      Fri, Sep 19, 2003, 10:30
Collusion
10sarge33rd
      ID: 324532412
      Fri, Sep 19, 2003, 10:48
There's not even room to debate the question. When two managers agree in advance, to execute trades back-and-forth, that is THE definition of collusion. This is exactly what a commissioner is supposed to step in and prevent. Even if the league voted to OK the trade, as commish, I'd block it and those who took umbrage, would be invited to join a different league the following year. If all departed and the league disbanded...*shrug* so be it. Right is right, wrong is wrong...and THIS is wrong as it can be.
11culdeus
      Donor
      ID: 5480118
      Fri, Sep 19, 2003, 11:05
At least they made their intentions public. I probably wouldn't have put two and two together, especially if they spaced out the trades a couple of weeks apart and changed the players involved by one or something.

There is quite a bit of trading going on, most of it the "Make me an offer for Q Morgan" sort of stuff. This would have slipped under the radar of 90% of the guys there.
12Motley Crue
      Donor
      ID: 21553314
      Fri, Sep 19, 2003, 11:28
Cheating!!

It would be funny to see what happened if their plan didn't work out the way they set it up. Like if one of them went back on the agreement if a player turns into a stud.

"What do you mean `It's my turn this week,' Chuck? Boldin is on my team. I'm not just gonna give him to you."

That would be sweet if they got mad at each other over it.
13Chuck
      Donor
      ID: 367512313
      Fri, Sep 19, 2003, 11:49
Hey, how'd I get brought into this thing??
14Motley Crue
      Donor
      ID: 21553314
      Fri, Sep 19, 2003, 12:33
We'll take that as an admission, Chuck!

Sorry, bro: name just popped into m' head.
15Mike D
      Donor
      ID: 41831612
      Fri, Sep 19, 2003, 12:37
Your assault on trading reputation precedes you again, Chuck!
16Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Fri, Sep 19, 2003, 13:36
Playing devil's advocate,...

This is at least a set of transactions that purports to benefit both teams.

Usually, when I think of collusion, it is when one team (which is throwing in the towel) dumps good players and receives inferior players.

It seems to me that the primary issue here is that the teams have done one swap with an agreement to do a reversal swap in the future. The net long term impact is that both teams are benefitted. If each individual trade is relatively balanced (from a long term perspective), why does the agreement to do the second trade necessarily represent collusion?
17Khahan
      ID: 3127107
      Fri, Sep 19, 2003, 13:41
Guru, I think that is why a couple of people commented that this could have easily gone under the radar if the 2 participants had not been open about it.
The problem is, with your scenario, you are looking at each trade individually. However, in this case, each trade is NOT individual and does not stand alone. There is an agreement to do a total set of transactions. The reason for that set of transactions is essentially to net an extra bench spot to use during the bye week.
Its not the part of the agreement to make a trade that is beneficial (from a player standpoint) to each teams roster. Its the agreement to make a trade that gets around the league rule of a set number of bench spots.
If they want a do this, they should have to use the waiver wire and risk losing the players like anybody else would.
18Mike D
      Donor
      ID: 41831612
      Fri, Sep 19, 2003, 13:48
I think a key reason people jumped on this and called it collusion was the fact that the same trade was in essence taking place 3 times at specified intervals. Not even 2, but 3.

I agree that they could have simply made the deal now and no one would have had a problem with it, assuming relative balance to the trade. Then, they could have made it again the second time (next week). That would have raised a lot of eyebrows. People would have questioned why the same 2 players were being shipped back to their original teams. By the 3rd time around, a lot of people would have been p*ssed.

Does coming out with their intention now affect anything? Also, is it "wrong," as Guru pointed out?

Definitely not the norm. Definitely not the "one team throwing in the towel" scenario. The thing(s) that sets it off from normal trading is the reversal of the trade next week-----not to mention yet another deal involving the same players later!

To me, collusion is 2 teams conspiring to hurt a 3rd team, or 1 team conspiring to help a 2nd team even though it hurts their own team. 2 teams helping each other does not, on its face, constitute collusion to me.

FWIW, Yahoo's dictionary defintes collusion as:

"A secret agreement between two or more parties for a fraudulent, illegal, or deceitful purpose."

This certainly was made public, and therefore isn't secret. It isn't deceitful anymore either. But, a league can make it illegal if it wants to. It is odd, and in some leagues it may not be allowable. That is up to the league (not just the commish).
19Stud For Hire
      ID: 45181610
      Fri, Sep 19, 2003, 13:55
I have to go with guru on this one. It's not collusion because they are both getting better. I look at it like a waiver wire trade in baseball. Sometimes the player will finish out the season with his new team only to return to his old team the next season.

There is nothing saying others in the league cannot do the same thing, and I respect them for their honesty about the plan. If they tried to hide it, I'd be a little more suspicious. Personally, I'd let the trade slide because in the grand scheme of things it really won't make a difference. Think about it, the other guy won't give up one of his starters, so guy #2 is getting a bench player fill in. Not a huge advantage if you ask me.

For example, I'm in a 12 team league with 2 starting QB's and not everyone can have three starters, so on bye weeks some people won't even have a qb to play. I don't see this kind of a strategy being a problem in a league like that because its more unfair to expect someone to make a crippling trade or go without a qb for a week. If someone wants to loan their 3rd string qb out for a week, I wouldn't complain.

However, once the playoffs start, I think the game changes and any sort of deal like this then would most certianly be collusion, but to solve bye week blues, I think this is a mountain out of a mole hill type of deal.

Just my opinion though...
20Perm Dude
      Leader
      ID: 30792616
      Fri, Sep 19, 2003, 14:08
I think it's collusion all the way. Whether it's something you want to allow is up to you.

pd
21Sludge
      Sustainer
      ID: 3065149
      Fri, Sep 19, 2003, 14:18
How can something be right during the regular season but suddenly be wrong during the playoffs? Helping yourself get to the playoffs is somehow less wrong than helping yourself during the playoffs?

The way I see this, the strategy is wrong because it allows two teams to fill in spots for players that have bye weeks without exposing any of their players to the waiver wire process. If two owners at the bottom of the barrel wanted to drop the players expecting to pick them up during the waiver wire process, go for it. Just don't come crying when somebody who slipped below you snags them when you re-release the players the next week. If two teams that are at the top want to do this, go for it as well. I guarantee that the players won't be there when your turn comes around. With a trade, this doesn't happen, as we all well know.

I have running backs A, B, and C with bye weeks 6, 6, and 10, respectively and ranked in that order. Similarly, you have running backs X, Y, and Z with bye weeks 3, 4, and 5. Come week 6, I give B to you and you give me your third RB, Z, so that I have two RB (C and Z) going, as do you (X and Y).

Regardless whether it meets a technical definition of collusion or not, it's still opening a can of worms that doesn't need to be opened. You won't be able to put them back in. Even if it's made clear that this sort of thing is allowed, (a) there are going to be hurt feelings because some owners will be left out, and (b) there will be a huge hullabaloo when, not if, an owner refuses to give the player back. Why should two owners be allowed to gain a distinct advantage just because they know and trust one another? So, go ahead and allow it. Just don't expect your league to last more than a year with anything near the same set of owners.
22Mike D
      Donor
      ID: 41831612
      Fri, Sep 19, 2003, 14:28
I'm not in favor of it happening in a league I'm in either. I just don't think it's collusion.

culdeus could have said "should this be allowed" versus "is this collusion." Maybe it's all semantics.

23Myboyjack
      Leader
      ID: 108231015
      Fri, Sep 19, 2003, 15:04
collusion = a conspiracy to unfairly subvert the rules, equity, or competitive balance of an enterprise. (My definition). That's what this is.
24F GUMP
      ID: 352161623
      Fri, Sep 19, 2003, 15:31
I would vote against it because the ability to restrict trades is to prohibit those trades that are not done for "equal value within the trade". In other words, the swap isnt even, but the party that gets less is getting something on the side APART FROM THE CURRENT TRADE.

In this case, there is not equal value. Someone is accepting a player who is not playable. The "side consideration" is an agreement to "trade back" at a later time.

The problem with side agreements are (1) they allow non-roster issues to impact everyone's chances to win a game (thus they expand the ammo to gain a win); (2) they are unenforceable - ie, if someone supposedly is getting a side benefit, and then doesnt get it, what do ya do? In this case, as was earlier noted, what if the 2nd person doesnt "trade back" as agreed? You have no way to force a trade-back; (3) they will have repurcussions for the other competitors in the league. In this case, they are precluding others from a legit opportunity to claim players that are essentially "dropped"; also, they are giving each other a hidden boost up the waiver ladder (if you use such rules) by not forcing each other to use up a high waiver ranking to get the desired player; and they allow each of the participants to in effect gain extra roster space that they would not have if they weren't "teaming up", and (4) they violate the spirit of "competition", in that 2 players are now working as a team in one area, whereas the other players are working alone.

So each trade MUST be expected to (1) be an independent transaction free of other consideration (2) with equal values (allowing for individual evaluations and roster differences) on both sides. It is unclear if the individual trades would pass test 2, but they certainly fail test 1.
25CanEHdian Pride
      Donor
      ID: 428591114
      Sun, Sep 21, 2003, 06:12
One thing that has to be considered is this:

Would you trust a complete stranger to enter into a "swap back" arrangement with you?

The answer is most likely "no". Which bring to light another issue that has been pretty much overlooked. It is definately collusion if an advantage is garnered by two managers who know each other.

This seems to be a case where 2 managers are familiar enough with each other to work out a deal and have enough trust that the other will carry it out that they believe they can use their relationship to their advantage in the game.

If this is the case, which I believe it is, it is 100% collusion because it is giving a group of players an advantage over the rest of the league. I'd have to say that unless other's were also approached with similar offers that it was a direct attempt to collude (sp?) with each other.
26rockafellerskank
      Leader
      ID: 461124288
      Sun, Sep 21, 2003, 10:27
Guru #16,

I'll play deveil's advocate to your devil's advocate.

If (and I'm not clear you are) arguing that the trade is not collusion because it benefits each team in the long run and is not secret and it is relatively balanced, leyt me propose this scenaro which is not too far removed.

Team A owns Clinton Portis and plays bottom feeders in the next 2 weeks. He has the fist and second place teams back to back later in the year. Team A trade Portis to Team B for Duce Staley. The strike a public agreement that Team B will then trade Portic back to Team A in 2 weeks.

Thsi deal benefits BOTH teams in the long run (each gets to use Portis for it's tough matchups) and it is nota secret.

In my opinion, using a stud for a "rent-a-week" is about the same as sing an average player as a "rent-a-week" to cover a bye week. The incremental points Portis scores over Staley is probbaly about the same as the incremenatl points a waiver wire pick scores over a bye week player.

I think the example I propsed is a clear example of collussionperhaps that is the wrong word by definition), but it is cheating and not in the spirit of the league. The net efect of the original proposal in post 0 and my proposal is about the same.

Sorry if this rambled or is unclear.

Back to original point, Ref and I have stated in the rules (or at least publicly in posts) that the "rent-a-player" strategy is illegal in our leagues. If we knew of it in advance, we would veto. If they kept it secret and tried to trade back, the second trade would be denied. Finally, think this could still happen f the owners were smart enough to spruce up the trade back witha few other scrubs or draft picks in the case ofa keeper league. in thatcase, the commissiner probaly loses his ability to legitimately veto.







27rockafellerskank
      Leader
      ID: 461124288
      Sun, Sep 21, 2003, 10:29
Also, if someone hasn't done it before, I'd like to propse a "spell check" feature be added. Sorry for all the typos, got too much junk goin' on. :)
28Mike D
      Donor
      ID: 23715270
      Sun, Sep 21, 2003, 10:50
rfs, I think there is a difference between your example and the one at the beginning of the thread. You talk about a stud like Portis. What advantage could the team trading him-----for Staley-----be gaining? I don't see any. That's a big difference, because both teams ARE NOT gaining something.

At the top of the thread, the players being moved merely are filling a bye week for the other player, and are not apparently of much significance. Portis? Quite a bit different. So, the "rent a stud" theory doesn't seem to apply in culdeus's example.

In summary:

1. No benefit to the team trading Portis in your example that I can see.

2. No stud being traded/rented in culdeus's example.

Admirable that you and Ref laid out some rules for your league. That's what I was referring to in my post 18------"it is up to the league." Your league was proactive, which is cool.
29rockafellerskank
      Leader
      ID: 461124288
      Sun, Sep 21, 2003, 10:54
I'm making an assumption (a big one) that since this is H2H the team giving up Portis doesn't need him (or is willing to risk it) to beat up on the league scrubs for 2 weeks. Perhaps a better xample would have been Team A has 2 QBs.. gacia and Favre and is willing to rent a QB for 2 weeks (since he can only play 10 for consideration down the road when Team A has tough(er) matchups.

30Mike D
      Donor
      ID: 23715270
      Sun, Sep 21, 2003, 11:45
I still don't see any advantage though to Team A, unlike in culdeus's case where even though one team won't benefit THIS week, they will benefit a different week, from the deal.
31Ender
      Donor
      ID: 13443221
      Sun, Sep 21, 2003, 12:14
There sure is an advantage for team A IMO. He is in competition with the team's that oppose Team B over the next couple weeks. It sure would be nice if Team B could hang a loss on at least one of them using Team A's players.
Rate this thread:
5 (top notch)
4 (even better)
3 (good stuff)
2 (lightweight)
1 (no value)
If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time.

If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating.

If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here.

Football Forum

View the Forum Registry


Self-edit this thread




Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)

Name:
Email:
Message:
Click here to create and insert a link
Ignore line feeds? no (typical)   yes (for HTML table input)


Viewing statistics for this thread
Period# Views# Users
Last hour11
Last 24 hours11
Last 7 days11
Last 30 days66
Since Mar 1, 2007459285