RFFL Chump Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 That's not true. I'm arguing that this is not a cheap bye-week solution in which you'd trade me a WR and I trade you a RB to start. Point is that each player taking part of such a deal is handicapped for the week. I believe my team will score more point with Chicago a my defense, instead of Baltimore. The other owner feels the same way. I also believe that the Ravens will score better for the remainder of the season. He like the Bears better. Yes, they are very even entities, but built into the value of these entities is the fact that there production is inherently reduced simply b/c they are playing against my own team. Both owners believe our teams will score more points if we don't have to shoot ourselves in the foot every play. Would it be more fair to me to be forced to drop my defense, pick up a worse one, and let someone else take the best defense in FFL? That's why we play FF, Is it a good chance or do go with what I have? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 (edited) Would it be more fair to me to be forced to drop my defense, pick up a worse one, and let someone else take the best defense in FFL? Did you seriously ask that question? It's your perrogative as an owner to determine your own roster and whom you should or shouldn't keep on it. But to justify this because it would force you to drop the best D in the league is not only a straw man argument and competely unrelated to the issue at hand, but nonsense also. If CHI's D & BAL's D score the same this week, I fail to see how you are being harmed in any way, shape, or form by being forced to to play your D against your own players as opposed to playing an equal D against some other team's players. Quite frankly, that whole notion also seems nonsensical to me. Points is points. Who cares if your D has the same points but gets them against your O players, or if you swap Ds and your new temporary D scores the same amount of points against someone else's players? That you think one D will score more than the other and your cohort thinks the opposite is moot, as you can't prove either speculation until the games are over. But make no mistake, by making a one week swap like this, you and your cohort are clearly pooling your teams and then choosing together which D each owner plays. That's wrong, no matter how you slice it. Edited September 28, 2006 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 I'll post one other thing, and then stop. That you posted here looking for opinions must mean that you know something doesn't smell right here. That you are arguing contrary to that point doesn't matter - if you knew this was 100% legit, you wouldn't be seeking advice or commentary. That alone should let you know that something is wrong, and that you probably shouldn't make the move. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmo-J Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 Let's put this question another way: Let's say this was two other teams in your league, this was the last game of the regular season (granted trades wouldn't be allowed this late in the season, but I'm making a point), and team A and team B were going to do this same arrangment to improve scoring for both teams. However, if team A wins, you get knocked out of the playoffs and he takes your spot. And it doesn't matter to team B because he already has a playoff spot locked up in a different division, but he would certainly like another Win. Would you then see it as collusion or cheating? Would you then say this is fair? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cameltosis Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 I'll post one other thing, and then stop. That you posted here looking for opinions must mean that you know something doesn't smell right here. That you are arguing contrary to that point doesn't matter - if you knew this was 100% legit, you wouldn't be seeking advice or commentary. That alone should let you know that something is wrong, and that you probably shouldn't make the move. werd. It sounds to me like you already did this and are either looking to ease your conscience, or you are trying to prove a point to an arguing league member. Either way, making a trade with a preconceived plan to trade back, is collusion. Any other argument is wased breath in my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 Preplanned tradebacks is an example of collusion. Not legitimate. Bingo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocknrobn26 Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 I see nothing wrong w/ it, as long as you're in a: Freakin' 2 team league!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatman Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 Yes, they are very even entities, but built into the value of these entities is the fact that there production is inherently reduced simply b/c they are playing against my own team. This is a fallacy. It seems like you are shooting yourself in the foot because every time your team scores, the points for the DEF go down. In reality, however, you are only looking for the DEF that scores the most points. If, at the end of the day, Chicago scores 10 points and San Diego scores 8 points, who the hell cares that they were facing your offensive players? This is about starting the players that score the most points, period. Oh, and it's chickensh*t to swap players for a week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 I get the picture... people might consider this collusion. However, just for the sake of discussion, I think people are very quick to jump to a conclusion. In this particular situation, we are trading, IMO, comparable players with comparable matchups. The two best defenses, both at home. I don't believe there is a a lot of expected varience in either teams performance. We're not talking about two single players who can get injured. And I'm not talking about a "you take my WR and I take your RB to help with bye weeks" situation. Would I feel cheated? Not any more or less cheated than if I go out and pick up a defense and it goes off for my team. And lets not forget, either team could perform poorly and either one of us the game just as easily. People might consider it cheating ... open your eyes EVERYBODY WILL consider it cheating. What happens if two key defensive players on one of the defenses gets hurt and the original owner refuses to trade back? Because the are "comparable players with comparable matchups" is irrelevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wolf Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 So... a guy in my league has Hasselbeck, D Jax and Seattle K and he's facing his own Defense (The Bears). I have LT and Kaeding and am going against my Defense (The Ravens). I have no Seahawk and he has no Chargers. Have you ever heard of two teams doing a one week swap like this? Is it legit? I don't have my dictionary handy but I am fairly certain that that is the definition of collusion... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 That's not true. I'm arguing that this is not a cheap bye-week solution in which you'd trade me a WR and I trade you a RB to start. Point is that each player taking part of such a deal is handicapped for the week. I believe my team will score more point with Chicago a my defense, instead of Baltimore. The other owner feels the same way. I also believe that the Ravens will score better for the remainder of the season. He like the Bears better. Yes, they are very even entities, but built into the value of these entities is the fact that there production is inherently reduced simply b/c they are playing against my own team. Both owners believe our teams will score more points if we don't have to shoot ourselves in the foot every play. Would it be more fair to me to be forced to drop my defense, pick up a worse one, and let someone else take the best defense in FFL? "Forced to drop my defense, pick up a worse one, and let someone else take the best defense in the FFL" You've got to be kidding. Welcome to the world of fantasy football roster management. We all have to plan for off weeks. Or are going to start allowing all teams in the league the swap players on a temporary basis to cover an off week. You are trying to justify cheating and it is pretty damn lame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 "Forced to drop my defense, pick up a worse one, and let someone else take the best defense in the FFL" You've got to be kidding. Welcome to the world of fantasy football roster management. We all have to plan for off weeks. Or are going to start allowing all teams in the league the swap players on a temporary basis to cover an off week. You are trying to justify cheating and it is pretty damn lame. And here's the other reason this thread bothers me. It puts me squarely in the same camp as Blitz, and no good could possibly come of an event like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengal Mania Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 why don't you just trade defenses and leave it at that. Both D's are awesome, and pretty even. It does in fact help you this week, but it no way is it unfair, IMO, since it's a permanent trade of equal "players". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 Welcome to the world of fantasy football roster management. We all have to plan for off weeks. Exactly. I have the Bears in one league and I will need to drop a halfway decent receiver to cover their bye. It's just the way it is - if you want to keep the Bears D, drop someone for another D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easy n Dirty Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 Be an even more interesting situation if the two teams in question were playing against each other this weekend... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MustOfBeenDrunk Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 NO GOOD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ced1001 Posted September 28, 2006 Author Share Posted September 28, 2006 Did you seriously ask that question? and If CHI's D & BAL's D score the same this week, I fail to see how you are being harmed in any way, shape, or form by being forced to to play your D against your own players as opposed to playing an equal D against some other team's players. Quite frankly, that whole notion also seems nonsensical to me. Points is points. Who cares if your D has the same points but gets them against your O players, or if you swap Ds and your new temporary D scores the same amount of points against someone else's players? That you think one D will score more than the other and your cohort thinks the opposite is moot, as you can't prove either speculation until the games are over. But make no mistake, by making a one week swap like this, you and your cohort are clearly pooling your teams and then choosing together which D each owner plays. That's wrong, no matter how you slice it. The point I was trying to make by asking that question is simply this: I wasn't sure given the very specific nature of the situation whether this was really collusion. I'm still not sure this is really collusion. Nobody here has convinced me that this is wrong. Three quarters of the answers are people making one word posts like "ghey" and not giving full consideration to the details od the situation. I understand your argument and appreciate your views. There's also no need to assume anyone is being dishonest or trying to be a cheat. I don't think you know me that well. In my league every trade is approved by the league in full terms/full disclosure. There's no secret agreement. It's not an attempt to sneak it past anyone. We are both simply attempting to improve our own team's chances of winning this week and every other week going forward. I don't really feel like the concept of pooling rosters applies here because we both want to win. In an extreme situation, pooling would mean pulling all of your best players together on one team, to making on player dominant so two owners could split the prize. In this case we are trading players of equal value. This would be a mutaully beneficial move. The second part of your post: In my league, when you have offensive players going against your defense, the scoring handicap is a binary situation. When my offense scores, my defense loses points. If I was using a different defense, these event become distinct and I no longer automatically lose points when my own team scores. Instead I have a shot that the defense I have traded for does well. But there's also the possibility that they will do poorly. There is no certainty of a beneficial outcome - that would 100% be cheating. It's not like, if i didn't do this, I'd have an empty roster spot. I'd just pick up another defense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 (edited) You've asked if the single week trade and swap back is "legit". You've gotten a resounding and unanimous NO, yet you are still trying to justify it to yourself. Each and every week owners could make these kind of swaps for a variety of reaons. For instance assume you are in my division. I feel like I'm playing a weak opponent this week and I really want YOUR opponent to win because with my win and your loss my position in the division is MUCH improved. My QB is McNabb, your opponents QB is Bledsoe. If your opponent and I feel like Bledsoe is not a good play this week because Dallas will be able to run the ball and I feel like I can still win my game with Bledsoe because I have a weaker opponent then we can swap Bledsoe and McNabb. Then next week we can swap them back. There is no way if you were to tell your league that you guys are making a one week trade that the trade would be accepted. That means you guys would have to agree in secret (collusion) to trade the players back after this week. Then assuming your rules don't prevent swap backs there is nothing your league can do about your cheating. There is also the potential problem that one owner will decide he doesn't want to swap back. If you don't like to play your players against your defense then carry 2 defenses. But like BB has already said ... your players will score they points they score regardless. If you expect both defenses to perform similiarily then the fact that you swapped defenses has no impact what so ever. If both BAL and CHI score 10 points then it has no impact on your offensive scoring as to which defense you actually had. However, you are wanting to make this swap because you DON'T believe the defenses will score the same. You are trying to collude to gain an advantage. This is the same bogus argument as saying having a QB-WR hookup some how creates extra points. Edited September 28, 2006 by Grits and Shins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBoog Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 So... a guy in my league has Hasselbeck, D Jax and Seattle K and he's facing his own Defense (The Bears). I have LT and Kaeding and am going against my Defense (The Ravens). I have no Seahawk and he has no Chargers. Have you ever heard of two teams doing a one week swap like this? Is it legit? It is only legit if you don't trade back. We have a rule that states that GMs can not trade for players they have previously traded away. The reason is that it is not a real trade. You have no intention of trading to improve your team, you are only trading for convenience. If there is no intention of keeping the player past this week, why, in the real world would you do the move? This is one of the few instances when you can try to apply the reality of of what real NFL teams would do. They would not lend their players to another team for one week and get them back. The other thing is that it doesn't make sence. It is FANTASY football. The Chargers may score 40 points on the Ravens and the Ravens could still pick a couple passes off and run them back for scores along with a special teams TD and have a huge game, even if they give up a bunch of points. They did well in a fantasy perspective last week, but still gave up 300 yards in the air despite getting a bunch of sacks. The other thing is that you not starting the Ravens is not like changing anything that is going to happen on the field. The Chargers and the Ravens will still play each other this weekend, even if you make this move. How does this help you or the other guy? I just don't get it other than the "who do I root for" factor. Just look at it this way. When the Charger have the ball, only good things can happen for you. Offensive or Defensive scores. Receptions, yardage, INTs, fumble recoveries, sacks, etc. Whatever happens is going to score you points when the Bolts have the ball! Chill brah, and don't try to cheat the system! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackass Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 The point I was trying to make by asking that question is simply this: I wasn't sure given the very specific nature of the situation whether this was really collusion. I'm still not sure this is really collusion. Nobody here has convinced me that this is wrong. Three quarters of the answers are people making one word posts like "ghey" and not giving full consideration to the details od the situation. People are posting one word responses like "ghey" because it is "ghey" and they don't want to waste more than 2 seconds of their time responding. I believe that these people have given full consideration to the details of the situation and come to their conclusion. I'm not sure that this post deserves the lengthy responses that some have been nice enough to provide, but my guess is that it irritates them so much that people like you just don't "get it" that they feel they have to attempt to explain it to you. So you've gotten the opinion of lots of people. If you're still not convinced, just make the trade and deal with the consequences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBoog Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 Another thing that both of you have to be thinking is, YOU= The Chargers are going to score a lot of points and the Seahawks won't... and HE= The Seahawks are going to score a lot of points and the Chargers won't. I agree with Grits! It is a twisted version of the QB-WR double points thinking. It makes no sense at all. Can you try and explain in a different way how you think it will help BOTH of you at the same time? If the trade is not going to help BOTH teams in some tangible and real way, for the season or future draft consideration, the trade should not be done. I am not sure it can be called collusion, except in Grits scenario. This is about the strangest thing I have ever seem in my years on these boards! What is even stranger is how many people have told you it is WRONG, and you keep trying to justify it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LosGatosEnFuegos Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 Everyone seems to have decided to disregard my post, so I'll reiterate: This is NOT collusion. Whoever said it's the definition of collusion is way off base. This is a swap being made PURELY FOR MENTAL HEALTH. Watching games and rooting for players on the offense as well as the opposing defensive team makes the game difficult to watch. It's much more enjoyable to have another defense that week. It is not a disadvantage to have the defense that your skill position players are up against. It gives you more of a chance for a boom or bust type of week, but it doesn't give you an actual advantage (especially not when both defenses are top echelon scorers) The only effect it really has is on an owner's hopes. This is a more difficult area to judge the legitimacy of a move in, so people simply choose to ignore it. But anyway you shake it, CED, you've received your answer loud and clear. No matter the legitimacy of this move, no one really cares about you being able to watch a game comfortably, rooting for one side or the other. They care about numbers and what they can see in front of them. To them, and certainly all of your leaguemates, this is a dubious move that they are going to scream about until they are blue in the face. Disallowing it is not really reprehensible though, as such a swap, even in an innocent situation like yours, can set a precedent and open the door for other, less innocent swaps (bye week covers, etc). If that bothers you, well, go find some people who are intelligent and open-minded enough to sit down and consider things on a case by case basis instead of making generalizations and giving kneejerk reactions. People who also have enough time to do that and are willing to devote that time to caring about how you feel while watching a football game this week. I'll save you a bunch of trouble though, CED. You ain't gonna find them, especially when their interests are involved in the issue at hand. And if you have a problem with that, well, tough sh*t. We don't live in that kind of world anymore. After seeing what happens when you even propose such an idea, you should feel enough social responsibility to not upset the herd. Forget about this frivolous move and get on with your season, in which i wish you the best of luck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scorcher Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 Here's an equally legit solution to what you suggest. Contact the NFL and see if the Bears defense could play against their own offense , and the same with the Ravens..................just for this week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coyote Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 To me this is like being against abortion but for the death penalty. A trade is a trade. If it is fair one week, its fair the next week. Honestly, isn't every trade technically collusion by two owners. I am not sure how you veto a trade like this if it is even. We do not have any trade back policies in the league that I have commished for 10 years and this has never been an issue. I think it is and should be a gentlemens agreement sort of thing but if you didn't really see it coming and the two teams do not have a history of this behavior, how do you veto it? Especially some of you that are so against the veto. Seems a little hypocritical......devil's advocate here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
satelliteoflovegm Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 I think you are actually increasing your chance of a poor outing. If you have the Chargers players against the Ravens D one or the other pretty much has to do well. If you have the other situation both the Chargers players and the Bears D could do poorly. Of course they could both do well, but it isn't the point. I agree with the others, it is wrong and you should avoid the situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.