Huddlers weigh in: is this collusion or just a rule loophole explotation?

[msaint]

Team A needs a kicker this week, has Carney on bye.

Team B has an extra kicker.

 

Team A gets: Vanderjagt in Week 7

Team B gets nobody in Week 7, but gets Doug Gabriel in Week 8.

 

Now, there's no written rule against this "player to be named later" trade, and we've allowed it with free agent pickups in the past -- we get one per week based on reverse order, so there have been trades where Team 1 trades a guy in one week for Team 2's FA pick the following week.

 

Still, this type of "player to be named later" trade -- where the player is actually known -- seems like a slightly more egregious "I'll scratch your back, you scratch mine" situation. Add to that the fact that the guy trading VJagt and getting Gabriel the following week has ALWAYS looked for little rules loopholes to exploit (e.g. was the guy who tanked a Week 13 game last season by benching a healthy TE, LJ Smith, in order to purposely take a zero at that position and lose his game, all to play a perceived worse opponent in the playoffs. Again, no written rule against it, but just a little shady and weasly in a friendly league, I thought).

 

Anyway, the trade is minor players and not a big deal, so I'm not into overruling it -- but does it set a bad precedent and entice people to always search for shady rules loopholes? What's to stop me from making a trade right now with a team saying "I get your best RB and WR in week 16 if you're out of the playoffs, and vice versa"...it's shady as hell, sure, but hey -- there's "no written rule against it."

[Ursa Majoris]

Your last sentence would be collusion, obviously.

 

As far as the current issue goes, people always find loopholes and rules are written to close them. A rules review post-season should be mandatory for any league, IMO. Right now I don't think this is collusion so much as a loophole exploitation.

Edited October 22, 2006 by Ursa Majoris

[Popeye]

I would not allow that trade. If you do, you leave the rest of the league wide open to make such trades in the future. A trade is a trade and all players involved should go to their prospective team once the trade is completed, unless of course it is a draft pick for next year. JMO

[tosberg34]

Team A needs a kicker this week, has Carney on bye.

Team B has an extra kicker.

 

Team A gets: Vanderjagt in Week 7

Team B gets nobody in Week 7, but gets Doug Gabriel in Week 8.

 

Now, there's no written rule against this "player to be named later" trade, and we've allowed it with free agent pickups in the past -- we get one per week based on reverse order, so there have been trades where Team 1 trades a guy in one week for Team 2's FA pick the following week.

 

Still, this type of "player to be named later" trade -- where the player is actually known -- seems like a slightly more egregious "I'll scratch your back, you scratch mine" situation. Add to that the fact that the guy trading VJagt and getting Gabriel the following week has ALWAYS looked for little rules loopholes to exploit (e.g. was the guy who tanked a Week 13 game last season by benching a healthy TE, LJ Smith, in order to purposely take a zero at that position and lose his game, all to play a perceived worse opponent in the playoffs. Again, no written rule against it, but just a little shady and weasly in a friendly league, I thought).

 

Anyway, the trade is minor players and not a big deal, so I'm not into overruling it -- but does it set a bad precedent and entice people to always search for shady rules loopholes? What's to stop me from making a trade right now with a team saying "I get your best RB and WR in week 16 if you're out of the playoffs, and vice versa"...it's shady as hell, sure, but hey -- there's "no written rule against it."

 

Well, seems like an exploitation you might need to patch NEXT year. It's too late to do anything about it this year. The fact that you have a weasel trying to find every exploit that he can is irrelevent. Next year you either need to specify in the rules what is and is not allowed or face this type of issue year in and year out. Or just boot him out of the league. But I would still clarify your rules better.

[SLAYER]

Your last sentence would be collusion, obviously.

 

As far as the current issue goes, people always find loopholes and rules are written to close them. A rules review post-season should be mandatory for any league, IMO. Right now I don't think this is collusion so much as a loophole exploitation.

 

 

Agree with above loophole exploitation

[PackerFanX]

The trade should be allowed but you will need to tighten up your rules next year. My leagues typically don't allow trades after week 11 or 12 and any add/drops are also reviewed so a non-playoff team doesn't drop a stud.

Edited October 22, 2006 by PackerFanX

[msaint]

Your last sentence would be collusion, obviously.

 

As far as the current issue goes, people always find loopholes and rules are written to close them. A rules review post-season should be mandatory for any league, IMO. Right now I don't think this is collusion so much as a loophole exploitation.

 

i know, i was exaggerating bigtime with my last sentence. and, yes, this isn't collusion in the traditional sense, it's just that this guy fancies himself the machiavellian sneak and always looks for new ways to exploit rules.

[Chavez]

Seems to be an unfortunate expoitation of a loophole.

 

Besides, isn't ANY trade by definition "collusion"?

[Ursa Majoris]

i know, i was exaggerating bigtime with my last sentence. and, yes, this isn't collusion in the traditional sense, it's just that this guy fancies himself the machiavellian sneak and always looks for new ways to exploit rules.

There's always one. It is probably part of the fun to him - I doubt he's being malicious, he just wants to be a clever bassturd.

 

In OUTRAGED, we review the rules in the summer with a view to covering every circumstance that cropped up in the previous season, not just trades. It's a useful exercise for all of us. In this case, a review later is pretty much all you can do, I think.

[Junkyard]

Are there roster limits in the league? It looks like Team A gets an extra roster spot for this week, because he can use Vandy and Gabriel. It does seem like a loophole rather than collusion, but I think it also attacks the league credibility (which the commish CAN control) when teams have the advantage of playing with larger rosters.

 

Just looking at it from a different angle. I also don't think it matters that it's minor players involved, because the next situation could include much bigger names. Better to knock this down now, if possible.

[tosberg34]

i know, i was exaggerating bigtime with my last sentence. and, yes, this isn't collusion in the traditional sense, it's just that this guy fancies himself the machiavellian sneak and always looks for new ways to exploit rules.

 

 

EVERY league always has one guy like this. He sits in front of his PC admiring how clever he is that he found another way to get around the rules while the other 10 (10 only because there is another owner he is exploiting with) owners want to beat the oh poopy out of him. Unfortunately, like I said earlier, you have to harden your rules against this next year.

[Chavez]

i know, i was exaggerating bigtime with my last sentence. and, yes, this isn't collusion in the traditional sense, it's just that this guy fancies himself the machiavellian sneak and always looks for new ways to exploit rules.

 

You should strive to be your league's Sun Tzu and see which philosophy is better suited to FF.

[Zooty]

You'll always have one owner looking for loopholes. I actually had to install a No Player to be Named Later rule because of it in one league.

 

You have to let it go then change the rule next year if you don't like it.

[Teacon]

I have put this up before and gotten mixed reviews......but here goes....

 

We have a 48 hour counter rule. First, if the trade isn't made 48 hrs prior to gametime, the trade isn't in effect for that week. All owners in the league have the opportunity to send a counter proposal to either party of the original trade. If one or the other party accepts the counter proposal, the original trade is nullified and the new trade gets posted for it's 48 hr counter period and so on and so forth.

This rule has been the best thing we have done for our leagues. We haven't had a collusion issue in 8 or 9 years.

As a matter of fact, our leagues were born of a division of another league 12 years ago regarding a collusive trade (before my time). The league split over that trade during the season as the commish was part of the collusion.

Yes, early on there were some hard feelings when counter proposals were accepted, but once we did it for awhile, everybody got used to it and now it is simply a regular part of play. Everyone knows going in that they may lose out on a counter.

To top all that, counter proposals have decreased tremendously from the first 4 or 5 years of the rule in the last 4 years as owners now do a much better job of putting together quality, even trades that are hard to counter.

Edited October 22, 2006 by Teacon

[MikesVikes]

Player to be named later is a violation of your roster limit, imo. This is a direct "borrowing" of a player and you should have grounds to disallow it if you wanted.

 

Even if they did a trade and reversed the deal a week later, that would be better than having a player to be named later deal.

[Grits and Shins]

I have put this up before and gotten mixed reviews......but here goes....

 

We have a 48 hour counter rule. First, if the trade isn't made 48 hrs prior to gametime, the trade isn't in effect for that week. All owners in the league have the opportunity to send a counter proposal to either party of the original trade. If one or the other party accepts the counter proposal, the original trade is nullified and the new trade gets posted for it's 48 hr counter period and so on and so forth.

This rule has been the best thing we have done for our leagues. We haven't had a collusion issue in 8 or 9 years.

As a matter of fact, our leagues were born of a division of another league 12 years ago regarding a collusive trade (before my time). The league split over that trade during the season as the commish was part of the collusion.

Yes, early on there were some hard feelings when counter proposals were accepted, but once we did it for awhile, everybody got used to it and now it is simply a regular part of play. Everyone knows going in that they may lose out on a counter.

To top all that, counter proposals have decreased tremendously from the first 4 or 5 years of the rule in the last 4 years as owners now do a much better job of putting together quality, even trades that are hard to counter.

 

 

I would not play in your league. Allowing another owner to take advantage of all the footwork I did to work a trade is bogus.

[Teacon]

I would not play in your league. Allowing another owner to take advantage of all the footwork I did to work a trade is bogus.

 

 

I've been told that when I posted here before, but people who tend to disagree w/the rule are the people who tend to want to take advantage of others in a trade, IMO. Pay attention to the last part of the post.....the counter rule has improved original deals as owners don't want to be countered. It works now more as a deterrent to collusion or even lopsided trades.

 

Of course, there are always horse-traders out there who get their ego boost from jipping someone and then pounding their chests about how good a wheeler and dealer they are. Legwork = working out a fair and equitable trade that the league has no cause to whine about.

[Bronco Billy]

This isn't a loophole. What you have is two teams pooling their rosters to the benefit of both teams with a one week loan of players, but to the detriment of the rest of the league. That by definition is collusion.

 

Your league ought to kick both owners out - now!

 

Just re-read it. I don't see anything where owners are getting their players back after the trade. It looks like you have clever owners who are exploiting some deficiency in your league rules regarding both roster limits & deferred trades. Looks okay to me, but your league will probably want to address it during the offseason.

Edited October 22, 2006 by Bronco Billy

[Gunther]

Are there roster limits in the league? It looks like Team A gets an extra roster spot for this week, because he can use Vandy and Gabriel. It does seem like a loophole rather than collusion, but I think it also attacks the league credibility (which the commish CAN control) when teams have the advantage of playing with larger rosters.

 

Just looking at it from a different angle. I also don't think it matters that it's minor players involved, because the next situation could include much bigger names. Better to knock this down now, if possible.

 

I was thinking "roster limits" as well.

 

This is interesting, I will have to see about shoring up our rules to avoid this in the future...although I doubt anyone in my local would do such a thing.

[Grits and Shins]

I've been told that when I posted here before, but people who tend to disagree w/the rule are the people who tend to want to take advantage of others in a trade, IMO. Pay attention to the last part of the post.....the counter rule has improved original deals as owners don't want to be countered. It works now more as a deterrent to collusion or even lopsided trades.

 

Of course, there are always horse-traders out there who get their ego boost from jipping someone and then pounding their chests about how good a wheeler and dealer they are. Legwork = working out a fair and equitable trade that the league has no cause to whine about.

 

 

I always try to make my trades fair and equitable. I don't like the fact that I work my keester off for a week to nail together a trade we can both agree is fair and then any yahoo in the league can shoot it down by making a counter offer.

 

Nope you can keep your bogus rule.

 

Additionally it is not the league's business to regulate trades.

[rocknrobn26]

I was thinking "roster limits" as well.

 

 

 

Agree and add a min. must keep time, like 4 weeks.

[Teacon]

I always try to make my trades fair and equitable. I don't like the fact that I work my keester off for a week to nail together a trade we can both agree is fair and then any yahoo in the league can shoot it down by making a counter offer.

 

Nope you can keep your bogus rule.

 

Additionally it is not the league's business to regulate trades.

 

 

 

What, as opposed to letting a commish who is either unethical or just plain stupid make arbitrary decision about collusion? Nope, sorry, this is democracy at its best. If a trade doesn't get countered, then no one in the league has a beetch. Checks and balances.

Funny there....in joking, we sometimes get the mass "why didn't someone counter that trade" email. It is a joke because the author knows he himself could have countered as well.

Grits, you and I have been around a long time, and if you say that you put together fair trades, not only would they not be countered, you probably wouldn't even get counter proposals to consider. I think you would like it more if you saw it in action. Reread the post...I don't think we've had counters accepted in years.