Collusion or Not Again

[reddog13]

Hey guys I told you guys about two players in my league that were trying to trade Stephen Jax for Fred Taylor and Amani Toomer. Well it was vetoed and now the same two teams have proposed a trade and it has been accepted for Stephen Jax for Fred Taylor and L. Coles.

 

Do you think it is collusion. Any thoughts are appreciated.

[Bronco Billy]

What evidence do you have that this is collusion other than the names of the players involved? Jackson is still on an incredibly crappy STL team that despite its performance last week is much more like the winless team it was in the first 8 games. And I wonder how many more TD passes FF owners expect Jackson to throw.

 

This kind of trade is vetoed strictly based upon name recognition and preconceived ideals that have since been convincingly been proved to be false. A very good argument can be made that the guy getting Jackson is getting screwed royally in this deal.

 

Bottom line: Let owners manage their own freakin' teams unless you can prove collusion is the reason for a trade AND the trade is incredibly one-sided.

[Hat Trick]

Honestly.....I think they have a side deal to stack a team and split the money. But its nearly impossible to prove.

[moman4ever]

It could be collusion. Given Coles is still iffy and not even a real option, I don't see him as immediately helping the guy.

 

If he is going to the playoffs and wants Coles for later on, this is a completely fair trade.

 

Otherwise, there is probably something fishy going on here (if like a last place team wants an unhealthy Coles and an ok Fred Taylor).

 

You can't prove these things. My suggestion would be to ask the person why he wants essentially Fred Taylor for SJackson. He was going to

 

take Toomer, so the WR component isn't really there.

 

The problem with this is that people shouldn't have to question how someone thinks/strategizes.

 

I suspected a messed up trade in my league when someone traded TO for Driver and Derek Anderson. On paper it worked but the guy

 

already had Carson Palmer. It made no sense to me, and when I asked him, he never responded. peaches by the bucket happens. Oh, and he benched Anderson

 

the next two weeks while carson palmer did mediocrely and TO blew up.

[Grits and Shins]

Again, how the hell would I know if the owners in your league are colluding?

[tonorator]

Again, how the hell would I know if the owners in your league are colluding?

 

if they give each other "that look" ...

[MTSuper7]

Coles is significantly more valuable than Toomer. There is no argument here on for collusion. People should be allowed to make trades that they want to make, with vetoes only happening in obvious cheating situations. However, based on what you've seen so far, what I would do if I were you is simply have a talk with these guys about the nature of these trades. Then, after this season is over, either find some new people for your league or set some rules about trading up front that handles these kinds of situations. In general, I don't think that new rules will probably help (not sure what you'd even be able to do from a rules perspective anyway). People who are hellbent on cheating will find a way. Better to not be in the same league as them if you suspect they're cheating. But just talk to them about it and find out.

 

I also do agree with the earlier post that SJax is getting a lot of name recognition when he's really only had the one solid game. He's still on a crappy team with no O-line. He looked good because the Saints' D is awful. Also, consider that the Rams play the Packers and Steelers in the FFL playoffs, and this actually starts looking like a fairer trade.

[The Wolf]

What evidence do you have that this is collusion other than the names of the players involved? Jackson is still on an incredibly crappy STL team that despite its performance last week is much more like the winless team it was in the first 8 games. And I wonder how many more TD passes FF owners expect Jackson to throw.

 

This kind of trade is vetoed strictly based upon name recognition and preconceived ideals that have since been convincingly been proved to be false. A very good argument can be made that the guy getting Jackson is getting screwed royally in this deal.

 

Bottom line: Let owners manage their own freakin' teams unless you can prove collusion is the reason for a trade AND the trade is incredibly one-sided.

 

This is as good a reply to any with regard to this topic.

[Zooty]

No

 

but you should ask them if they are colluding

[policyvote]

I'll just quote myself from the other thread:

 

Dude, seriously. Let's look at the facts:

 

* the tenth place team has Steven Jackson, who may or may not finally live up to his godlike preseason hype here in the stretch run

* the tenth place team is out of the playoffs already

* your league is a redraft league, so the tenth place team has ZERO share in whatever is going on from here on out

* the teams at the fringes of the playoffs are desperate for help

 

The tenth-place team owner is going to be bombarded with offers for SJAX until your trade deadline. Everyone is going to try to get SJAX while giving up as little as possible. This owner no longer has any reason to give a crap, so why should hold on to SJAX just to act as a spoiler? If you have evidence that there is money changing hands, it's collusion. If you just don't like the eighth-place team getting better, then YOU should have contacted this owner about SJAX and you can suck it up.

 

In a redraft league, where you're going to be jerks about trades, you need to have an earlier trade deadline.

 

Peace

policy

[Donutrun Jellies]

NO, more likely evidence that you wet yourself because you didn't think of making an offer for SJAX before he has a late season explosion and now want to take your frustration with that out on the creative owners who crafted a doable deal for both sides ... or were you saying it was collusion because one owner was able to dump the uncertainty of SJAX for the stability of Taylor and the potential of Coles??

[Donutrun Jellies]

I'll just quote myself from the other thread:

Policy speaks brilliantly.

[dread]

What evidence do you have that this is collusion other than the names of the players involved? Jackson is still on an incredibly crappy STL team that despite its performance last week is much more like the winless team it was in the first 8 games. And I wonder how many more TD passes FF owners expect Jackson to throw.

 

This kind of trade is vetoed strictly based upon name recognition and preconceived ideals that have since been convincingly been proved to be false. A very good argument can be made that the guy getting Jackson is getting screwed royally in this deal.

 

Bottom line: Let owners manage their own freakin' teams unless you can prove collusion is the reason for a trade AND the trade is incredibly one-sided.

 

Excellent response. Let the owners run their own teams.

 

If you want to run a socialist league just make the owners create a pool of teams that can be maintained to be perfectly matched, then at the end you can all split the winnings.

[Randall]

Excellent response. Let the owners run their own teams.

 

If you want to run a socialist league just make the owners create a pool of teams that can be maintained to be perfectly matched, then at the end you can all split the winnings.

 

 

Cheating isn't socialism. Get in leagues where you tryst the teams to play ethically. Know your teammates as well as you can. Collusion is too hard to prove.