Collusion or Not Collusion

[Guest chiddy33]

Hey All,

 

SO here is the deal. I am the commissioner of a very solid, deep rostered, KEEPER fantasy football league. We have been going for several years, have a 20 page constitution which everyone has signed and followed and so on. This has guided has through many league issues but we are now stuck on an issue of collusion. A large portion of the league things a player has attempted to collude, a large portion does not, and there are a few bystanders on the fence. With that said I have come to the Huddle community for advice.

 

Historically in our league the playoff teams attempt to bolster rosters for the push, while some teams attempt to tank for draft picks next season. This has resulted in over payment at the trade deadline, and "under payment" in the off season. It has also resulted in a handful of teams golding onto 5, 6 or 7 eligible keepers (only allowed 4) and looking to make offseason moves to recover lost picks from last years deadline. For example. A player who may go for a 1st round pick at the deadline has generally gone in the realm of a 5th-8th round pick in the offseason. Reason being its better to get something than nothing.

A manger in our team, lets call him Manager1, has decided to try and rally the troops to change this during this years offseason. He put out a post with a proposition to the league that the managers holding extra keepers gang up, or come together and do not trade their extra keepers for anything less than 1st rounder to try and truck over the teams that sold keepers for picks at last years deadline. He than continues to say that "Brees and Stafford are for sale" For all managers who sold last year or hold multiple first round picks the price is a first rounder, for all other mangers it is significantly cheaper.

 

The posts are as follows:

have a proposition to the league... well atleast to the other managers with too many keepers... DO NOT trade them to Joshua Chisvin or Ryan Silber or whoever else is hoarding 1st round picks unless they're willing to give them up... if you're going to trade top players for hondaty picks I encourage you to trade them to any of the other managers... let's start a trend of making this a lesson to those who tank and hoard picks... it's a disgrace that our commissioner is the poster boy for tanking... let's all unite and let them use all their first round picks on hondaty players unless they're willing to trade them away!

 

and continued with:

 

With that being said... Brees and Stafford are up for grabs... willing to package them with Bryant Hopkins or Ellington... if Joshua Chisvin or Ryan Silber or Dean Gariepy are interested it'll cost a first round pick... any other manager can have them for much cheaper... Msg me with an offer... looking to offload EVERY potential keeper I have... doesn't matter what I get back... just as long as one of the hoarders don't get them without trading a top pick

 

This is where an issue comes first with the "proposition" and than follows with the stance that he will work with other teams to make it cheaper for them and harder for the teams that hold high picks.

 

NFL.com fantasy football states:

 

Throughout the season, owners have the opportunity through the draft, free agency and trades, to acquire players to their roster. In most scenarios, these transactions are completed with relative fairness to all owners. In some cases, however, there are owners who transgress the fair play guidelines of the game. Regardless of intention, these unfair league actions are prohibited.

Some examples: colluding with other owners for the benefit of certain teams over others is strictly prohibited.....

 

Fantasysportshero.com states:

"Collusion" happens when two or more teams in the league conspire together to effect some outcome in the league.

 

They also go further into it with a category called "Collusion and the gang up"

 

Collusion and the Gang Up

 

Collusion might happen when two or more teams combine to cause enough controversy and trouble that league rules are changed or the league is simply disrupted. Two or more friends decide to create a controversy or make one-sided trades, daring the league commissioner to veto the trade. This kind of pressure can ruin the fun for everyone, and when you have a group of teams bent on disrupting the season, it's best to just give them their money back and find new people to take over those teams (or let the "league" do it, in the last instance).

 

So the ends result in my eyes I see this as collusion or the very least an attempt to colluding with other willing parties (and there are, they have posted publicly about it). If one team is going to either a) gang up with others to alter values, offer trades to some teams for a 1st pick and others for significantly cheaper just for the sole fact to try and screw over teams that strategized for the future last year resulting in it being easier for a manger that spent all of his picks its colluding.

 

Would love to hear the Huddle communities thoughts and insights on whether or not this is collusion or an attempt to collude. Thanks Huddle. You are our leagues Ted Wells.

[Big Country]

What is it that you think he has done wrong? Trying to rally more owners to not deal players? That's for them to decide.

 

Each owner has the right to decide who they do/do not trade for, let this owner cut off several trade partners that have assets and get less for his players.

 

The reality is, what he is proposing the other owners do doesn't really help them at all. The teams with multiple 1st round picks are generally the ones that are most willing/able to deal a mid round pick for a keeper, as they can better absorb the loss of a pick. Thus, they are also the teams that may be likely to give a little more in a deal - like say a 5th rounder for a keeper rather than a 7th that someone with no 1st rounder may be willing to do. The owner can decide to take the 7th for sure, but that's usually a pretty stupid move if he is trying to build a better team.

 

They can also decide to not trade the players as this guy proposes, which is even dumber for the owners with no 1st round pick and better for those with the extra first round pick. Theoretically these are keeper worthy players who should be going in the first 4 rounds of the draft. Tossing them back into the draft pool just makes the draft pool stronger and increases the value of those extra 1st round picks.

 

So sure, it sucks that this guy is calling you and a couple other owners out for being smart owners, but what he is proposing harms him even more than it would you if he were to get the other owners to go along with it.

 

If he doesn't like other owners getting multiple first round picks, then he should stop trading them away.

[Gopher]

Man, that's a really long post. My personal definition of collusion is a trade in which one side gets absolutely nothing out of it. That's very different than a trade being lop-sided, unfair, etc. I just think that's the best definition, in terms of keeping it relatively black and white. If both sides benefit in some way, shape, or form, it's not collusion. And, Owner A can choose to give Owner B a better deal than Owner C... There are no rules against that (in most leagues, anyway). Even if there was, with most trade negotiations going on behind the scenes (email, phone, etc.), it would be impossible to enforce.

 

As for your situation, I don't think what they're posting is collusion, per se, but it's pretty lame. Depends on the league, though. Some leagues have owners throwing in the towel every single year, in an effort to better their draft position. Especially dynasty leagues. In others, it's considered poor form to do so. I would suggest discussing it as a group (the entire league), and get an idea of what the consensus is. If the majority thinks there is a problem, do something about it. If not, then it shouldn't be a big deal.

 

My experience is that bad FF owners are usually bad drafters, as well. If somebody's team sucks so bad that they're willing to gut it completely (and get rid of guys like Brees, Bryant, Hopkins, etc.), having a few 1st round draft picks isn't enough to change their fortunes. They're going to make more bad draft picks than good ones, and most likely, do the same thing again the next year. Not in every case, but it happens more often than not.

 

Lastly, life's too short to play in FF leagues that aren't enjoyable. Likewise, I would suggest not wasting time/money/effort playing with people who act like douches. If they're long-time friends, however, you have to decide which is more important... Playing a game to stay in touch with old friends, or having a group of owners that agree on the rules at hand (even if that means asking some of the "friends" to leave). In most cases, for long-time leagues, I would guess that the former is more important than the latter, to an extent.

 

Bottom line... I think every league should have their own definition of what is collusion, as well as what is tanking, and a process for both. Some leagues vote on trades. Others require full lineups. Some charge fees if you start a bye-week player, or take a zero at a position for the week. None of those are perfect solutions, across the board. Again, it depends on the league.

 

Good luck.

Edited May 12, 2015 by Gopher

[Dolphin_Akie]

Douchey behaviour but not really collusion for me. The problem with trying to instigate something like this in a keeper league is generally what goes around, comes around. He'll be in the opposite position in a year or two and probably regret trying to hike up the market rate for un-keepable players (unless he completely sucks like Gopher said).

[Kookaburra]

Big Country's got you covered. Karma is a powerful force, and this manager's alienation of possible trade partners will come back to haunt him.

[coldaelkffchamp]

I'm in a league with many years and stuff like this happens. I've been on both sides thru the years. Both of my keeper leagues have come down to this thought process. Draft better! It's your fault if you haven't made the playoffs in a few years.

[el macho muchacho]

Not gonna lie, didn't read everything lol (it was long) BUT from what I did gather, I would have to say it isn't collusion. My main reason being, collusion is done behind doors between certain/limited individuals. This guy is posting it out there for everyone to see. Very Dill Josh Gordon like but at least he is being upfront about his feelings.

 

We just implemented keepers in our league at the start of last season and what we all agreed on was *you only keep what you drafted/finished the year with*. This way it puts a lot of emphasis on the draft to not fuq up and to pay attention to waiver wires. Once trade deadline has passed no trading is allowed until next years draft is complete. All trades being made in year can always be voted down if they feel one team is giving up and unloading players. Lucky for us, we have never ran into this issue.

 

Overall, karma always finds a way. Every owner should be allowed to manage their team as they see fit. Its the moves that are made when people say "okay, but don't tell anyone (fill in the blank)" that become an issue. Obviously, if the entire league agrees with this guy but the few teams they are hiking the bid up for, the issue is valid. I would just get the league together, let everyone speak their peace and take a vote on changes to the trading guidleines. If it continues after that, then seems more personal than anything.