Is this collusion?

[Junkyard]

Seems like there's a question in The Huddle almost every week of questionable trades and commissioner vetos, and invariably the response that if you can't prove collusion, then trades should just get pushed through.

 

What about this? Is the transaction below collusion? I picked it up on CBS.sportsline from one of their "senior" writers:

_________

 

"Funny trade story: I'm at home last week minding my business when I get a call from my best friend Roy (we call him "The Toy"), who is in my long-running, ultra-competitive keeper league. Long story short, Roy's season is over after three weeks and he was in negotiations to trade Dallas Clark for draft picks next year with an owner who we'll call A.C. The two would agree to a deal, and then A.C. would welsh on it.

 

"I've had enough," Roy said. "Just give me something decent for Clark and he's yours. I want to give A.C. the shaft for giving me a hard time."

 

Here's the fun part: I share my team in this league with A.C.'s brother, who we'll call Ari since his name is Ari. It took Ari and I 10 seconds to realize we could use an upgrade at tight end and could get Clark on the cheap, so we offered our tight end (Dustin Keller, who we thought we were selling high at the time given the return of Santonio Holmes -- oops) and an eighth-round pick for Clark. Roy didn't hesitate -- he took the deal, taking less for Clark than what A.C. offered him and pulled back several times.

 

As far as I know, A.C. and Ari haven't spoken since the deal went down, but we sure liked having Clark in our lineup instead of his -- we beat A.C. badly in Week 4 to move to 3-1 in the league.

 

Not always, but sometimes, more than stats and players can make a good Fantasy deal happen.

___________

 

Here's my thought... I don't have a problem with the trade by itself. Run you're team how you want. But does it cross the line to collusion when you have a conversation with another owner about "shafting" someone by deliberately trading for perceived lesser value? Either way, I don't think it's a league I would want to be a part of.

[flemingd]

Collusion is helping one owner while not helping another owner. Clark for Owen Daniels would be collusion. Clark for a TE that's out produced him to date and a pick next year in a keeper league is not. Not even mentioned is the keeper values for the players involved - is Clark not eligible but Keller is? Lots of leagues prevent the first X rounds as being keeper eligible and this could easily affect Clark.

 

It's next to impossible to talk about collusion in a keeper league when trading future picks.

[Junkyard]

Wasn't questioning the actual trade. Questioning the conversation about pulling off the trade with the purpose of shafting another owner and does that cross the "collusion" line.

[Furd]

That scenario does not involve collusion.

 

While "Roy" wanted to give the shaft to AC, the "senior writer" didn't. Therefore, there was no agreement between the two to limit competition, deceive, commit fraud or do any other nefarious act, which is pretty much the definition of collusion.

[Hugh 0ne]

It's not collusion, but Roy's an ass hole. As are Ari and the writer.

[Furd]

It's not collusion, but Roy's an ass hole. As are Ari and the writer.

 

I don't know about that Hugh. Its not like the writer offered and Roy accepted Jason Hanson for Clark. Its a legitimate trade. Lopsided maybe, but legitimate.

 

[Hugh 0ne]

I don't know about that Hugh. Its not like the writer offered and Roy accepted Jason Hanson for Clark. Its a legitimate trade. Lopsided maybe, but legitimate.

 

 

If you're making a trade out of spite, because you're out of it, and in addition you don't care what you get in return, you're an ass hole that compromises the integrity of the entire league.

[Hugh 0ne]

Oh, and if you know a guy is doing this and try to get an upgrade because you can get it on "the cheap", you're an ass hole too.

 

JMHO's.

[Hugh 0ne]

Allow me to continue. Now Ari's team wins an extra 2 games because they got Clark, is that fair to the rest of the league? No, because Clark was obtained unethically.

 

Now I'm not a whiney pansy (at least not usually), but in Fantasy Football, league integrity is everything, and stuff like this compromises that very integrity.

[Big Country]

Is it collusion then to not trade with certain owners?

 

There are certain owners in leagues that i will not trade with, no matter what the offer is (not the smartest thing strategically, but I digress). They have usually done douchey things in the past, etc.

 

So, is being willing to trade with a different owner, even willing to accept less than the douchey owner may offer, collusion?

 

 

I say no, it is my team and I can do what I want with it.

 

 

In this example, it seems like the owner was resigned to the idea of trading Clark, and the other owner kept backing out and thus lost his chance. To say he accepted less than was offered for him is a little off as the other owner backed out of the deal, so that means the offer is no longer there and he took what was offered. He should have shopped Clark around, but then again 9 times out of 10 it seems people don;t do that.

[CowboysDiehard]

Here we go with another one of these 'collusion' threads.

 

You know what makes me sad?

 

[Hugh 0ne]

Is it collusion then to not trade with certain owners?

 

There are certain owners in leagues that i will not trade with, no matter what the offer is (not the smartest thing strategically, but I digress). They have usually done douchey things in the past, etc.

 

So, is being willing to trade with a different owner, even willing to accept less than the douchey owner may offer, collusion?

 

 

I say no, it is my team and I can do what I want with it.

 

 

In this example, it seems like the owner was resigned to the idea of trading Clark, and the other owner kept backing out and thus lost his chance. To say he accepted less than was offered for him is a little off as the other owner backed out of the deal, so that means the offer is no longer there and he took what was offered. He should have shopped Clark around, but then again 9 times out of 10 it seems people don;t do that.

 

I'm all for doing what youwant with your team and managing it as you see fit, make whatever trades you want. But when the premise of the trade is to screw a guy over and getting a guy on the cheap and discussing this openly before making a trade, it's bullcrap. No?

[Azazello1313]

If you're making a trade out of spite, because you're out of it, and in addition you don't care what you get in return, you're an ass hole that compromises the integrity of the entire league.

 

I agree with that.

 

as far as whether it's collusion....my first thought was 'no'. but really, what is collusion? it's two teams getting together, INTENDING to make a lopsided trade that benefits one team. and really, this scenario fits the bill. the reason it doesn't feel like collusion at first blush is that the motivation of the clark donor is not necessarily to make the clark donee's team stronger, his motivation is to rub it in someone else's face. but they are still intentionally constructing a lopsided trade (as evidenced by the "just give me something" and "get an upgrade on the cheap" comments) benefitting a contending team at the expense of a bottom dweller. that IS collusion, IMO.

[Big Country]

I'm all for doing what youwant with your team and managing it as you see fit, make whatever trades you want. But when the premise of the trade is to screw a guy over and getting a guy on the cheap and discussing this openly before making a trade, it's bullcrap. No?

 

 

Don;t get me wrong, this trade is very close to not passing the sniff test, if not failing it.

[Lucky11]

the league received more of a disservice from "Roy" who called it quits after three weeks, and started trading for draft picks next year.

 

that's the definition of a tuhl.

[Pope Flick]

That was a botched attempt at collusion, whic makes them all both dumb and a-holes. Traded Clark for Keller AND a draft pick? Whoops.

[The Grey Pilgrim]

This scenario stinks to high heaven, collusion or not. Trying to screw some owner over is not legitimate management of a fantasy football roster at any time. I would not have any part of it.

[SatchDork]

I really don't see the problem. First of all, the receiver of the call had no idea what was going on. Phone rings, he picks up, and his friend on the other end says "I want to screw so-and-so for not making the Clark trade with me, make me an offer." The receiver didn't solicit this information or butt in on the preceding negotiations in any way. Once he had the information, he can't help but act on it one way or the other. Is he supposed to just turn down the offer out of moral outrage? In the end, he didn't take advantage, but made a perfectly reasonable trade. It's only collusion if, like another member said, the guy who received the offer took extreme advantage. Yeah, it's not 100% above board, but what's the problem really?

[Valhalla]

I wish they'd open a collusion / my commish screwed me forum....see these posts all the time...

[Junkyard]

Great input all the way around, and many valid points on both sides. Like I said in the beginning, this was a general question about what happened somewhere else and was posted by a regular writer on cbs.sportsline, where many of us have our leagues hosted. It's not impacting me personally.

 

As a commish, this caught my attention because it's a topic that comes up a lot in the forums, and I thought it would be interesting discussion.

 

Definitely some grey area. Personally, I think all team owners are accountable for the integrity of their league. I'm a firm believer that if you paid for a team, it's your's to own and manage as you see fit. I don't believe in evaluating trades for their future benefits, because nobody has a crystal ball. But, I think the line is crossed when you directly know that the trade is not just to improve your team, but also aimed at "shafting" another owner. A few people mentioned collusion requires agreement between two parties. In this case, I think passive agreement to make the deal knowing the intent makes it collusion.

 

If the same scenario presented itself to me as a team owner, I would reject the trade offer and alert the commish. Sure I want to make my team stronger, but not at the price of league integrity. Once that goes, and this practice is deemed acceptable, the league is most likely doomed in the long run. Who wants to play in a league with that type of stuff going on?

[Hugh 0ne]

Yeah, it's not 100% above board, but what's the problem really?

 

You answered your own question.

[Big Country]

As written, sure seems bad.

 

But, let's add a hypothetical to the situation.

 

Suppose the original Clark owner went to multiple other owners, saying that this guy keeps backing out of a deal, I;m looking to move Clark, make me a reasonable offer. He does not tell any of the other owners that he is talking to others and shopping him around. For whatever reason, the best offer he gets was this one with Keller.

 

Is it still collusion if he took the best offer available after inquiring with multiple other teams, even if part of the motiviation was to move him in spite of this other owner that was constantly backing out of agreed on deals?

[Azazello1313]

Suppose the original Clark owner went to multiple other owners, saying that this guy keeps backing out of a deal, I;m looking to move Clark, make me a reasonable offer. He does not tell any of the other owners that he is talking to others and shopping him around. For whatever reason, the best offer he gets was this one with Keller.

 

not collusion. collusion isn't determined by what he's getting in return, it's determined by the fact that they colluded to arrive at that compensation. I think it is apparent they INTENDED to arrive at a lopsided deal.

[SatchDork]

You answered your own question.

 

Ok, but what trade IS 100% above board? By definition, one party is trying to get over on the other (or both are) and the other teams in the league are "getting shafted."

 

I also don't see this trade as "shafting" the originally-intended trade partner. It sounds like that guy had multiple bites at the apple and refused. Nothing that happens after that point has anything to do with him. I also don't think that it was a lopsided trade, intended or otherwise. By Azazello's definition, every trade is collusion because the parties MUST arrive at an agreement about compensation. The only way this trade is obviously lopsided is if it occurred before Week 2. After that, Keller was turning it on and the draft pick rounds out any shortfall he had compared to Clark. To use Big Country's metaphor, I think you definitely take a couple wiffs at this trade, but, ultimately, it passes the sniff test.

[michaelman]

COLLUSION. Doesn't matter which players were transacted... You guys planned it to screw someone over. Collusion.