Collusion or not

bodaciousmikie · January 6

So in my dynasty contract league we have the option to give players we drafted an immediate 4 year contract or keep them on the taxi/rookie squad for 2 years. After their contract is up they become a restricted free agent and we can all bid to acquire them with fantasy $ we aquire/save through trades and what not. So here's the problem.
Player A traded Gronk, Cooks, and Keenan Allen who all are RFA next season to Player B for only a late 2018 3rd round pick.
Also, player B has the most $ of any 5 teams combined and can easily buy out those 3 studs with no competition. Player A has close to 0 so he was going to lose them anyways. Side Fact: They are cousins.

Hawk12 · January 6

sounds like a salary cap dump by a team that couldn;t keep them anyway, so he got something back - nothing illegal about that. And unless you can prove cheating - there is no reason ever to pull back a trade.

Unless of course this league is in West Virginia and these cousins are married.... I kid, I kid

emurrell17 · January 6

That trade would stand in my league

chuckeycharles · January 6

sounds like a salary cap dump by a team that couldn;t keep them anyway, so he got something back - nothing illegal about that. And unless you can prove cheating - there is no reason ever to pull back a trade.

Unless of course this league is in West Virginia and these cousins are married.... I kid, I kid

You are probably right, but, it stills smells fishy. How does RFA worrk... owner k3eps if he matches high offer I presume?

Kookaburra · January 7

sounds like a salary cap dump by a team that couldn;t keep them anyway, so he got something back - nothing illegal about that. And unless you can prove cheating - there is no reason ever to pull back a trade.

Unless of course this league is in West Virginia and these cousins are married.... I kid, I kid

This

bodaciousmikie · January 7

sounds like a salary cap dump by a team that couldn;t keep them anyway, so he got something back - nothing illegal about that. And unless you can prove cheating - there is no reason ever to pull back a trade.

Unless of course this league is in West Virginia and these cousins are married.... I kid, I kid
You are probably right, but, it stills smells fishy. How does RFA worrk... owner k3eps if he matches high offer I presume?

Yes if the original owner has enough money he can either match or let the new highest bidder have the player.

the_FULL_effect · January 7

It's a bad deal, but it's encouraged by the league set up. He made a good trade because he's better off for it, but it should be obvious that he could have gotten more. He's a bad negotiator, but he understands the rules.

chuckeycharles · January 7

It's a bad deal, but it's encouraged by the league set up. He made a good trade because he's better off for it, but it should be obvious that he could have gotten more. He's a bad negotiator, but he understands the rules.

That is kind of where I am at on this one.

GuinnessIsGoodForYou · January 7

I agree that the fact that he could have gotten much more than a 3rd round pick is what makes me lean towards a verdict of collusion.

the_FULL_effect · January 7

I agree that the fact that he could have gotten much more than a 3rd round pick is what makes me lean towards a verdict of collusion.

But it's not his fault that another team doesn't offer him more. And if the trade is reversed he could walk away with nothing instead of that 3rd round pick.

I think the final verdict should be that the league needs to be more active and have more trade talks / offers.

Team B was aggressive, made an offer that benefited Team A, and should be rewarded for that. The more complicated league are, the higher the likelihood for a lopsided trade to be mutually beneficial.

GuinnessIsGoodForYou · January 7

The question is did Team A offer other teams the same opportunity to trade for those players. If yes - then no collusion. If no - then I think a jury would rule collusion.

There’s a chance that he is dumb and didn’t think to offer that trade to other owners to get more, but if you’re playing in a contract league with expiring contracts, restricted free agents, etc..., it should be assumed that you know what you’re doing.

chuckeycharles · January 7

^^^^_ Good point

chaindog35 · January 8

Not offering players to other teams does not alone make it collusion. You need some evidence that they made some sort of deal. This trade was a bad deal, but should stand. If one owner was smart enough to figure out that another owner was jammed by the salary cap and would have to cut good players and took advantage, good for him. The rest of the league should have figured it out.

chuckeycharles · January 8

^^^^ Also a good point.

The trade stunk, but, more info is needed to convict the two owners. Now, if the new owmer of the 3rd round pick does not return for the 2018 season...

the_FULL_effect · January 8

I don't think you should make league rules that require you to make multiple offers before a trade can be accepted. And I also don't think you can say something is collusion at all if it benefits both teams.

In a best case scenario both trade partners will benefit from a trade. Most trades don't end up that way, but this one is nearly certain to.

bodaciousmikie · January 12

Team A owner would not of been able to attain those players because of his lack of free agency money. Team B has enough to match any offers plus buy a few more RFA's

It sucks that this is how some of these teams continue to stack and help one another each time good players' contract are up but still well in the rules.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

Top Posters

Moderators

Due to upgrades, you MAY need to RESET YOUR PASSWORD in order to login. Email Me if having issues!

Collusion or not

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Categories

In this Discussion

Top Posters

Moderators

Due to upgrades, you MAY need to RESET YOUR PASSWORD in order to login. Email Me if having issues!

Collusion or not

Comments