‹ Main Site Forums Home My Account

Does this trade make sense?


#1

A player in my league owns Brady and another owns Rodgers. This is a keeper PPR league and they both kept these players from last year meaning they cant keep them next year. One player offered to trade Brady for Rodgers and I am accusing him of collusion since that if this trade goes through they would each be allowed to keep those quarterbacks on their teams respectively for next year. This player is adamant that this is not collusion.

Does this trade make any sense if this was not a keeper league and am I right in saying this is collusion?


#2

making a trade that benefits both teams is not collusion, its smart managing. Its only collusion if one teams tanks on purpose.


#3

Not collusion. This is a loophole in a keeper system. Both have top QBs both want to keep top QBs, both can keep top QBs by trading top QBs. Also the Brady owner loses out anyway as there’s no guarantee Brady keeps playing after this year. He’s 40 not 24 anything can happen.


#4

Collusion only if they keep these guys and trade them back to one another next season


#5

So if this wasn’t a keeper system is it still smart managing? I’m saying it’s collusion because of what Riskinit says of what could happen. It provides no clear cut benefit for the teams involved this season and they could make the same trade next season and no one else in the league has a chance to draft these players.

arshagarbon, so your saying if you are taking advantage of a loophole in the keeper system it’s not collusion if Brady does play next year?


#6

you sound like you are bitter that you wont get either qb next year. dont be bitter. its fair and within the rules.


#7

But the rules are you can’t keep the same player two years in a row. If the same players keep getting passed around between the same two teams, how is that fair to the rest of the league?

Not bitter, just trying to address possible future problems in the coming seasons.


#8

This sucks. It’s shady and I’d suspect their character, but ultimately not collusion.


#9

Ok, so I can admit my definition of collusion is wrong. Can we agree that the potential of taking advantage of the rules for keepers are present and that my league should discuss the issue?


#10

If you are worried about future trades like this back and forth maybe implement a rule that prevents the same two players being traded by the same two teams more than once?


#11

Yep, thats what I was thinking and the guy who I was describing in this trade agrees. Thanks guys, appreciate the help.