Help wanted

14 team .5 PPR
I’m the admIn

One guy trades
-DeAndre Hopkind
-Christian McCaffrey

  • Breshad Perriman …Dont ask

The other

  • Jordan Howard
  • Julian Edleman
    -Chris Hogan

Both parties agree on the trade, but there is collusion in the leugue for fairness. I’m upset as well. The guy who’s giving up Hopkins and McCaffrey says he needed a back in the beginning, but then realizes.

I Veto’d the trade with and explaination , guy who was going to receive Hopkins and McCaffrey leaves leugue. Oh and also this guy already has Leveon Bell and Alex collins

Am I wrong and why?

If you can prove collusion, it’s an automatic veto PERIOD. But if it’s just a bad trade, I don’t agree with vetoing it. I’m a commissioner of my league of record, and that’s pretty much my policy with veto power. Just because you don’t like the trade, isn’t a cause to veto. Also, it shouldn’t matter who the guy receiving CMC and Hopkins “already” has; if he can talk his way into having guys give him lopsided trades then so be it. Hope this helps.

1 Like

“Fair” is such an ambiguous word. Just because you guys don’t think it’s fair should not be a reason to veto, especially if the person who traded away CMC or Hopkins can give a good explanation why he chose to do so.

1 Like

I don’t think leagues should have veto unless it is OBVIOUS collusion. It’s hard to prove collusion here without a doubt. is it an awful trade and very lobsided? Yes.

But maybe this guy doesn’t believe in Hopkins. Maybe he think Hogan is a WR1 (which isn’t an outrageous assumption). Maybe he’s a patriots homer and loves the Pats. Maybe he think Edelman, 2 seasons removed from the game will come back and be the PPR stud he was before.

Maybe he hates CMAC? Maybe he’s worried about that oline and how bad it’s going to be or maybe he’s worried about Olsen coming back and hogging all the targets.

Maybe he absolutely LOVES howard in Nagy’s new system and just saw that Nagy plans to use Howard on 3rd downs. Maybe he thinks howard is gonna go for 1500 yards and like 12 TDs which honestly, is also not an outrageous assumption.

There are too many factors here for you to simply veto a trade. I think the trade is totally lopsided, but I disagree with the decision to veto the trade.

Edit: I may not have left the league, but I definitely would have pushed back in his position. You may have explained your side but it’s unclear what his reasoning was. Also, why would someone collude this early on? Typically, collusion happens once results are more clear and its obvious the move helps someone win. The regular season hasn’t even started yet. In my experience, collusion rarely happens this early on in the season.

1 Like

If I’m reading your post correctly, the trade is:

Hopkins, McCaff (and Perriman as a throw in)


Jordan Howard, Hogan, and Edelman.

I don’t think it’s as obviously unfair as you’re saying, but I do think it’s unfair. The only way to test these types of trades is to try to argue for their fairness and see if you sound like a liar / idiot / used car salesman while doing so.

So the argument for the trade’s fairness could go like this:

DeAndre is a mid-to-back of the first guy, and Jordan Howard is a back of the first to mid-second; while Hopkins is the biggest fish in this trade, there is a growing chorus of pundits who are saying Howard is set up to have a monster year; there is also a somewhat smaller group of pundits who are cooling on Hopkins, or are at least stating that last year was his ceiling and are projecting some regression for him as a result. So those two, it could be argued, are viable trade pieces as long as the other pieces offset the perceived slightly higher value of Hopkins.

We don’t sound like a used car salesman yet, but we’re getting close.

The next question, then, is: do the other pieces in this trade balance the higher / lower values of the main pieces? Put another way: is McCaffrey / Perriman less valuable than Hogan / Edelman?

Like you, I think the answer is ‘no.’

I guess the logic for anyone wanting to argue that McCaffrey / Hogan is a somewhat fair swap is that Hogan could blow up and McCaffrey could break if he’s overused behind a hobbled o-line in carolina.

But that’s about as good as it gets before we lapse into used car salesman terrigory:

Hogan, while not to be sneezed at, does not currently carry even close to the same value as McCaffrey.

Sure, once Edelman’s back, he could be hugely valuable, especially in PPR formats. Both of those Patriot receivers are desirable pieces, but the two-B-plus for one A plus guy thing does not work, especially if they’re both on the same team.

So the fact that Hogan and Edelman are on the same team and are destined to take targets from one another after Edelman comes back hurts this trade’s fairness.

Like you, I’d say ‘no.’

I’m a commish in my league and I wouldn’t have straight up veto’d the trade without some discussion first. I would have explained it to both guys the way I’m explaining it to you and I would have suggested that the Perriman part gets chucked out and the guy offering the Hogan / Edelman piece to go back to the drawing and come up with one guy who could be a reasonable equivalent to McCaffrey.


To put it bluntly; If that owner wants Hopkins and McCaffrey that badly, his willingness to deal Jordan Howard is a nice place to start, but it’s not nearly enough, and the rest of the deal is borderline nonsense as currently structured.

He’ll have to give up more…in the form of one guy…another player who is a 2nd rounder.

1 Like

The argument isn’t whether or not the trade is fair. It’s whether or not you can prove without a doubt this is COLLUSION. All of your analysis above is completely irrelevant. No one here is saying this is a fair trade or a good trade. Everyone has come out and said the opposite.

Not all of fantasy is based off ADP and value. Sometimes, guys just like to trade for their favorite player or guys they want for whatever reason. Maybe he’s a bears fan and Howard is his favorite player. Could literally be a reason as simple as that. Should the trade be disallowed because others think its unfair? No. That’s idiotic. Grow up. People should have the freedom to make trades they want, unless its obviously collusion.

I just gave some examples of stuff that people could think for why he wanted to do the trade. Not that I actually think any of it is true.

How you feel about players as a commish is completely irrelevant. It’s whether or not this was collusion. Like literally everything you said above, is obvious to anyone who understands football or fantasy. But in fantasy, I don’t believe you should be responsible for protecting people from their own bad decisions.


Thanks guys. I still have to think of what I’m going to do because the guy who left is a good friend.I feel like it leaving the league was dumb on his end though.


Hi Mike,

Great to hear from you :wink:.

The OP asked if his / her take on the trade and his / her actions as commish were wrong.

You and one other commenter deemed the trade unfair. So did I.

So, if by “everyone” you mean the OP and then three other guys, then sure, “everyone” has deemed the trade unfair.

I see the fairness of the trade as integral to the question posed at the end of the OP: “am I wrong?”

Does the issue of collusion come up when trades are fair? Rarely, if ever.
Collusion occurs when one team helps another, without trying to help its own position. That’s doesn’t sound fair, does it? Of course not. Therefore, the question of whether or not the trade is fair is baked into determining whether there’s collusion in this case.

By the same token, the answer to the OP’s question of whether or not s/he handled the situation properly varies in relation to the degree to which either or both trade partners could plausibly conceive of the trade as fair.

Rather than simply dismissing it out of hand as unfair, with no analysis, it’s preferable to be thorough in considering as many viewpoints as possible on the possible fairness of the trade.

You seem to know this yourself. Much of your own analysis actually does address the trade’s fairness. Although you posit perception of fairness in the minds of the two involved parties, you do so by appealing to objective circumstances, such as the perception that Howard may flourish in Nagy’s offense.

Just as you were giving some examples of stuff that people could think, I was laying out circumstances that might be used to justify its fairness.

So you see, we’re not that different after all.

Thanks, as always, for your generous comments.

I don’t know what these discussion boards would be without your authoritative voice.

1 Like

Collusion and whether or not a trade is fair are two different things. Which is why it is so hard to actually prove collusion. Because it is entirely based on intent, not what you or I or anyone else perceives as fair.

This is why most leagues and industry personalities advocate for no trade vetoes. Because what is fair is completely subjective.

OP asked a question, and you went off on a tangent. If fairness was a factor to be considered for collusion, then you could argue every bad trade is collusion cause it benefits one party more than the other.

Given there’s 3 people who commented and 3 people said the trade was lopsided, 3/3 is “everyone here”. If someone else comments, then they would be included in that everyone. If you want to argue over semantics rather than the topic at hand, then go ahead. Can keep your condescending / pretentious tone to yourself. Don’t really care for your fake facade much.

1 Like

Thanks for such awesome commentary, Mike. You really thoughtful about this stuff. I can see that.

The definition of collusion is: " when one team makes moves to benefit another team, without trying to improve its own position." Again, I ask: that doesn’t sound fair, does it? So, no, collusion and fair trade are not two different things. Rather, they are inextricably bound.

Thus, determining the fairness of trades is integral to issues of collusion. Indeed, it’s hard to determine conclusively, but when trades are fair, there is no collusion. When they aren’t, there might be .

And as you so correctly point out, if there’s any possibility for doubt about the unfairness of the trade, which I think we both established, then collusion is even harder to prove.

So you see, I really meant it when I said we’re not that different. And no, I wasn’t going off on a tangent.


1 Like

Lol thanks guys


For me, it is not provable collusion. This is not a trade I veto. I might not like it, but I let it stand. Howard and McCafferty are equal(ish) as far as we know from last year. 2018 year is projection and speculation. Hopkins is likely above the other two, but Edleman has put up huge numbers (at various times) and Hogan was off to a solid start. But it is not such a huge difference. Again, 2018 year is a guess.

I believe looking at this trade as fair or not / collusion or not is based off 2018 pre-season hype. Not any proof. IF the respective teams like those players more, then it is good. I would not veto this as I see it as a preference and not collusion. A potentially bad trade at the most. But we do not know and it is up to those two owners.

Here is a longish example from last year in one of my leagues. Prior to games week 6: I move Watson for Kamara. I needed RB depth (Cook / Carson death combo) and the other team had depth but wanted depth at QB (this league loves QBs for some reason). At the time, it was super lopsided. Rest of season definitely not. Now? Depends on how you project those players. That owner then went on to move his 2nd QB Ryan / Engram to get Hogan / Olsen. Olsen was injured, but should have been good depth for a guy who had been streaming and hit on Engram. Rest of season Ryan / Engram was way more valuable. Admittedly, that team got hosed on all trades due to injury, but those seem like lopsided trades when made. In the end, though, the ‘obvious’ winner was not so obvious. For reasons like this, I feel things that seem lopsided are based on an immediate lens.

I feel like collusion is more often a trade you wish someone would have offered you in FF. No one knows. Homers like who they like. Irrational hype / hate is purely signal / noise. It all depends on where you fall. There are examples I can imagine that would be more head-scratching, but in the end if they agreed then it should likely stand.

Just my opinion, but I would not have vetoed the trade.

1 Like

Really the only way to justly call collusion would be if people were trading guys on the practice squad for a top 5 guy, and it’s the playoff push, and the one giving away the stud has tanked the season.