Team A is losing by 10 points to Team B on Monday night with Gordon still left to play. As reports surface that Gordon may not play for several series due to disciplinary action Team A trades Gordon to Team C for Edelman with plans to trade them back the next day. I prevent them from trading back but Edelman wins the game for Team A where if he had kept Gordon he would’ve lost. Team B is pissed and wants me to award him a win because the trade was made under false pretenses. I allowed the initial trade because we don’t veto and who knew what would happen. Its a shady situation but I don’t feel like I should be changing the outcome of the game. Am I right?
That’s a tough one…
First question, did you or anyone else in the league outside of the two trading parties know about the one week swap when the trade was made prior to the game being played?
Edit: sorry i missed you line about no one knowing on the original trade as a one week deal. This is clear collusion @KWagentfromCT is right. I agree with the justice too, let the rest of the league (bar teams A, B and C) decide if the points and therefore the result should be changed. I personally think it should be, i’m sure most people would be of a similar mind in this situation so team B will be happy and team A and C don’t really have a leg to stand on.
That is a sticky situation for you but that is clear cut collusion in my eyes, especially if they have or are planning on trading them back. I would say to bring it to a vote, excluding teams A,B and C and let democracy decide who should get the win.
I knew about the trade 30 minutes before kickoff, and of their intentions to swap back. I told them I didn’t like the idea but I wasn’t going to veto the trade. My thinking was, what if Gordon outscores Edelman and and I prevented him from trading so my decision actually hurts Team B. It could go either way. Plus both players were of equal caliber so the trade was “fair”. My thinking was, the strategy could backfire just as easily. Then it turned out like it did and they tried to trade back but I told them they couldn’t trade back. But now the league knows what happened so… It seems like either way its opening pandora’s box. I hate vetoing trades. Its a crappy situation bottom line.
Ugh that’s a tough one. This is a slight Pandora’s box situation, has your league had this happen before at all with loaning players? Or have you ever all agreed that its not an acceptable trade as a league?
Really tough, if i was in your position i would have allowed the trade but not the swap back which you did already so that’s good. For the current issue i would exclude yourself but ask the rest of the league to vote on whether player loans for one game etc are acceptable trades going forward, if the vote is in favour of ‘no’ then have a second vote as above removing teams A, B and C as to whether this should be back dated to amend the results from last week from the now banned trade. If that all makes sense?
The issue with this is really if people vote yes to player loans then you will have a lot of unhappy owners on your hands when this burns them down the line. It’s almost a case for you as the commissioner to just bring the hammer down and say player loans are banned and will be blocked by me, and amend the result and say that this is what will happen to anyone doing it again even no matter what way the result goes even if it goes the other way. Hopefully that will discourage player loans because its too much of a grey area - what happens if a player gets hurt as well? It’s not worth having that hassle IMO
As an outside party to me the trade itself was “fair” player for player, and blocking the trade back stopped the collusion side of it. If it happens again be more strict. Tell team B tough luck, it’s a trade at this point. There was collusion but you negated it and made it permanent. So no more collusion it was just a normal trade now.
Yeah that’s good advice. I already decided after this that there will be no player loans. I told them they can’t trade them back at all this year. And going forward there are no trade backs. Thats not even up for vote. This has not been an issue before. I’ll ask the members of the league what they think about changing the result and go from there. Thanks for the advice
It’s like when a ref. Admits they fucked up a game winning call. It’s just a PA it’s not like they take the win away from the team that got the call right? Idk that’s my perspective.
Yep. Team B point of view is that we knew they were trying to collude so it shouldn’t count. He had no issue with the trade from the beginning. Not until they tried to trade back. But they may not have made the trade in the first place if they knew they couldn’t trade back
Right so you’re punishing them by making the trade permanent, and again it could’ve back fired. It’s not like they traded for a top 5 wr. Or anything ya know?
It’s a slippery slope and i wouldn’t get cute with it IMO, you can argue a case for lots of sides here but for the sake of the league and stamping this out in the future i think you need to hash out some clearer rules by a vote. Plus decide if this should be back punished by a vote if for no other reason as to be able to say to Team B or Team A whoever ‘loses’ from the leagues vote on points reversal (which should be the future punishment for good or bad) ‘well we had a vote and the rules are changed and the league has agreed this and that’s what we’ll do’. Ultimately you are getting one unhappy owner but making it is democratic as possible softens the blow instead of deciding on you’re own or continuing on without clear rules to stop these trades even being discussed or it will happen again if penalty is just losing the player of a similar value. The risk of points reversal will act as a better deterrent to fully stamp it out and the swapping back ban stops stupid moves like loaning OBJ for a week for Edelman etc.