Maybe Truly Collusion Worthy of a Veto?

[Referee3083]

I'm as anti-veto as anyone on these boards, but would love other folks thoughts to confirm the following scenario is collusion and worthy of me veto'ing as commissioner:

Trade 1: Feb 1 2023
Team A gets Caufield
Team B gets 2023 2nd Round pick

Trade 2: Mar 3 2023
Team A gets Team A's 2023 2nd Round pick back + a 2023 10th Round pick
Team B gets Caufield

I ask Team B to help me understand why the first trade and then reverse it a month later, with another pick going back. Team B says when Caufield got injured, he ran out of IR spots. So on Feb 1 he agreed with Team A for Team A to take Caufield until Team B had some injuries clear up and an IR spot available. Then, once an IR spot opened at some point in the future, Team B would swap the players and pick back, with an additional payment of a later round pick for Team A's troubles.

To me this is clear collusion. On Feb 1, no one in the league knew there was an agreement to undo the trade. And Team B got to extend its IR spots via a side deal. I don't think this is any different than if the top team in the league agreed with a bottom team to trade for their best players before the playoffs for picks, and then after the playoffs, the top team would trade all those players back to their original team again. I think most people would be pretty pissed if that happened.

My thoughts on punishment is that Trade 1 stands and Trade 2 is veto'ed, and neither A or B are allowed to trade with each other for the rest of the regular season (tomorrow is our trade deadline). We're all friends in the league so I'm not looking to cause friendships to break up. But I also don't think I can allow this type of thing to be allowed in the league.

[tweetdrivr]

So team B paid a 10th rd pick to use one of Team A’s IR slots for a month? I have no problem with that.

[Magicstew]

Not really collusion - it is just circumventing the rules - Will need to create league rule for this situation in future, especially if this is keeper league
Would probably veto 2nd trade for this year. If they want to trade back in the off season so be it.

[Godin]

Did Caufield's injury have anything to do with it? Is team A a contender and B not? If so, then there absolutely is collusion. Team B was lending team A, Caufield, for the cost of a 2023 10th rounder.

[Referee3083]

So team B paid a 10th rd pick to use one of Team A’s IR slots for a month? I have no problem with that.

Curious, not arguing. But you think it's ok even though no one knew that was the condition of the deal on Feb 1? If it was truly trading a future draft pick to rent an IR spot, shouldn't that have been the deal announced to the league on Feb 1 (i.e. Team A trades future considerations for Team B holding a player in an IR sport for an unknown period of time)?

[tweetdrivr]

Caufield was done for the season in January. No one got games out of him after that.

[tweetdrivr]

Curious, not arguing. But you think it's ok even though no one knew that was the condition of the deal on Feb 1? If it was truly trading a future draft pick to rent an IR spot, shouldn't that have been the deal announced to the league on Feb 1 (i.e. Team A trades future considerations for Team B holding a player in an IR sport for an unknown period of time)?

Yeah it would have cricket to let everyone know what was going on. But if there isn’t a rule against it go for it. I agree that maybe such a rule needs to be in place. I also agree that there would be a much bigger problem had Caufield been playing. But he wasn’t.

[Referee3083]

Did Caufield's injury have anything to do with it? Is team A a contender and B not? If so, then there absolutely is collusion. Team B was lending team A, Caufield, for the cost of a 2023 10th rounder.

Yes, when Caufield was injured, it was Team B's 5th injured player. Since we only have 4 IR spots, Team B "lost" a bench spot if he held onto Caufield. Team B was in the playoff race at the time of the first trade, and has since clinched a playoff spot. Team A has been out of playoff contention since before the first trade.

[tweetdrivr]

So team B clinched a playoff spot at the cost of a 10th rd pick. It’s a little shady. What do the GMs have to say for themselves? What the league consensus?

[Stanley]

I like it. 2 managers working a deal for the clear benefit of their own teams isn't collusion in my books. 2 managers working a deal for the clear benefit of 1 team, with a side agreement to split the prize money (or whatever) is collusion for me.


The idea of "future consideration" type deals having to be clearly announced to the league isn't a bad idea either, just to keep things transparent and avoid drawing the wrong conclusions.

[Referee3083]

So team B clinched a playoff spot at the cost of a 10th rd pick. It’s a little shady. What do the GMs have to say for themselves? What the league consensus?

Still working through getting an opinion from GM's not involved with the trade. We don't have a league-wide veto. It's commissioner veto only.

Team B did get the benefit of being able to pick up another free agent instead of having an injured player on his roster that couldn't be put in an IR spot (or dropping Caufield and risking losing him to another team).

[tweetdrivr]

It’s some shrewd GM work for sure. I agree it isn’t collusion. Just sailing a little close to the wind. You need to come to a consensus as a league on this being allowed or not in the future. I don’t think you can veto anything at this point. But figure out as a group going forward if this is something you want to specifically outlaw.

[This Guy]

I'm as anti-veto as anyone on these boards, but would love other folks thoughts to confirm the following scenario is collusion and worthy of me veto'ing as commissioner:

Trade 1: Feb 1 2023
Team A gets Caufield
Team B gets 2023 2nd Round pick

Trade 2: Mar 3 2023
Team A gets Team A's 2023 2nd Round pick back + a 2023 10th Round pick
Team B gets Caufield

I ask Team B to help me understand why the first trade and then reverse it a month later, with another pick going back. Team B says when Caufield got injured, he ran out of IR spots. So on Feb 1 he agreed with Team A for Team A to take Caufield until Team B had some injuries clear up and an IR spot available. Then, once an IR spot opened at some point in the future, Team B would swap the players and pick back, with an additional payment of a later round pick for Team A's troubles.

To me this is clear collusion. On Feb 1, no one in the league knew there was an agreement to undo the trade. And Team B got to extend its IR spots via a side deal. I don't think this is any different than if the top team in the league agreed with a bottom team to trade for their best players before the playoffs for picks, and then after the playoffs, the top team would trade all those players back to their original team again. I think most people would be pretty pissed if that happened.

My thoughts on punishment is that Trade 1 stands and Trade 2 is veto'ed, and neither A or B are allowed to trade with each other for the rest of the regular season (tomorrow is our trade deadline). We're all friends in the league so I'm not looking to cause friendships to break up. But I also don't think I can allow this type of thing to be allowed in the league.

Caufield was on IR the whole time, so it's not like a bottom team lending good players to a top team for a playoff push, which is collusion. To me this is bending the rules rather than breaking them, and while it can be frowned up isn't really collusion. When people think of lending players to another team, it's always been for active players, until your scenario came up. I think they could argue that it's not collusion as no games were played, and I would doubt that the player Team B picked up would have tipped the scales for them to make the playoffs. I'd get a consensus from the GMs not involved in the trade and go from there, but implement a rule that lending players (even inactive ones) would have to be declared at the time of the first deal. As it's a friends league, I think that's workable. It may be that other GMs don't have a problem with it.

[striderz]

Rule option: if you trade a player away during the season, you can't get that player back via trade until.. end of season.. or start of next season

[senryu]

Rule option: if you trade a player away during the season, you can't get that player back via trade until.. end of season.. or start of next season

This is a good suggestion.

Also, an explicit rule either outlawing conditions or that all conditions must be stated in a leaguewide email or posting at the time of acceptance. That doesn't prevent secret understandings, but it is a step towards a greater degree of transparency.