Maybe Truly Collusion Worthy of a Veto?

[audiopile]

These guys work for the Coyotes by any chance?

Its collusion for sure if both deals were agreed upon before the first was executed. Its not egregious but a rule like “you cant trade away and receive the same player in a calendar year” could fix that. Or allow it but these types of deals have to be shared with the league for approval.

[Invictus]

Traded a draft pick for an IR spot. Props to the two GM's for getting creative.

You have no rule in place against this? Then it should stand.

[Referee3083]

Traded a draft pick for an IR spot. Props to the two GM's for getting creative.

You have no rule in place against this? Then it should stand.

No rule specifically covering this exact scenario, but our rulebook does have the following:

1. Not every rule or situation can be specifically addressed in the rulebook. The Commissioner has the right to make changes or rulings as he / she sees fit to the benefit of the entire league. In the event of a violation of a rule, or any other situation that may arise, the Commissioner has the authority to impose penalties against the violating team(s) (e.g. loss of points, reversal of transactions, loss of draft pick(s), removal from the league, etc.).

2. The league will not have a formal trade veto policy for all trades. To prevent collusion, tanking, or other conduct detrimental to the league, all trades are reviewed by the Commissioner.

3. Trades may not involve future considerations.

4. Each franchise has 4 IR spots.

These give the commissioner latitude to uphold the spirit of our rules. We also have some precedent. One time a GM traded a keeper spot for an elite roster player. Our rulebook did not specifically prohibit trading keeper spots. However, our rulebook did state that a team can keep a maximum of 7 players each year. Therefore the trade was vetoed by me on the basis that a team cannot have 8 keepers and this violated the spirit of our rulebook.

Where I feel I’m landing here is that (1) the conditions of the deal, as agreed to by the two GMs, were not made known to the entire league. Side agreements are always an attempt to circumvent rules. (2) we have a hard limit on the number of IR spots, so this trade also goes against the spirit of that rule. (3) the language and precedent I shared above would be consistent with a veto here. (4) Team B’s circumvention of the rules and not needing to “pay” Team A until the future allowed Team B to pick up an extra free agent without risk of losing Caufield and without giving up anything in exchange at the time to do so.

It’s a fine line between creative and circumvention some times. After reading this thread, I feel less strongly that a punishment needs to be handed out. But I do feel Trade 2 should be vetoed. Also, specific language will be added to the rulebook going forward to address this.

[Invictus]

What platform are you on?
Does it not have a set amount of IR?

(4) Team B’s circumvention of the rules and not needing to “pay” Team A until the future allowed Team B to pick up an extra free agent without risk of losing Caufield and without giving up anything in exchange at the time to do so.
I don't follow this. Team B payed a draft pick - which doesn't affect roster slots.

You also seem to have edited your post moving the Each franchise has 4 IR spots from rule 3 to rule 4. Adding in Trades may not involve future considerations. Makes me a little skeptical of this rulebook, but whatever doesn't matter.

[stevegamer]

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.

I agree that this is clear collusion. These two parties agreed in secret to gain an illegal advantage.

1. The bolded italicized text makes it clear that it was a secret part of the deal.

2. Per the rules, the hard limit on IR spots is 4, and no future considerations can be part of the deal.

I agree to let trade 1 stand, to veto trade 2. However, I would disallow trades between them until at least the start of next season, to fix the problem of the extra pick in this coming draft being moved around.

[ross10019]

I agree that this is clear collusion. These two parties agreed in secret to gain an illegal advantage.

1. The bolded italicized text makes it clear that it was a secret part of the deal.

2. Per the rules, the hard limit on IR spots is 4, and no future considerations can be part of the deal.

I agree to let trade 1 stand, to veto trade 2. However, I would disallow trades between them until at least the start of next season, to fix the problem of the extra pick in this coming draft being moved around.

I would take a different approach.

I agree it’s collusion, but the fact the guy was very honest and candid with you shows that there was no malice here - they might be naive enough not to see it as collusion, until it is explained to them, and honestly believed it was harmless. And i’m assuming there is no other history here. So while it’s collusion, there are shades of collusion, and this form is nowhere near the other hypothetical you gave. Plus you are all friends…

So I wouldn’t force the Team A guy to trade Caufield - ironically that would benefit the guy who was seeking an unfair advantage in the first place, getting Caufield for super cheap, and it would big time hurt the guy who, while colluding, was just facilitating. That makes no sense.

Rather, I’d dock them draft picks. Team B forfeits 1st or 2nd rounder next year, and Team A forfeits 3rd. That’ll show you take this very seriously, but in a fairer way that you can explain to them and the league.

EDIT: So I misread it and see it is Team A that sought the advantage, so it should be docked a higher pick - but i’d make it a 2nd at most, and the other guy a 4th, since frankly as others have mentioned this is a very mild form of collusion.

[butch]

use unlimited IR spots and engage the fantrax injured reserve max days setting to X amount of days that forces you to move player off IR

I know its likely uncommon for league to use unlimited IR spots but it doesnt seem to cause any grief in the one dynasty I'm in that employs it .

[Bramuin]

I would take a different approach.

I agree it’s collusion, but the fact the guy was very honest and candid with you shows that there was no malice here - they might be naive enough not to see it as collusion, until it is explained to them, and honestly believed it was harmless. And i’m assuming there is no other history here. So while it’s collusion, there are shades of collusion, and this form is nowhere near the other hypothetical you gave. Plus you are all friends…

So I wouldn’t force the Team A guy to trade Caufield - ironically that would benefit the guy who was seeking an unfair advantage in the first place, getting Caufield for super cheap, and it would big time hurt the guy who, while colluding, was just facilitating. That makes no sense.

So while a 2nd may be super cheap, why include it in the trade at all? If the reason was to pay for an extra I. R. Slot, then just give Caufield and the 10th. The 2nd was included to create misdirection so the trade would not be vetoed. I think Steve has it pretty much right.

[rataylor22]

I guess I’m confused what trade is being vetoed? Just the second one? If both trades are fair value, I don’t really see what the veto would be for. Definitely bending the rules but as far as I can tell it’s not veto-able collusion. You could go back and veto the first trade and drop the player the original Caufield team picked up, but seems like a lot of work when the GM didn’t actually break the written rules in place.

[rataylor22]

No rule specifically covering this exact scenario, but our rulebook does have the following:

1. Not every rule or situation can be specifically addressed in the rulebook. The Commissioner has the right to make changes or rulings as he / she sees fit to the benefit of the entire league. In the event of a violation of a rule, or any other situation that may arise, the Commissioner has the authority to impose penalties against the violating team(s) (e.g. loss of points, reversal of transactions, loss of draft pick(s), removal from the league, etc.).

2. The league will not have a formal trade veto policy for all trades. To prevent collusion, tanking, or other conduct detrimental to the league, all trades are reviewed by the Commissioner.

3. Trades may not involve future considerations.

4. Each franchise has 4 IR spots.

These give the commissioner latitude to uphold the spirit of our rules. We also have some precedent. One time a GM traded a keeper spot for an elite roster player. Our rulebook did not specifically prohibit trading keeper spots. However, our rulebook did state that a team can keep a maximum of 7 players each year. Therefore the trade was vetoed by me on the basis that a team cannot have 8 keepers and this violated the spirit of our rulebook.

Where I feel I’m landing here is that (1) the conditions of the deal, as agreed to by the two GMs, were not made known to the entire league. Side agreements are always an attempt to circumvent rules. (2) we have a hard limit on the number of IR spots, so this trade also goes against the spirit of that rule. (3) the language and precedent I shared above would be consistent with a veto here. (4) Team B’s circumvention of the rules and not needing to “pay” Team A until the future allowed Team B to pick up an extra free agent without risk of losing Caufield and without giving up anything in exchange at the time to do so.

It’s a fine line between creative and circumvention some times. After reading this thread, I feel less strongly that a punishment needs to be handed out. But I do feel Trade 2 should be vetoed. Also, specific language will be added to the rulebook going forward to address this.

This post makes it clear you’ve already decided to veto and you’re just looking for validation/support to do so. So go ahead and veto. However the first trade shouldn’t have been vetoed and neither should this one.

[Nylander2.0]

There is no rule against it so let it slide. If you don’t want that to happen in the future then make a rule. In the QMJHL Atleast every year there is at a minimum of 10 contingencies trades with place holder picks. Team A rents star players for cup run for picks then trades players back in offseason for those same picks at an insanely cheap cost ( place holder picks )

I think if you want to make rules on the fly then that’s not right.

Personally if you veto this trade I’d say you’re a awful commissioner who shouldn’t be running a league you’re the one who screwed up by not making the rule not them. In some pro leagues this would be acceptable

[Invictus]

I don’t know what platform your using that allows for keeper trades without the option to not allow them. It doesn’t sound like you are on a platform… which means you need to be more diligent in laying out rules.

The only thing you have on IR is that teams only get 4 of them. It’s a league setting unrelated to trades. This was not broken. When the trading keeper issue came up (which I think was correctly handled) this should have been a wake up call that the rules surrounding trades needed improvement.
NHL teams trade inactive contracts, other fantasy leagues allow this to happen.

Anyway, The rule you added in later - rule 3 about trades not having future considerations was the only rule broken imo. So you can veto the trade back based on that (as it came apparent when the GMs were questioned about the trade) But then they could just offer a slightly different trade and it be acceptable. Maybe an imposed penalty they can’t trade with each other until a certain date.

[Referee3083]

To clarify a couple items that have come up:

- We’re in Fantrax. Roster settings are 4 IR spot max.
- I did edit my post that outlined the rules in our rulebook. It was 12:30 in the morning when I was reading our rulebook and typing my reply here. I missed including the rule that future consideration trades are not allowed, and felt that was relevant to the discussion so I added it.
- Our rulebook has stood up for 16 years. It’s 25 pages long and always available on the front page of our Fantrax league.
- I agree with the poster who said the use of the 2nd round pick in the original trade was misleading. It gave the impression of an above board trade, when in reality, it was not part of what they agreed to on the side. They just needed it to look above board to everyone in the league.

Yes, after reading the really thoughtful comments here, I’ve decided the whole situation was an attempt to circumvent the rules. I’ve also asked several other GMs in our league their thoughts, and reading their replies this morning, they feel what took place violates the rules too.

However, I’m still trying to figure out the punishment. If I reject Trade 2, then what’s left is Team B lost Cuafield (who he didnt want to actually move…just rent out an IR spot) and Team A got a 2nd for Caufield. Maybe that’s enough of a lesson becuase A moved a 2nd draft pick he didn’t want to move and B moved a player he didn’t want to. Taking it a step further, I could dock both teams a 2nd / 3rd next year as well.

I also agree with a couple other posters that these teams will not be allowed to trade with each other until after the next draft.

[tweetdrivr]

I’m guessing you have a long-standing relationship with these GMs. If I was either GM and this was the fallout you’d be looking for a new league member. Which honestly might not be all that bad here.

[Godin]

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.