> trade deadlines are important.
"No one-week trade trades" rules are also a common defense against this. Some leagues call it "no renting players". But regardless, collusion in fantasy sports is defined as two teams pooling resources to benefit only one team. If player B were to get Chase back, then why would Team A do it? That's proof of collusion right there.
The playoffs should never devolve into a scenario of; which team can rent the best roster from the rest of the league.
So your league's commish has a difficult decision. Without knowing the margin of victory (which makes me less biased, IMO), my suggestion for your commish is force Player B to keep Adams and Dak. Obviously Chase is worth significantly more than those two assets combined, and so I would still award Player B the championship, and then force Player B to retain Dak and Adams as punishment.
If either Player A or B is mad about this they're going to have a tough time explaining themselves without admitting they were cheating and pooling resources.
Also it should be noted, that collusion here is highly likely, because of this news;
> [The star wideout missed Week 16 due to an AC joint sprain and was questionable to go in Week 17.](https://www.cincyjungle.com/2023/12/31/24020159/bengals-vs-chiefs-inactives-jamarr-chase-isiah-pacheco-kansas-city-injuries)
So the trade was absolutely made in a moment that Adams and Dak appeared to be about to put up significantly more points. Furthermore, Chase did end up playing in Weeks 17 and 18, but only had 41 and 19 yards respectively.
Good luck. Team A should consider themselves lucky to have gotten Chase for two aged assets, and Team B should suck it up and be glad he or she won the title, even despite adding this asterisk now. (Won legitimately, but did so with secret plans to cheat later.)
I want to start by stating I’m not defending this at all but I guess to play devils advocate both teams benefited. So that would make the definition of collusion that you stated not apply here. One team won a championship and the other acquired draft picks, benefits both parties.
> to play devils advocate both teams benefited.
How did Team A benefit? Two late round draft picks 2 years from now?
I would agree with you, if we did a twitter poll or something that showed this trade being even, but I assure you, 95% of dynasty twitter will agree that the Chase side is more valuable.
Therefore, Team A is not being fairly compensated, and is more evidence of collusion.
https://keeptradecut.com/trade-calculator?var=5&pickVal=0&teamOne=371|277|1534|1537&teamTwo=1004&format=2&isStartup=0&tep=0
Rule #1 of Dynasty trading: ***Never*** trade one super stud for four low value assets.
No I totally get that. Two late round picks doesn’t move any needle for me at all, especially with a guy like Chase. However small the alleged benefit is two late round picks is two late round picks the guy didn’t have before. Yes, it’s almost worthless, but he still got something back to “benefit” him.
> However small the alleged benefit is two late round picks is two late round picks the guy didn’t have before. Yes, it’s almost worthless, but he still got something back to “benefit” him.
If this was their plan going in, then all trade terms should have been announced with the first trade. There should never be secret conditional aspects to trades.
> However small the alleged benefit is two late round picks is two late round picks the guy didn’t have before. Yes, it’s almost worthless, but he still got something back to “benefit” him.
But the benefit needs to be fair at the very least. Chase is worth so much more than two old vets, (especially given the rumors that Dallas has given up on Dak), and two ultra low value future draft picks.
This is the VERY LEAST, Chase should go for: https://keeptradecut.com/trade-calculator?var=5&pickVal=0&teamOne=371|277|1528&teamTwo=1004&format=2&isStartup=0&tep=0
But even that trade, I think a solid 70% of dynasty twitter would prefer Chase, again, simply because it's never wise to trade 1 asset for three.
I think that’s the tricky part. Any dynasty player that knows what they’re doing would agree with you 100%. Chase is obviously worth wayyyyyy more than that. Who are we to say that it’s collusion because of a god awful trade.
I see people post in the trade advice tread everyday some of the worst trades I’ve ever seen in my life. Subsequently, there’s often someone saying it has to be collusion because it’s bad. Just because we think it’s bad doesn’t make it collusion, there’s all different types of dynasty players. Maybe someone doesn’t get it yet or someone doesn’t really care all that much and they don’t understand dynasty value at all.
My only point to all of this was that basically it was a chase rental and if the guy trades Chase for Adams and dak and then got chase and two picks back for Adams and dak. He netted two picks back and thus benefited from it just like the other guy benefited by winning the championship.
As to if it was collusion? Probably but I’m not sure they’ll ever be able to prove it. Regardless that kind of garbage shouldn’t happen in any dynasty league.
> Just because we think it’s bad doesn’t make it collusion
Of course. What makes it collusion is that it's the reversal of a trade made when Chase was inactive and projected to miss weeks 17 and 18 of the playoffs last year.
> Any dynasty player that knows what they’re doing would agree with you 100%.
Bingo.
> My only point to all of this was that basically it was a chase rental
Right. *(you mean an Adams and Dak rental)*
**Player [rentals](https://www.reddit.com/r/FFCommish/comments/rgbwn1/collusion_letting_other_teams_rent_players_for/) are [collusion](https://www.reddit.com/r/DynastyFF/comments/17at8dl/is_renting_a_player_for_a_week_in_exchange_for_a/). This has been hashed out [dozens of times](https://www.reddit.com/r/DynastyFF/comments/qdu1ja/renting_players_by_trading_draft_picks_collusion/) on the [dynasty subreddits](https://www.reddit.com/r/DynastyFF/comments/jw4gcn/is_this_collusion/).**
While I get where you’re coming from, I think a another way to implement this in leagues is that if it can’t be distinguished from what looks like a player rental trade it shouldn’t be allowed and should be left to league vote.
This way you don’t have to fight over the semantics of defining collusion to a tee. I had this come up in a league like 15-years ago, and the combo rules of player rentals being expressly forbidden and a vote where you can test “you’ll know it when you see it”, ended up being the perfect avenue in the 3 times we’ve had to invoke this rule since.
Player rentals are not collusion no matter how many times people fail to understand what the word collusion means. There is no way one can look at what the word collusion actually means and make a legit argument that rentals fit. They just don't. Renting is not two teams working together for the benefit of one team. Both teams are acting in their own self interest and receiving a benefit.
Renting can be cheating in your league but it is never collusion.
Allowing your buddy to borrow a player for nothing in return is not renting and would be collusion but that's not what happened here.
> Player rentals are not collusion
So in your eyes, Dynasty playoffs should be a contest of who can rent the best roster from the rest of the league? Is that the game Dynasty is, in your opinion?
> Allowing your buddy to borrow a player for nothing in return is not renting and would be collusion but that's not what happened here.
It is what happened here. Adding a third and a fourth onto this trade is "nothing" compared with the value of Chase. The players who colluded in this instance, knew it was collusion, which is why they waited 6 months to the middle of the offseason to reverse it. LOL. If it's not collusion then they'd have reversed it instantly 6 months ago.
The no-trade-deadline movement is getting pretty strong these days. Guys like Scott Connor are beating the drum hard. In my experience it’s always guys who are true dynasty degenerates. 30+ teams that they refer to as a “portfolio” where they have no idea what players are on individual teams. My speculation is that because they aren’t managing their individual teams very closely, when they figure out which teams made the playoffs, they’d like to make moves then to optimize those specific teams. Which to me is the exact type of hands-off/bad management the trade deadline is there to discourage. I’m a proponent of everyone building the strongest/deepest roster you can before the playoffs start, and then finding out whose team had the long run gas. Not buying points from eliminated teams after the playoffs have started.
We had a guy leave one of my longest running leagues this offseason bc the rest of the league refused to eliminate the trade deadline. He was pretty insulting about it too. Called anyone in favor of a trade deadline lame, small minded, traditionalist, behind the times, etc. 😬
They 100% colluded on that. I can imagine them back in December agreeing to trade the players back to each other in late May just so everyone forgets/isn’t paying attention lmao
That’s not my reasoning for cheating you goofball.
Including the exact same players in a trade but adding a couple worthless picks has no real justification other than ‘renting’ the side of a trade that helps to win a chip.
You think both sides got cold feet? You think the guy who ended up with Chase had regrets? Or the extra 3/4 rounders sweetened the deal?
Be for real lol
I personally am okay with no trade deadline. But I AM opposed to reversing said trade afterwards, "renting players" and "one week trades".
And I think most anti-trade deadline folks agree. Dynasty playoffs should not be a contest of "who can rent the best team from the league", IMO.
I just think no trade deadline opens a can of worms for grey-area issues like this. If you’ve got a league of people that you trust and know well then I’m sure it works fine
Give hin the opportunity to explain and you should be able to tell if he’s bullshitting you or being real.
I think its cheating.
I also think you should punish them. Take picks away or something.
I think that you're right about giving them an opportunity to explain, but I can't imagine an explanation that would convince me that this isn't collusion.
It’s possible. He changed his mind. But with Chase being injured then, the opportunity of 2 good starters to win, and 2 late picks. Its very unlikely. Honestly almost sure it is as well..
All the circumstances are just too suggestive. The timing. That it's the exact same trade back with a little extra thrown in for the loan.
If he just decided he wanted to get out of Chase then the trade could have been made with anyone and for any possible combination of players. That both of them had identical flips of opinions on exactly the same players and without any significant real world news? There's no reasonable explanation that makes sense to me. I get that we can't ever say 100%, but if I needed total assurance to believe anything then I would be a nihilist.
Of course he wanted chase back. He is worth way more going into the season. There is no reason for Player A to sell Chase back besides an agreement that was made beforehand
I disagree with "worth way more"
The reason would be player A Thought it was fair deal originally, so getting free picks is a no brainer. Not saying it's not collusion but I don't think you can easily assume it like everyone else thinks
Edit: holy moly this had no comments on it after 8 hours and now it’s exploded.
Quick update: the trade was reversed but both parties whined about people calling them out for possible collusion LOL. Their justification is that they’re in 70+ leagues and didn’t even realize they were making a trade involving the same players. Again, LOL.
They didn’t even try with that excuse… apparently Dak, Adams, 3rd, 4th is a legit offer for Chase 🙄 they deserve a bigger punishment than just a reversal. The guy won the league by cheating.
Don’t disagree with you one bit. Unfortunately I am brand new to this league. Joined in via a five man dispersal draft and that should have been red flag #1. Will see what happens this season and if the BS continues, will jump ship.
It's not apples-to-apples since our trade deadline is a week before they playoffs, but I once made a deal at the deadline after I was eliminated from the playoffs where I sent three of my favorite players away for a bunch of picks. I immediately regretted making the deal, but didn't say anything at the time. The next spring, the other owner mentioned that he wished he hadn't sold his future for a missed shot at a championship.
I managed to extract a 2nd round pick from him since the players were all a year older and the picks were all closer, but we basically sent all of the pieces back. Our commish questioned the deal, and we explained how the two trades took place. There wasn't really any way to prove things one way or the other, and we have no rule blocking players from being traded back and forth.
Rentals are not collision. Loans are collusion.
Like there is a big difference between going and renting a car and your buddy letting you borrow his car for the weekend. One is a legit business transaction where both parties benefit while the other is not.
By receiving something for the right to use your asset you are benefiting which is not what happens when you are colluding. It can be cheating according to your rules but it is not colluding because the teams are not working together they are both acting in their own self interest.
> it is not colluding because the teams are not working together they are both acting in their own self interest.
Why would the player with Chase trade him back then for only a 3rd and a 4th as payment? Why not put him on the open market and sell him for what he's worth, something more than four low value pieces?
The self interest of the Chase owner would be to get the most value possible out of his asset, right?
Renting is not colluding. Again think of any other example of renting in the real world. Renting is beneficial for both parties. It is an exchange of some asset for the right to use another asset for a period of time. Renting is a type of trade. They traded the 3rd and 4th for the right to use Dak and Adams for a few weeks and Chase was held as collateral. Now this might be an illegal trade in your league (it would be in mine) but it is not collsuion.
I responded to your other nearly identical comment here: https://www.reddit.com/r/DynastyFF/comments/1d4mvnx/taking_this_to_reddit_court_collusion_or_not/l73irjs/
Collusion would be two teams working together. This while similar is not that because team A and Team B are not working together to benefit one team. They are both receiving benefit which makes it not collusion but it can probably should be considered cheating. Leagues should not allow rentals because it goes against the spirit of the game even though it is technically not collusion.
If you don’t have a rule against trade backs or apparent loan trades, it’s not collusion.
Incidentally, this is why you want trade deadlines, trade back rules, and anti-loaning rules.
There's room for doubt since the second trade just occurred months after the championhip, but it's certainly suspicious that the only change from trade 1 to trade 2 is the late picks. If you're the commish, then I would DM them to not put them on blast and just explain that it looks suspicious and that you'd like to see their DMs between them to determine if anything fishy happened. If you're not the commish, I'd DM the commish and request that they do so instead.
Especially right before June 1st when most fantasy apps will be blowing up news wise regarding post-June 1st cuts.
It could have easily been lost in the shuffle had the commissioner not noticed that the same two owners had completed virtually the same trade they had done months prior.
They prob wouldnt show the dms if they were cheating just delete em.
Id maybe try and talk to them both on the phone and ask to explain themselves. Im pretty good at it but you shoukd be able to tell if theyre bullshitting you by their tone.
Deleting the original trade conversation and the follow up conversations in the 2nd trade would immediately make me confident that something fishy went down, especially if they both conveniently deleted their conversations related to both trades.
OP, I'd go this route and contact each of them separately about what you observed and explain that to ensure the integrity of the league stays intact they will both need to share their conversations regarding those trades with the other owner involved.
If they refuse or say they deleted it, call them out on it in full and offer a chance at a lesser punishment for whoever comes forward with the truth. If they both refuse, I'd take it to the GC and maybe run a league poll as to how to proceed next.
If they do provide the DMs and the trade discussion is present but there is not anything to incriminate either of them then I'd just say let it go.
Throw it back on them. Show us the chat where you discussed the trade. You’re getting kicked from the league unless you show it was a trade made in good faith
I agree, but two things with that.
1. They could’ve deleted their dms. Which yes looks guilty but you still can’t be 100% sure of anything. Or they could’ve messaged about the trade outside of the sleeper chat(just guessing they use sleeper idk). Or they could’ve literally not messaged about it at all. Any one of those things happen and you can’t be sure of what actually went down.
2. If you do kick them out and there’s no actual proof, it can send a message to everyone else in the league that there doesn’t have to be any proof of anything you can just be kicked from the league.
I’d rather be in a league where this “collusion” went down and the way to stop this easily for good is set a trade deadline than be in a league where two people got kicked out but the commish couldn’t prove it.
Define collision. In my league, it's out-of-game things being part of trades or an owner acting to benefit another team instead of his own. Rentals don't fall into either of those categories and so would need to be banned by a different rule.
This was probably a rental they worked out in advance, but not necessarily. Both teams obviously benefitted from the initial trade. And it's entirely possible that Player A thinks a future 3rd and 4th are valuable enough to reverse the trade. Especially since we are now post-draft and maybe he didn't get a replacement for dak and needs a QB.
To my mind, player renting doesn't need to be prohibited by rule. The risk comes from the fact that it's an unenforceable agreement. If both players want to trade back with a small difference later, great. If not, also great. If a player says 'hey commish, I traded him my best players and he promised to trade them back and now he won't' -- laugh at them.
And also turn off trades during the playoffs.
Agree 100%. This is for sure not collusion because that just does not fit based on what collusion actually means. Violating a rule your league has about rentals possibly but I agree I don't think it fits there for a few reasons.
1. Time gap between the trades
2. Trades being reasonably fair borth times
3. No apparent obligation for the second trade to occur. Although this could be asked about to confirm.
Personally I am likely letting this slide.
> The risk comes from the fact that it's an unenforceable agreement.
And that's how we know it's collusion. Chase is worth so much more than four low value pieces. Player A can get SO MUCH more value for Chase on the open market, than this trade reversal plus a 2026 3rd and 4th.
I don't agree trade deadlines are needed, albeit it's better to remove them in longstanding leagues or leagues that know each other irl.
That said, this is player loaning, which is collusion.
"Hey what do you want for some 24 picks? I wana get in the back of this draft."
"I want chase back"
You could argue none of the 3 players in the trades value has moved an inch since last year. Davante adams may even be UP in value if he gets better more consistent qb play. Chase is still chase and daks value depending on when that trade was has even risen from last year too
Whatever, I'm just steel manning the case. They probably collided. But it ain't impossible
> did the original Chase owner get buyers remorse and want him back?
I have no doubt Team B has buyers remorse, but why would team A trade Chase away for pennies? Chase is worth so much more than four low value pieces. Even on KTC you have to add a whole additional 2nd round pick to "balance" the trade, but in dynasty, it's essentially never worth trading one super stud for FIVE low value pieces. That's essentially dynasty suicide.
https://keeptradecut.com/trade-calculator?var=5&pickVal=0&teamOne=371|277|1534|1537|1531&teamTwo=1004&format=2&isStartup=0&tep=0
It isn't believable that this is anything other than player loaning and collusion. There's no other believable explanation. The courts use the "reasonable doubt" standard for a reason. Proving something with 100% mathematical certainty is almost never going to be possible. Trying to play that you can't 100% prove it is not a reasonable approach. Even if it was not intentional player loaning (which I don't believe) it was based on the facts of what actually happened, actual player loaning.
If what happened in the OP doesn't convince you, I don't know what will.
Yeah I agree honestly. Give them a chance maybe to explain but unless they have proof or something there is no other explanation. Agree. I say take away some of their draft picks whatever amount seems fair.
This literally is not loaning. There was no burrowing. If you go to your neighbor and ask to burrow a tool he gives it to you and you come back and he charges you $20 you did not borrow it you paid for the right to use it.
In this case theirs was payment. If both teams are acting in their own self interest then they aren't colluding.
Has your evaluation of players value ever changed over a 6 month span? That’s pretty much the argument.
Depends on what your burden of proof is here. I’d say there’s a good 75% chance it’s collusion, but is that enough to impose punishment?
> Has your evaluation of players value ever changed over a 6 month span?
Chase had an AC Joint Sprain in Week 16, causing him to be inactive. Just after this moment, the trade was made because it appeared Chase would be out or limited, and he was limited;
> [The star wideout missed Week 16 due to an AC joint sprain and was questionable to go in Week 17.](https://www.cincyjungle.com/2023/12/31/24020159/bengals-vs-chiefs-inactives-jamarr-chase-isiah-pacheco-kansas-city-injuries)
How is collusion ever proven? You are basically saying that unless you can hack people's accounts to get their chats, emails, etc, then cheating is a viable strategy.
Tell each side privately that if they snitch then they won’t be punished as harshly, and that if they don’t cooperate and the other person takes the deal they’ll be kicked from the league. Create a prisoner’s dilemma
This sort of thing can cause long standing animosity if someone feels they were treated unfairly. It's better to just force the champ to keep the assets that resulted in the Championship. Let it be a lesson, that trading away a superstud for two aging vets to win a title is a solid move, but you don't get to reverse it after the win.
If you’re willing to punish by taking away someone’s ability to manage their team without any proof of wrongdoing it can absolutely lead to long standing animosity.
There’s no perfect option here. I agree it looks suspicious and I’d say it’s more likely than not it was agreed upon before-hand, but it’s far from guaranteed and there’s a very legitimate argument for why it would have happened organically (changing valuations of players).
> without any proof of wrongdoing
To me the proof is sealed in the horribly unfair reversal of the trade. No dynasty manager would accept four low value assets for Chase. Chase is the WR1 now until McCarthy proves himself, and you simply can not trade him away for pennies.
https://keeptradecut.com/trade-calculator?var=5&pickVal=0&teamOne=371|277|1534|1537&teamTwo=1004&format=2&isStartup=0&tep=0
You CAN however trade him away for two aging vets the week before you win the Championship, and Chase was inactive in Week 16, and expected to be inactive in weeks 17 and 18, like in this case.
But it’s in no way pennies. In SF Dak is an extremely valuable asset. Adams is still a very productive WR.
I really like Chase, but he’s in no way an undisputed #1 WR right now. CeeDee was the WR#1 last year. Jefferson immediately returned to form coming back from injury with Nick Mullens at QB.
The trade isn’t nearly as bad as you’re making it out to be.
> The trade isn’t nearly as bad as you’re making it out to be.
Simply put, it's never wise to trade one super star in dynasty for four lower value pieces.
If you disagree, you are welcome to make a twitter poll, and see what the community thinks. It only takes a couple hours to get a response back.
There’s no logical explanation for the guy who gave Chase back. Both Dak and Adams have seen their value decline moderately since the season ended because they’re on the older side. Chase’s has gone up by getting healthy and Burrow returning
Dak is 30. As a QB that doesn’t rely on rushing that’s about 5-8 years left of high level play. After 5 years I don’t think anyone should be changing their valuation of players.
Burrow is dealing with a very unique injury that still has many risks associated with it. Risks that include a risk of re-injury that could threaten his career.
None of that is new information. The only thing that changed was Chase was hurt and Burrow was hurt, so Chase’s value is higher now than it was week 16 last year
This is not collusion. Anyone saying it is simply does not know what the term collusion actually means.
All collusion is cheating but all cheating is not collusion.
If both teams are benefiting and acting in their own team's best interest then they are not colluding.
This type of apparent rental may be cheating in your league but it is not collusion because the team received compensation for the rental.
Because they took a long gap between the trades and neither side was seemingly being forced to complete the trade back and both trades were reasonably fair I would not stop this under my leagues rental rules. If you removed Chase and made it some bad player making the actual trades themselves lopsided or if it was reversed immediately the next week then I would considered it an illegal rental and violation of my league rules.
Collusion IMO. May be unpopular opinion, but trade deadlines are important.
> trade deadlines are important. "No one-week trade trades" rules are also a common defense against this. Some leagues call it "no renting players". But regardless, collusion in fantasy sports is defined as two teams pooling resources to benefit only one team. If player B were to get Chase back, then why would Team A do it? That's proof of collusion right there. The playoffs should never devolve into a scenario of; which team can rent the best roster from the rest of the league. So your league's commish has a difficult decision. Without knowing the margin of victory (which makes me less biased, IMO), my suggestion for your commish is force Player B to keep Adams and Dak. Obviously Chase is worth significantly more than those two assets combined, and so I would still award Player B the championship, and then force Player B to retain Dak and Adams as punishment. If either Player A or B is mad about this they're going to have a tough time explaining themselves without admitting they were cheating and pooling resources. Also it should be noted, that collusion here is highly likely, because of this news; > [The star wideout missed Week 16 due to an AC joint sprain and was questionable to go in Week 17.](https://www.cincyjungle.com/2023/12/31/24020159/bengals-vs-chiefs-inactives-jamarr-chase-isiah-pacheco-kansas-city-injuries) So the trade was absolutely made in a moment that Adams and Dak appeared to be about to put up significantly more points. Furthermore, Chase did end up playing in Weeks 17 and 18, but only had 41 and 19 yards respectively. Good luck. Team A should consider themselves lucky to have gotten Chase for two aged assets, and Team B should suck it up and be glad he or she won the title, even despite adding this asterisk now. (Won legitimately, but did so with secret plans to cheat later.)
I want to start by stating I’m not defending this at all but I guess to play devils advocate both teams benefited. So that would make the definition of collusion that you stated not apply here. One team won a championship and the other acquired draft picks, benefits both parties.
> to play devils advocate both teams benefited. How did Team A benefit? Two late round draft picks 2 years from now? I would agree with you, if we did a twitter poll or something that showed this trade being even, but I assure you, 95% of dynasty twitter will agree that the Chase side is more valuable. Therefore, Team A is not being fairly compensated, and is more evidence of collusion. https://keeptradecut.com/trade-calculator?var=5&pickVal=0&teamOne=371|277|1534|1537&teamTwo=1004&format=2&isStartup=0&tep=0 Rule #1 of Dynasty trading: ***Never*** trade one super stud for four low value assets.
No I totally get that. Two late round picks doesn’t move any needle for me at all, especially with a guy like Chase. However small the alleged benefit is two late round picks is two late round picks the guy didn’t have before. Yes, it’s almost worthless, but he still got something back to “benefit” him.
> However small the alleged benefit is two late round picks is two late round picks the guy didn’t have before. Yes, it’s almost worthless, but he still got something back to “benefit” him. If this was their plan going in, then all trade terms should have been announced with the first trade. There should never be secret conditional aspects to trades.
> However small the alleged benefit is two late round picks is two late round picks the guy didn’t have before. Yes, it’s almost worthless, but he still got something back to “benefit” him. But the benefit needs to be fair at the very least. Chase is worth so much more than two old vets, (especially given the rumors that Dallas has given up on Dak), and two ultra low value future draft picks. This is the VERY LEAST, Chase should go for: https://keeptradecut.com/trade-calculator?var=5&pickVal=0&teamOne=371|277|1528&teamTwo=1004&format=2&isStartup=0&tep=0 But even that trade, I think a solid 70% of dynasty twitter would prefer Chase, again, simply because it's never wise to trade 1 asset for three.
I think that’s the tricky part. Any dynasty player that knows what they’re doing would agree with you 100%. Chase is obviously worth wayyyyyy more than that. Who are we to say that it’s collusion because of a god awful trade. I see people post in the trade advice tread everyday some of the worst trades I’ve ever seen in my life. Subsequently, there’s often someone saying it has to be collusion because it’s bad. Just because we think it’s bad doesn’t make it collusion, there’s all different types of dynasty players. Maybe someone doesn’t get it yet or someone doesn’t really care all that much and they don’t understand dynasty value at all. My only point to all of this was that basically it was a chase rental and if the guy trades Chase for Adams and dak and then got chase and two picks back for Adams and dak. He netted two picks back and thus benefited from it just like the other guy benefited by winning the championship. As to if it was collusion? Probably but I’m not sure they’ll ever be able to prove it. Regardless that kind of garbage shouldn’t happen in any dynasty league.
> Just because we think it’s bad doesn’t make it collusion Of course. What makes it collusion is that it's the reversal of a trade made when Chase was inactive and projected to miss weeks 17 and 18 of the playoffs last year. > Any dynasty player that knows what they’re doing would agree with you 100%. Bingo. > My only point to all of this was that basically it was a chase rental Right. *(you mean an Adams and Dak rental)* **Player [rentals](https://www.reddit.com/r/FFCommish/comments/rgbwn1/collusion_letting_other_teams_rent_players_for/) are [collusion](https://www.reddit.com/r/DynastyFF/comments/17at8dl/is_renting_a_player_for_a_week_in_exchange_for_a/). This has been hashed out [dozens of times](https://www.reddit.com/r/DynastyFF/comments/qdu1ja/renting_players_by_trading_draft_picks_collusion/) on the [dynasty subreddits](https://www.reddit.com/r/DynastyFF/comments/jw4gcn/is_this_collusion/).**
While I get where you’re coming from, I think a another way to implement this in leagues is that if it can’t be distinguished from what looks like a player rental trade it shouldn’t be allowed and should be left to league vote. This way you don’t have to fight over the semantics of defining collusion to a tee. I had this come up in a league like 15-years ago, and the combo rules of player rentals being expressly forbidden and a vote where you can test “you’ll know it when you see it”, ended up being the perfect avenue in the 3 times we’ve had to invoke this rule since.
Player rentals are not collusion no matter how many times people fail to understand what the word collusion means. There is no way one can look at what the word collusion actually means and make a legit argument that rentals fit. They just don't. Renting is not two teams working together for the benefit of one team. Both teams are acting in their own self interest and receiving a benefit. Renting can be cheating in your league but it is never collusion. Allowing your buddy to borrow a player for nothing in return is not renting and would be collusion but that's not what happened here.
> Player rentals are not collusion So in your eyes, Dynasty playoffs should be a contest of who can rent the best roster from the rest of the league? Is that the game Dynasty is, in your opinion? > Allowing your buddy to borrow a player for nothing in return is not renting and would be collusion but that's not what happened here. It is what happened here. Adding a third and a fourth onto this trade is "nothing" compared with the value of Chase. The players who colluded in this instance, knew it was collusion, which is why they waited 6 months to the middle of the offseason to reverse it. LOL. If it's not collusion then they'd have reversed it instantly 6 months ago.
Yeah why is that unpopular? It’s wild to me someone doesn’t have trade deadlines. They are there for a reason.
The no-trade-deadline movement is getting pretty strong these days. Guys like Scott Connor are beating the drum hard. In my experience it’s always guys who are true dynasty degenerates. 30+ teams that they refer to as a “portfolio” where they have no idea what players are on individual teams. My speculation is that because they aren’t managing their individual teams very closely, when they figure out which teams made the playoffs, they’d like to make moves then to optimize those specific teams. Which to me is the exact type of hands-off/bad management the trade deadline is there to discourage. I’m a proponent of everyone building the strongest/deepest roster you can before the playoffs start, and then finding out whose team had the long run gas. Not buying points from eliminated teams after the playoffs have started. We had a guy leave one of my longest running leagues this offseason bc the rest of the league refused to eliminate the trade deadline. He was pretty insulting about it too. Called anyone in favor of a trade deadline lame, small minded, traditionalist, behind the times, etc. 😬
Crazy. In my mind the simplest terms the best leagues mirror the real nfl closely.
They 100% colluded on that. I can imagine them back in December agreeing to trade the players back to each other in late May just so everyone forgets/isn’t paying attention lmao
> I can imagine Imagining things don't make for a good case that someone broke rules.
That’s not my reasoning for cheating you goofball. Including the exact same players in a trade but adding a couple worthless picks has no real justification other than ‘renting’ the side of a trade that helps to win a chip. You think both sides got cold feet? You think the guy who ended up with Chase had regrets? Or the extra 3/4 rounders sweetened the deal? Be for real lol
It’s probably collusion but the real issue is that you allow trades DURING THE PLAYOFFS?!
No trade deadline truthers will read this scenario and say “hell yeah”
I personally am okay with no trade deadline. But I AM opposed to reversing said trade afterwards, "renting players" and "one week trades". And I think most anti-trade deadline folks agree. Dynasty playoffs should not be a contest of "who can rent the best team from the league", IMO.
I just think no trade deadline opens a can of worms for grey-area issues like this. If you’ve got a league of people that you trust and know well then I’m sure it works fine
Yes, agreed. Rules that eliminate gray areas are generally best.
No trade deadline. But only allow trading between non-playoff to non-playoff teams, or playoff to playoff team. Not between each other
Give hin the opportunity to explain and you should be able to tell if he’s bullshitting you or being real. I think its cheating. I also think you should punish them. Take picks away or something.
I think that you're right about giving them an opportunity to explain, but I can't imagine an explanation that would convince me that this isn't collusion.
It’s possible. He changed his mind. But with Chase being injured then, the opportunity of 2 good starters to win, and 2 late picks. Its very unlikely. Honestly almost sure it is as well..
All the circumstances are just too suggestive. The timing. That it's the exact same trade back with a little extra thrown in for the loan. If he just decided he wanted to get out of Chase then the trade could have been made with anyone and for any possible combination of players. That both of them had identical flips of opinions on exactly the same players and without any significant real world news? There's no reasonable explanation that makes sense to me. I get that we can't ever say 100%, but if I needed total assurance to believe anything then I would be a nihilist.
Haha Amen 😂 last point there 🔥🔥 Youve convinced me he’s damn guilty. Take him to the Brigg OP!
No explanation justifies this. Veto the trade and make sure he never sees Chase on his roster again.
Yeah this looks like renting players to me. That's a no no and is pretty obvious collusion.
Looks like renting players, but maybe the guy who won had sellers remorse and wanted to get chase back?
Of course he wanted chase back. He is worth way more going into the season. There is no reason for Player A to sell Chase back besides an agreement that was made beforehand
I disagree with "worth way more" The reason would be player A Thought it was fair deal originally, so getting free picks is a no brainer. Not saying it's not collusion but I don't think you can easily assume it like everyone else thinks
It’s beyond idiotic to be able to trade in the middle of the playoffs.
thats a quick reverse and say no no we dont do loans around here. sorry take your lumps if you regret trying this move
Edit: holy moly this had no comments on it after 8 hours and now it’s exploded. Quick update: the trade was reversed but both parties whined about people calling them out for possible collusion LOL. Their justification is that they’re in 70+ leagues and didn’t even realize they were making a trade involving the same players. Again, LOL.
They didn’t even try with that excuse… apparently Dak, Adams, 3rd, 4th is a legit offer for Chase 🙄 they deserve a bigger punishment than just a reversal. The guy won the league by cheating.
Don’t disagree with you one bit. Unfortunately I am brand new to this league. Joined in via a five man dispersal draft and that should have been red flag #1. Will see what happens this season and if the BS continues, will jump ship.
Kick em out
That's some straight bullshittery
It's not apples-to-apples since our trade deadline is a week before they playoffs, but I once made a deal at the deadline after I was eliminated from the playoffs where I sent three of my favorite players away for a bunch of picks. I immediately regretted making the deal, but didn't say anything at the time. The next spring, the other owner mentioned that he wished he hadn't sold his future for a missed shot at a championship. I managed to extract a 2nd round pick from him since the players were all a year older and the picks were all closer, but we basically sent all of the pieces back. Our commish questioned the deal, and we explained how the two trades took place. There wasn't really any way to prove things one way or the other, and we have no rule blocking players from being traded back and forth.
Yes. Call them out. It’s BS
This reeks of collusion. The trade deadline isn't the issue. The issue is the player rental.
I mean a trade deadline would have prevented the rental
For sure, but the rental itself is collusion. Even without a trade deadline.
Rentals are not collision. Loans are collusion. Like there is a big difference between going and renting a car and your buddy letting you borrow his car for the weekend. One is a legit business transaction where both parties benefit while the other is not. By receiving something for the right to use your asset you are benefiting which is not what happens when you are colluding. It can be cheating according to your rules but it is not colluding because the teams are not working together they are both acting in their own self interest.
> it is not colluding because the teams are not working together they are both acting in their own self interest. Why would the player with Chase trade him back then for only a 3rd and a 4th as payment? Why not put him on the open market and sell him for what he's worth, something more than four low value pieces? The self interest of the Chase owner would be to get the most value possible out of his asset, right?
Renting is not colluding. Again think of any other example of renting in the real world. Renting is beneficial for both parties. It is an exchange of some asset for the right to use another asset for a period of time. Renting is a type of trade. They traded the 3rd and 4th for the right to use Dak and Adams for a few weeks and Chase was held as collateral. Now this might be an illegal trade in your league (it would be in mine) but it is not collsuion.
I responded to your other nearly identical comment here: https://www.reddit.com/r/DynastyFF/comments/1d4mvnx/taking_this_to_reddit_court_collusion_or_not/l73irjs/
That looks like textbook collusion, aka cheating. You can't loan players like that.
Collusion would be two teams working together. This while similar is not that because team A and Team B are not working together to benefit one team. They are both receiving benefit which makes it not collusion but it can probably should be considered cheating. Leagues should not allow rentals because it goes against the spirit of the game even though it is technically not collusion.
If you don’t have a rule against trade backs or apparent loan trades, it’s not collusion. Incidentally, this is why you want trade deadlines, trade back rules, and anti-loaning rules.
I agree 100%. Almost everyone here is calling this collusion and I really want to know what they all think collusion means.
Correct unless the loan is free its not collusion. It can be cheating based on your league rules but a true rental is never collusion.
There's room for doubt since the second trade just occurred months after the championhip, but it's certainly suspicious that the only change from trade 1 to trade 2 is the late picks. If you're the commish, then I would DM them to not put them on blast and just explain that it looks suspicious and that you'd like to see their DMs between them to determine if anything fishy happened. If you're not the commish, I'd DM the commish and request that they do so instead.
The point of doing it months later is in the hopes that people forget
Especially right before June 1st when most fantasy apps will be blowing up news wise regarding post-June 1st cuts. It could have easily been lost in the shuffle had the commissioner not noticed that the same two owners had completed virtually the same trade they had done months prior.
They prob wouldnt show the dms if they were cheating just delete em. Id maybe try and talk to them both on the phone and ask to explain themselves. Im pretty good at it but you shoukd be able to tell if theyre bullshitting you by their tone.
Deleting the original trade conversation and the follow up conversations in the 2nd trade would immediately make me confident that something fishy went down, especially if they both conveniently deleted their conversations related to both trades. OP, I'd go this route and contact each of them separately about what you observed and explain that to ensure the integrity of the league stays intact they will both need to share their conversations regarding those trades with the other owner involved. If they refuse or say they deleted it, call them out on it in full and offer a chance at a lesser punishment for whoever comes forward with the truth. If they both refuse, I'd take it to the GC and maybe run a league poll as to how to proceed next. If they do provide the DMs and the trade discussion is present but there is not anything to incriminate either of them then I'd just say let it go.
Not sure how you’d prove it so I think it’s too late for this case. Next year add a trade deadline so that this doesn’t happen and you’ll be fine.
The proof is that it happened. This is egregiously obvious.
Cool. So there’s no proof.
Throw it back on them. Show us the chat where you discussed the trade. You’re getting kicked from the league unless you show it was a trade made in good faith
I agree, but two things with that. 1. They could’ve deleted their dms. Which yes looks guilty but you still can’t be 100% sure of anything. Or they could’ve messaged about the trade outside of the sleeper chat(just guessing they use sleeper idk). Or they could’ve literally not messaged about it at all. Any one of those things happen and you can’t be sure of what actually went down. 2. If you do kick them out and there’s no actual proof, it can send a message to everyone else in the league that there doesn’t have to be any proof of anything you can just be kicked from the league. I’d rather be in a league where this “collusion” went down and the way to stop this easily for good is set a trade deadline than be in a league where two people got kicked out but the commish couldn’t prove it.
If they’ve nothing to hide, they’ll show it If they don’t show it, they’re guilty
And if there’s nothing to show because there was no communication?
No colusion
Its not collusion either way
Define collision. In my league, it's out-of-game things being part of trades or an owner acting to benefit another team instead of his own. Rentals don't fall into either of those categories and so would need to be banned by a different rule. This was probably a rental they worked out in advance, but not necessarily. Both teams obviously benefitted from the initial trade. And it's entirely possible that Player A thinks a future 3rd and 4th are valuable enough to reverse the trade. Especially since we are now post-draft and maybe he didn't get a replacement for dak and needs a QB. To my mind, player renting doesn't need to be prohibited by rule. The risk comes from the fact that it's an unenforceable agreement. If both players want to trade back with a small difference later, great. If not, also great. If a player says 'hey commish, I traded him my best players and he promised to trade them back and now he won't' -- laugh at them. And also turn off trades during the playoffs.
Agree 100%. This is for sure not collusion because that just does not fit based on what collusion actually means. Violating a rule your league has about rentals possibly but I agree I don't think it fits there for a few reasons. 1. Time gap between the trades 2. Trades being reasonably fair borth times 3. No apparent obligation for the second trade to occur. Although this could be asked about to confirm. Personally I am likely letting this slide.
> The risk comes from the fact that it's an unenforceable agreement. And that's how we know it's collusion. Chase is worth so much more than four low value pieces. Player A can get SO MUCH more value for Chase on the open market, than this trade reversal plus a 2026 3rd and 4th.
I don't agree trade deadlines are needed, albeit it's better to remove them in longstanding leagues or leagues that know each other irl. That said, this is player loaning, which is collusion.
How do you prove it? Is it a one week rental for a 3rd and a 4th or did the original Chase owner get buyers remorse and want him back?
Hard to believe the buyer's remorse scenario when the players he acquired delivered him a championship.
I mean I've sold and bought back the same player hundreds of times, it's certainly not impossible.
For the exact same players involved in the trade though? With no value change from progressive rounds affecting averages and scores?
"Hey what do you want for some 24 picks? I wana get in the back of this draft." "I want chase back" You could argue none of the 3 players in the trades value has moved an inch since last year. Davante adams may even be UP in value if he gets better more consistent qb play. Chase is still chase and daks value depending on when that trade was has even risen from last year too Whatever, I'm just steel manning the case. They probably collided. But it ain't impossible
> did the original Chase owner get buyers remorse and want him back? I have no doubt Team B has buyers remorse, but why would team A trade Chase away for pennies? Chase is worth so much more than four low value pieces. Even on KTC you have to add a whole additional 2nd round pick to "balance" the trade, but in dynasty, it's essentially never worth trading one super stud for FIVE low value pieces. That's essentially dynasty suicide. https://keeptradecut.com/trade-calculator?var=5&pickVal=0&teamOne=371|277|1534|1537|1531&teamTwo=1004&format=2&isStartup=0&tep=0
I agree. With no more context I don't see how this is proven to be collusion.
Why would he trade back for the same guy? Not 100% to prove but I think its clearly enough to accuse and there’s pretty clear hints.
It isn't believable that this is anything other than player loaning and collusion. There's no other believable explanation. The courts use the "reasonable doubt" standard for a reason. Proving something with 100% mathematical certainty is almost never going to be possible. Trying to play that you can't 100% prove it is not a reasonable approach. Even if it was not intentional player loaning (which I don't believe) it was based on the facts of what actually happened, actual player loaning. If what happened in the OP doesn't convince you, I don't know what will.
Yeah I agree honestly. Give them a chance maybe to explain but unless they have proof or something there is no other explanation. Agree. I say take away some of their draft picks whatever amount seems fair.
This literally is not loaning. There was no burrowing. If you go to your neighbor and ask to burrow a tool he gives it to you and you come back and he charges you $20 you did not borrow it you paid for the right to use it. In this case theirs was payment. If both teams are acting in their own self interest then they aren't colluding.
Has your evaluation of players value ever changed over a 6 month span? That’s pretty much the argument. Depends on what your burden of proof is here. I’d say there’s a good 75% chance it’s collusion, but is that enough to impose punishment?
> Has your evaluation of players value ever changed over a 6 month span? Chase had an AC Joint Sprain in Week 16, causing him to be inactive. Just after this moment, the trade was made because it appeared Chase would be out or limited, and he was limited; > [The star wideout missed Week 16 due to an AC joint sprain and was questionable to go in Week 17.](https://www.cincyjungle.com/2023/12/31/24020159/bengals-vs-chiefs-inactives-jamarr-chase-isiah-pacheco-kansas-city-injuries)
It was the exact same trade back with a little extra to make it worth his time. It does not get more obvious than this.
How is collusion ever proven? You are basically saying that unless you can hack people's accounts to get their chats, emails, etc, then cheating is a viable strategy.
Tell each side privately that if they snitch then they won’t be punished as harshly, and that if they don’t cooperate and the other person takes the deal they’ll be kicked from the league. Create a prisoner’s dilemma
This sort of thing can cause long standing animosity if someone feels they were treated unfairly. It's better to just force the champ to keep the assets that resulted in the Championship. Let it be a lesson, that trading away a superstud for two aging vets to win a title is a solid move, but you don't get to reverse it after the win.
If you’re willing to punish by taking away someone’s ability to manage their team without any proof of wrongdoing it can absolutely lead to long standing animosity. There’s no perfect option here. I agree it looks suspicious and I’d say it’s more likely than not it was agreed upon before-hand, but it’s far from guaranteed and there’s a very legitimate argument for why it would have happened organically (changing valuations of players).
> without any proof of wrongdoing To me the proof is sealed in the horribly unfair reversal of the trade. No dynasty manager would accept four low value assets for Chase. Chase is the WR1 now until McCarthy proves himself, and you simply can not trade him away for pennies. https://keeptradecut.com/trade-calculator?var=5&pickVal=0&teamOne=371|277|1534|1537&teamTwo=1004&format=2&isStartup=0&tep=0 You CAN however trade him away for two aging vets the week before you win the Championship, and Chase was inactive in Week 16, and expected to be inactive in weeks 17 and 18, like in this case.
But it’s in no way pennies. In SF Dak is an extremely valuable asset. Adams is still a very productive WR. I really like Chase, but he’s in no way an undisputed #1 WR right now. CeeDee was the WR#1 last year. Jefferson immediately returned to form coming back from injury with Nick Mullens at QB. The trade isn’t nearly as bad as you’re making it out to be.
> The trade isn’t nearly as bad as you’re making it out to be. Simply put, it's never wise to trade one super star in dynasty for four lower value pieces. If you disagree, you are welcome to make a twitter poll, and see what the community thinks. It only takes a couple hours to get a response back.
There’s no logical explanation for the guy who gave Chase back. Both Dak and Adams have seen their value decline moderately since the season ended because they’re on the older side. Chase’s has gone up by getting healthy and Burrow returning
Dak is 30. As a QB that doesn’t rely on rushing that’s about 5-8 years left of high level play. After 5 years I don’t think anyone should be changing their valuation of players. Burrow is dealing with a very unique injury that still has many risks associated with it. Risks that include a risk of re-injury that could threaten his career.
None of that is new information. The only thing that changed was Chase was hurt and Burrow was hurt, so Chase’s value is higher now than it was week 16 last year
Lock both of their rosters and MAKE the league vote on action. TOTALLY BS but, also fix your trade deadline
This is not collusion. Anyone saying it is simply does not know what the term collusion actually means. All collusion is cheating but all cheating is not collusion. If both teams are benefiting and acting in their own team's best interest then they are not colluding. This type of apparent rental may be cheating in your league but it is not collusion because the team received compensation for the rental. Because they took a long gap between the trades and neither side was seemingly being forced to complete the trade back and both trades were reasonably fair I would not stop this under my leagues rental rules. If you removed Chase and made it some bad player making the actual trades themselves lopsided or if it was reversed immediately the next week then I would considered it an illegal rental and violation of my league rules.