Is this collusion?

[WhatWouldDitkaDo]

I would say this falls into a gray area...not collusion but a little questionable. It's one of those things where I think technically I'd be okay with it, but I'd have that little feeling in my gut that makes it a bit uncomfortable. I'd much rather grab someone first and then put him on the trade block or open trade talks.

[skip]

To me it's proper use of Waiver assets, grabbing guys that were once useless and making a profit.

This is how I see it. We see people mention their intention of grabbing certain players from waivers all the time with the intent on moving them later on for something of value. This is the same thing but negotiated in advance. This is not all that different from an owner working two deals at once with the plan to get a player from deal #1 to flip into deal #2.

[btv802]

Switch to FAAB system for waivers.

[sloth8u]

Switch to FAAB system for waivers.

Would certainly solve the issue.

Why is he not targeting the guy with the top claim? I think this scenario could certainly fall in the area of owners pooling assets.

[Tsunami]

I think the opposite of this conversation might be collusion. If I said "if you don't use your waiver on PlayerX I'll take him and trade him to you" that would be two teams cooperating to scheme the system. The way you have it set up, it's just a trade. It would be no different if you announced publicly that you're interested in PlayerX for a 2nd or whatever.

[steelman]

I think the opposite of this conversation might be collusion. If I said "if you don't use your waiver on PlayerX I'll take him and trade him to you" that would be two teams cooperating to scheme the system. The way you have it set up, it's just a trade. It would be no different if you announced publicly that you're interested in PlayerX for a 2nd or whatever.

It's the same thing. In this case, instead of trading for a higher waiver pick, a team with a higher waiver pick wants two players so they are going to take their primary guy and make a trade for their secondary guy. It's absolutely no different and is not collusion. It's a trade.

As long as a trade is for the betterment of all teams involved, there's nothing wrong with it.

[NanceUSMC]

I think the opposite of this conversation might be collusion. If I said "if you don't use your waiver on PlayerX I'll take him and trade him to you" that would be two teams cooperating to scheme the system. The way you have it set up, it's just a trade. It would be no different if you announced publicly that you're interested in PlayerX for a 2nd or whatever.

I think collusion would be more along the lines of me telling the waiver owner "I'll give you $20 if you don't trade that to Team X"

[slaughterrt]

I think the opposite of this conversation might be collusion. If I said "if you don't use your waiver on PlayerX I'll take him and trade him to you" that would be two teams cooperating to scheme the system. The way you have it set up, it's just a trade. It would be no different if you announced publicly that you're interested in PlayerX for a 2nd or whatever.

I think collusion would be more along the lines of me telling the waiver owner "I'll give you $20 if you don't trade that to Team X"

Or collusion if a team says “I’ll give you $20 to not pick a player with the top waiver so I can pick him with the 2nd waiver”.

[Wile E. Coyote]

I agree with others, it is the same as trading for that waiver slot. Kinda similar to trading for a draft pick, with the exception being, in lieu of being claimed by Team B, the player goes through Team A on his way to Team B. I would be fine with it.

[Wile E. Coyote]

Switch to FAAB system for waivers.

Would certainly solve the issue.

Why is he not targeting the guy with the top claim? I think this scenario could certainly fall in the area of owners pooling assets.

I've never played in a FAAB league; as such, other than knowing it is a waiver claim auction, I'm not familiar with how it works. But, I have seen a couple of people on here post that they either traded or received FAAB $$ during a trade. So, I don't see how that would make this situation any different.

[onetwothree]

Why is he not targeting the guy with the top claim? I think this scenario could certainly fall in the area of owners pooling assets.

Possible asking price too high or top waiver dead set on someone.

[sloth8u]

Switch to FAAB system for waivers.

Would certainly solve the issue.

Why is he not targeting the guy with the top claim? I think this scenario could certainly fall in the area of owners pooling assets.

I've never played in a FAAB league; as such, other than knowing it is a waiver claim auction, I'm not familiar with how it works. But, I have seen a couple of people on here post that they either traded or received FAAB $$ during a trade. So, I don't see how that would make this situation any different.

If you trade for $100, and someone bids $101.
Much like claim 2 having no interest in the player to be added, so 12 is bypassing everyone that could claim said player 3-11.

If I understand correctly, he isn't trading for the 2nd priority, just if the player falls. It's a conditional trade, which most leagues don't allow.

[sloth8u]

Why is he not targeting the guy with the top claim? I think this scenario could certainly fall in the area of owners pooling assets.

Possible asking price too high or top waiver dead set on someone.

The scenarios I thought of aswell. But he would pay the price if he had to have the player. 1 is the only guy who can steal him.

The other scenario is that 12 is trying to make a back door deal, and rather than trade for the 2nd claim, the owner is doing so conditionaly. perhaps 2 had no interest in the player and claims 3-11 are getting hosed here.

I see no problem trading for the claim, my issue would be that if it's a conditional offer, I can see how some may view that as inappropriate.

[Vcize]

As long as a trade is for the betterment of all teams involved, there's nothing wrong with it.

So if I come to you and say "hey looks like you have bye issues at RB this week, and I have bye issues at WR, I'll trade you Bell for Evans and then after this week we'll trade back" would you say that's not collusion because it is to the betterment of both teams?

That's collusion to me.

As to the question in the OP, seems like an easy option is to ask the commish ahead of time, and if it's deemed OK then have it added to the rules that waiver priority can be traded. Otherwise it's teetering on the edge of collusion. Maybe or maybe not technically collusion (there are lots of different definitions of it), but it's not something I'd feel right about doing. It's at least enough of a grey area.