Is this collusion?

[ericanadian]

The current owner is trying to get some value for Gronk and is willing to tie up their own FA dollars to do so. You can't force a guy to make a bid, so he's well within his rights not to do so. In my view, there is nothing wrong with this scenario.

1) If someone wants to stop the NE guy from getting Gronk, they can simply bid beyond what he would be willing to pay.
2) If someone wants to take the value the guy currently holding Gronk is going to receive in trading Gronk after the fact, there is nothing to stop them from bidding it up to whatever value they think the guy that likes NE is willing to pay and then making the trade themselves.

Ergo, the only benefit that other owners can't take for themselves is the RFA rights themselves and that is fair because everyone gets RFA rights to their RFAs.

[xlote]

There may be nothing wrong with what each party is indivdually doing, but it still sounds like collusion, because it was a pre-agreement to enable the two owners to better get what they want.

In normal FF Owner A might have no interest in making a waiver claim on Mike Goodson with his early claim position. Owner B might want Goodson but be too far back in the waiver order to get him. He might also be certain that owner C who has a claim between them will pick Goodson. It's not collusion if Owner A picks up Goodson. It's not collusion if he later trades Goodson to B for AJ Jenkins. However, it is collusion and thus unethical and wrong if Owner B says 'hey, put a claim in on Goodson for me and I'll trade Jenkins to you for him." as A & B are colluding to remove C from gettings a fair chance at Goodson.

That correlates to this situation.

[TheOracle]

Not really. In that sense, owner C is 100% removed from getting Jenkins. In this case, if somebody wants Gronkowski bad enough, he can still get him.

[Cw4499]

The current owner is trying to get some value for Gronk and is willing to tie up their own FA dollars to do so. You can't force a guy to make a bid, so he's well within his rights not to do so. In my view, there is nothing wrong with this scenario.

1) If someone wants to stop the NE guy from getting Gronk, they can simply bid beyond what he would be willing to pay.

2) If someone wants to take the value the guy currently holding Gronk is going to receive in trading Gronk after the fact, there is nothing to stop them from bidding it up to whatever value they think the guy that likes NE is willing to pay and then making the trade themselves.

Ergo, the only benefit that other owners can't take for themselves is the RFA rights themselves and that is fair because everyone gets RFA rights to their RFAs.

Actually the deal is that the Team A owner will match whatever the high bid is and than pass it on to team B. So there is no stopping the NE guy from getting Gronk unless team C is willing to go beyond a reasonable number for Gronk in this situation. (It will be especially evident if team C bid's beyond what team B is willing to pay. Is he allowed to back out of the deal at that time) But team C can't go beyond that mark unless there is also a team D that pushes team C beyond that limit. Advantage Team A&B thanks to there "Deal"

It is very similar to when the NFL Free agency began. The NFL Owners had an unwritten gentleman's agreement not to bid on free agents (After all "You can't force a man to bid) In the first years of NFL Free agency very little happenned until the Union's sued the owner's for Collusion.

This little aggreement between team A and Team B, Team B circumvent's the Leagues free market bidding by collusion with team A. Both team A and Team B get something out of the transaction that was not intended by the league rules.

[chadtriumph]

Any other team can still get Gronk if they decide to out bid all other suitors. Just like TheOracle stated, "if somebody wants Gronkowski bad enough, he can still get him." I truly don't see how you can consider this collusion...

And to respond to xlote's hypothetical situation about Mike Goodson/AJ Jenkins- there is no way that it correlates to this situation. Every other individual in the league is still able to bid for Gronk- your analogy has no validity to the situation.. and even if they lose (or choose to not bid as high as the original owner) they can still offer an enticing trade for Gronk.

[standard_variance]

Yea I dont understand how this is collusion....

Its not like an agreement to trade players on bye weeks and then trade back.....or something the league cannot control that would adversely affect the league.

The league is directly involved with how this can play out....

Team A may plan to spend up to $100 and the bidding on Gronk may go up to $110+. At that point Team B may have to decide whether or not this verbal agreement is even worth following through on in terms of trying to outbid Team C, Team D, and Team X. If it works out for the parties involved then its not to the chagrin of the league because collectively they allowed it to happen by not bidding competitively.

[tstafford]

I don't think it's collusion, but it depends on how you define collusion I suppose. In this case, both of these teams are tying to better themselves so I'd be inclined to be okay with this. It certainly has a fishy smell to it, but it's a natural thing to have happen with this type of RFA rights. Also, Meiny makes an interesting point that it probably happens more than we think in SC leagues. Rourke makes a good point too, however, that by removing one more interested party from the bidding the natural market forces should result in a lower price on Gronk. That's dodgy. I don't think it's collusion in the traditional sense, but I must admit I don't like it.

In my main league, it's extremely common for people to trade RFA rights players. It's happened every single year. It's also common for a condition of the trade being that the owner sending the RFA player will not participate in the bidding. But the difference is that the condition is disclosed at the time of the trade (before the RFA auction) and therefore teams know they must account for having one less bidder - thus pushing up the bidding if they want.

I want to point something else out, the way this trade is happening is going to handcuff the team that is holding Gronk but has committed to trading him. He's going to burn a bunch of his bidding dollars retaining a player he knows he won't be keeping, thus taking him out of other bids. That's not a very wise plan. I'd want to move Gronk to the other team before RFA and let him deal with it.

Also, the team that thinks it's getting Gronk could get screwed in this deal. If Gronk comes in more cheaply than expected, the team holding Gronk could elect to renege on the deal. That really hurts the team that doesn't get Gronk because he will have retained cap space assuming he needed it for Gronk.

[ericanadian]

Actually the deal is that the Team A owner will match whatever the high bid is and than pass it on to team B. So there is no stopping the NE guy from getting Gronk unless team C is willing to go beyond a reasonable number for Gronk in this situation. (It will be especially evident if team C bid's beyond what team B is willing to pay. Is he allowed to back out of the deal at that time) But team C can't go beyond that mark unless there is also a team D that pushes team C beyond that limit. Advantage Team A&B thanks to there "Deal"

It is very similar to when the NFL Free agency began. The NFL Owners had an unwritten gentleman's agreement not to bid on free agents (After all "You can't force a man to bid) In the first years of NFL Free agency very little happenned until the Union's sued the owner's for Collusion.

This little aggreement between team A and Team B, Team B circumvent's the Leagues free market bidding by collusion with team A. Both team A and Team B get something out of the transaction that was not intended by the league rules.

The gentlemen's agreement was considered collusion because it hurt the players, not other owners. Are you suggesting fantasy players have bargaining rights or something? That's kinda crazy...

This is the equivalent of a sign and trade which is common in sports.

[Cw4499]

The gentlemen's agreement was considered collusion because it hurt the players, not other owners. Are you suggesting fantasy players have bargaining rights or something? That's kinda crazy...

This is the equivalent of a sign and trade which is common in sports.[/quote]

I think you nailed it right there in your statement.

This whole scenario would not be necessary if they just made the trade prior to the draft. If the league rules
permit a pre-draft trade, there is no collusion. If a trade is not permitted on players who have become free agents. based on the league rules, then the players have initiated a transaction to get around the rules and it is collusion.

[hamburglar]

Collusion is an agreement between two players to their benefit at the expense of the league. It's not dealing in good faith with the rest of the league.

To me, this is clear-cut collusion.

I think I'm with this guy. He breaks it down rather simply. We can break it up any way we want... it's still two teams colluding.

[TheOracle]

Collusion is an agreement between two players to their benefit at the expense of the league. It's not dealing in good faith with the rest of the league.

To me, this is clear-cut collusion.

I think I'm with this guy. He breaks it down rather simply. We cab break it up any way we want... it's still two teams colluding.

That's actually a pretty broad definition. If I agree to give you my backup quarterback in exchange for your backup runningback, and we both are better teams after the trade, that'd be collusion according to the definition given above.

[Cw4499]

That's actually a pretty broad definition. If I agree to give you my backup quarterback in exchange for your backup runningback, and we both are better teams after the trade, that'd be collusion according to the definition given above.[/quote]


Your right, the only difference is that in this case the two owners circumvent the league rules in order to better their teams

[Cw4499]

[quote="chadtriumph"]Any other team can still get Gronk if they decide to out bid all other suitors. Just like TheOracle stated, "if somebody wants Gronkowski bad enough, he can still get him." I truly don't see how you can consider this collusion...

Actually any other team that outbids all other suitors does not get Gronk in this case. Team B still gets Gronk after team C outbids all other suitors. Please refer to OP.

[TheOracle]

Team C does not get Gronk because he did not big higher than Team B was willing to pay. If Team C bids the max, and Team B decides not to match it, Team C gets Gronk. You're reading the post wrong. If Team B decides to match all suitors and then make a trade, that should absolutely be his right.

[TheOracle]

Here's how this plays out.

Team A is the Gronk-suitor.
Team B is the current Gronk owner.
Teams C-I represent the rest of the league.

Team A has told Team B that they are not bidding on Gronk, but as long as Team B matches the offer for him, they'll trade for Gronk. Team B has a choice- they can choose to match any offer and then trade Gronk, or they can decide that what they'd get back in return is not worth the money and let him go to the highest bidder, Team C. Even if Team B has decided they will match any offer, Team C can still trump Team A's bid for Gronk's services by offering a better trade package. In no way is this unfair or underhanded. If you think it is, salary and budget leagues probably aren't for you.