Is this collusion?

[Cy23]

First, I am not clear on the structure of the salary cap.

If each owner is given x amount of bid dollars, and this amount has no impact on the yearly contract, then player a who currently owns Gronk is forfeiting his own bid dollars in exchange for what the other team is offering him in a trade.

If the bid dollars result in the yearly contract, then player b is assuming the cost and is giving up value to attain Gronk. People keep saying that he is being removed as a bidder, bit he is not. He is matching whatever the winning bid is.

In my salary cap league, we have a transition auction. And none of this BS max value wins based on a range, it is a live auction. And people were surprised when I first did this, but I bid against myself because I knew that my bid wasn't high enough.

For example, nobody else liked Reggie bush that much, of the eleven owners bidding, except me. So if I bid only against them, I could win bush at six million. But I know the actual owner likes him and can afford six million. So even though I am the highest bidder at six, I up my offer to twelve.

People laughed at me the first time I did it, but once they realized you are actually bidding against the secret bidder, the one with transition rights, everyone agreed it wad a good strategy.


So in my league, removing the Gronk loving owner doesn't decrease his price tag.

[Guppy CEO]

i put this into the same category as some auction day deals that i have made. middle of the auction, i was down to my last few $$ and needed a TE and wanted my sleeper. i knew that if i nominated either, they would be bid up just to run me out of $$. so i offered an owner a 3rd rnd pick if he could get my sleeper for under $2. he nominated the sleeper for $1, and no one else bid. immediately after the draft, i traded the pick for the player.

in this case, i doubt the cost of Gronk will be kept low due to the absence of a single bidder.