Is this collusion?

[mzkp54]

New league this year on sleeper. Superflex, TE premium. One owner (who lost Tua and only had one QB and now lost CMC) has not posted on the chat once, or even looked at it. He has not responded to any trade offers or DMs from anyone. He is a friend of someone in the league. The commissioner asked that guy to talk to him about responding to trade offers.

A few hours later, this trade goes through.

Invisible owner gives: Russell Wilson, Dalls Goedert. ‘22’1st, ‘24 2nd

His friend gives: Tannehill, Cousins, ‘23 5th

Invisible owner still hasn’t responded to or opened the chat or any DMs as people discuss how awful the trade is.

I feel like it’s kind of messed up that he has only one person he will talk to or trade with and it’s so lopsided. Would you consider this collusion and worthy of acting on?

[RAB]

I would stop short of calling it collusion. He's trading one starting QB for 2 because he lost Tua. It's just an awful trade that is the result of a team owner that is not engaged and clearly doesn't want to be involved as much as everyone else. It only takes one of these guys to ruin a league.

[tsarpepe]

Collusion is basically impossible to prove (you don't have access to his phone or dms). This is why I'm a firm believer that leagues should have rules for vetoing lopsided trades, regardless whether it's collusion or not.

[repkllrs]

No. If the 22 1st wasn’t included, I’m not sure which side I would want. I am sure we have all seen much worse trades than this.

[BucBuc]

I've seen worst trades than this I'd be looking for a new owner regardless tho if hes not responding to anyone else in the league and isn't active

[Gator Sens]

The issue is the other owner not engaging with the league. An owner certainly does not have to trade but responding to trade message or offers is a minimum for a dynasty league to be successful. It's not a great trade but I dont think there is any way to prove collusion here. Certainly sounds like a less than good owner for a dynasty league though.

[PBFalcon]

The issue is the other owner not engaging with the league. An owner certainly does not have to trade but responding to trade message or offers is a minimum for a dynasty league to be successful. It's not a great trade but I dont think there is any way to prove collusion here. Certainly sounds like a less than good owner for a dynasty league though.

This sounds right

[Anteaters]

No. If the 22 1st wasn’t included, I’m not sure which side I would want. I am sure we have all seen much worse trades than this.

++

One owner (who lost Tua and only had one QB and now lost CMC) has not posted on the chat once, or even looked at it. He has not responded to any trade offers or DMs from anyone. He is a friend of someone in the league. The commissioner asked that guy to talk to him about responding to trade offers.

Not too unusual. A guy joins a league where he knows only one other owner. He chooses to lay low and get a feel for the other owners before squawking a lot on the chat board - some guys enter a room loud, some are more reticent. No big deal there.

I question how many trade offers he received. From the quote above, it could be 20 or 1 - it simply says "he has not responded." And if it's more offers from 2 other owners, how do we really know he didn't respond to any of the offers? Maybe he received two lowball offers and didn't feel they deserved a response? Maybe he's received 6 offers, responded to 2, and the other 4 guys are whining because they didn't get a response to their lowball offers.

Then the league sort of demands he engage more in trade talks. So the guy who has only one 1QB in a SF league makes a trade that gives him 2QBs ... AND NOW THE SAME PEOPLE WHO COMPLAINED HE NEVER MAKES TRADES WANT TO ACCUSE HIM OF COLLUSION??!?!!?

If I was the new guy, I wouldn't want to play in this league any more. I might even ask to be allowed to leave immediately and get a refund. The other guys seem too uptight.

Disclaimer: I don't believe any owner is obligated to make any trades, respond to any offers, or post on chat boards. The only thing I expect of owners in my leagues is that they pay their fees, don't autodraft, enter a starting lineup every week that doesn't include injured players or players on byes, and manage their team via waivers and free agency. That's it.

[abloom]

Nothing screams collusion here.

Your league should have rules outlining expected communication and responses to trades.

[ESKAY]

The problem I see here is there is no way anyone should be able to trade a 2024 first in 2021. If you want to trade a future first in my league you have to pay that years dues so you don’t bail on the league.

[briank]

New league this year on sleeper. Superflex, TE premium. One owner (who lost Tua and only had one QB and now lost CMC) has not posted on the chat once, or even looked at it. He has not responded to any trade offers or DMs from anyone. He is a friend of someone in the league. The commissioner asked that guy to talk to him about responding to trade offers.

A few hours later, this trade goes through.

Invisible owner gives: Russell Wilson, Dalls Goedert. ‘22’1st, ‘24 2nd

His friend gives: Tannehill, Cousins, ‘23 5th

Invisible owner still hasn’t responded to or opened the chat or any DMs as people discuss how awful the trade is.

I feel like it’s kind of messed up that he has only one person he will talk to or trade with and it’s so lopsided. Would you consider this collusion and worthy of acting on?

Nothing you have said suggests collusion. Just a bad owner.

[jobiegermano]

I don’t believe collusion exists in dynasty leagues, I mean outside of a team trading all their starters to a friend for all their bench… but even then many game plans are years out. In a redraft, if you trade away all your stars for someone’s junk, that’s likely collusion, but in dynasty it could just be a team throwing the year to get the R1P1 and start a rebuild. In dynasty, I wouldn’t blink an eye if someone traded Henry, CMC, Nuk, and Kelce all for future picks. That sounds insane, but for enough picks (and the right picks), they could have just landed Najee, Etienne, Jovante, Chase, Bateman, and Pitts! Could be the start of a 5+ year dynasty.

There’s no collusion in dynasty unless someone offers non-fantasy assets like money, etc.

[cptjonesb]

Not collusion.

it is a 2 for 1 QB swap in a SF league. Actually Cousins is outscoring Wilson this year. I agree not really a great trade, but if you need a 2nd QB you gotta do what you gotta do.

Also Cousins is criminally underrated in fantasy.

[prinefan]

Not collusion.

it is a 2 for 1 QB swap in a SF league. Actually Cousins is outscoring Wilson this year. I agree not really a great trade, but if you need a 2nd QB you gotta do what you gotta do.

Also Cousins is criminally underrated in fantasy.

This

[murphysxm]

Not to insult the OP, but this sounds a bit like frustration talking because he hasn't responded to your trades and you think they were stronger than what he landed on. This isn't collusion at all to me. Not a trade I would make, but can see why it was made.