Trade Dispute: Forte for Schaub

Q: Team A: Record (14-6)1st Place;  Team B: Record (3-17)Last Place(almost  mathematically eliminated from playoffs).   Trade: Team A (1st place) receives – RB Matt Forte;   Team B (Last place) receives – QB M Schaub

This will give Team B 4QB\’s when they can only start one.    This will also rid Team B of their best RB.  Commissioner’s thoughts:  B could possibly be trying to hoard QB\’s in an attempt to try and trade them off when other starting QB\’s get injured. This trade will not directly help Team B.

Fair or foul? Collusion or not?

A: Thanks for the inquiry.   It is trades such as these that make an argument for moving the trading deadline up to week 6 or 7.    Here is why.   On paper, you can’t veto this trade because you need to evaluate the value exchanged in the trade independent of current records or suspicions of collusion.

Schaub is the second ranked QB in the league this season (according to ESPN rankings), which probably makes him the second highest fantasy scorer in the NFL this season.   With that kind of production you could make an argument that exchanging him with AP or Chris Johnson is fair so you certainly can’t overturn a trade for Forte.

We agree that based off the current records and rosters there is a substantially chance that this is collusion – but in the absence of proof, that is mere speculation.   We recommend grilling the trade participants on the transactions and asking them to defend their moves.   Sometimes this will flush out the conspiracy.   If they maintain that the trade was made in order to improve their teams, respectively, then you have no choice but to let the trade pass on its own merit.

To prevent these issues in the future you should move the trading deadline up in the season (so all teams still have a chance to win).  If you are positive that this is collusion than you should find more reputable owners for your league next season.