I'm the Commish and I Suspect Corruption

[cubsfan18]

I am the league commissioner of a Yahoo fantasy baseball league. Recently a trade took place between two members of our league that is clearly lopsided. Here it is:

TEAM A TRADES:
Carlos Beltran
Octavio Dotel
Jake Westbrook

TEAM B TRADES:
Jim Thome
Keith Foulke
Brandon Webb

*It should also be noted that Team B had Thome on it's bench since it had 3 firstbasemen for some bizzarre reason and also had 3 closers.

Now a week before this trade took place, Team A had proposed it to Team B. Team A told me that he was proposing this trade to Team B because he felt sorry for Team B because Team B had a bad draft and accidentally picked 3 firstbasemen. According to Yahoo Sports, "All league-related transactions will be executed with the intent of improving the owner's team and/or its standing within the league" and "No owner will engage in any action that may be deemed to be collusive (two or more owners agreeing to make moves that benefit one team, but not the other)."

I told the teams, for the aforementioned reason, that they needed to trade back the players involved in this deal since it was collusive. After finding out that I suspected corruption, Team A told me that he changed his mind about the trade and felt that it was actually fair. What should I do now? I don't know if he's telling the truth or just trying to defend his actions, but does it even matter considering what he told me before? Neither manager is willing to trade-back so should I switch the players from their teams? Does this warrant a suspension?

Thank you for any and all advice, especially from other possible commissioners who have experienced similar problems.

[so0perspam]

That deal isn't all that bad really ...

Beltran > Thome
Dotel < Foulke
Westbrook < Webb

I'd want the Beltran side of the deal, but I wouldn't suspect collusion just yet.

[AKhomebrewer]

Doesn't look that whacked to me.

Also insufficient info to recommend you take drastic action. "Felt sorry for Team B" is an unusual reason, unless these two owners are married.

Still, maybe Team A has a boatload of steals and needs more power, and is among those who believes both that Thome will threaten 50 taters while Shea will bring Beltran back to 25.
And maybe he trusts Foulke on a 100-win team more than a Dotel who is on a team in transition and rumored in various trades, quite possibly one involving him moving back to set-up.

Unless Beltran and Dotel were Team A's only players of note, and he just turned Team B into the '27 Yankees, I wouldn't sweat it.

[thomasps3]

Yeah, unless something like Matt Riley for Vlad comes up, I don't think this is collusion. But I would definitely tell the owners you are keeping an eye on their future activity...remember, you don't want to legislate the fun out of what one owner thinks is better value than another owner

[Pablo975]

Let it go. It isn't THAT bad a trade anyway....just depends on what the other guy needs.

A perfectly even trade, no.

A vetoable, collusive trade, no.

[SHOCKandAWE]

Is it collusion or you being biased because you wish you had a chance at Beltran and could have offered him more?

[cubsfan18]

I see what you mean, guys, and I wouldn't even be considering taking action except for the fact that TEAM A told me in advance that he knew the deal wasn't fair for him and that he was doing it only to help out TEAM B cause he felt sorry for him. You guys are saying that that shouldn't make a difference?

[agchris02]

you still cant take action on that, Ive made a trade with somoene because they were my friend and NOT traded with someone else because I didnt like them -- thats not necessarily collusive. Its not 100% even, but its not awful either

[coke609]

The main point is:
Is this such a lopsisded trade that it warrents a veto.

I do not think so, and so far none of the other responces have called it one.

,

[Spartans Rule]

This is not a lopsided trade, but it IS collusion and should be struck down.

The owner said he was offering the trade because he felt sorry for the other guy. He knew it wasn't a good trade, and claiming that he changed his mind is nonsense. This is the definition of collusion.

I am almost always on the side of letting trades go, but in this case you have a confession of collusion. At that point it doesn't matter who the players are.