Is my Commish crazy?

Hey gang, need your thoughts on this one.

I’m part of a 10 team paid league where the commish is one of the owners (who I happen to be playing this week…unsure if that parts relevant )

Before waivers ran, I mentioned to another owner with a high waiver priority that one of the players that was on waivers I was interested in and would trade a good WR for. Is this collusion? If I tell one or all other owners this or write a big long post about wanting a player on waivers is that collusion?

My Commish says it is. He says I can’t say anything to anyone before waivers about wanting a player.

Thus when the other owner got said player, then traded him to me for a WR valued higher (14 vs 8 on fantasy pros week 3 trade chart) in a move that helped both of our squads, the commish immediately vetoed it and said I’m not allowed to “dictate” waiver picks.

Am I in the wrong here or is the commish off?

A case can be made for both points of view. But if you contacted only a single owner with your pre-waiver trade offer, then yes, I’d lean towards calling that collusion.

If you post a message to all owners on your league’s board, stating that you are interested in player X from the waiver wire, and would be ready to trade player Y to any owner who’d claim X, then I’d be okay with it.

In either case, as a commish, if something happens that isn’t covered by our league rules, I’d usually ask all owners to weigh in and have a majority vote. Commish-vetoing a trade involving this week’s opponent usually won’t sit well in any league.

Exactly this.

If you notified the league, then it’s not collusion. If you were secretly working a deal with a single owner before waivers ran, then that kinda is.

How is it “kinda”?
If you “secretly” work out a trade for a player on another team is that collusion? You didn’t inform the league you were working on a trade with another team… That’s simple trading that every team in every league does. Seems pretty flimsy.

You approached a team owner.
You made an offer for a player that team didn’t even own at that point.
A player whom that team may not have claimed, if not for your offer.

I’d call that collusion.

And if you don’t like that feedback, then don’t ask for it.

In my opinion, I do not see this as collusion whatsoever and do not see why the commissioner needs to intervene with a veto. To begin with, vetos on trades shouldn’t even be a thing. If a trade is suspected to have collusion written all over it, a league vote should be in place. If you and an owner agreed on a trade prior that on paper is “fair” what is the big deal? I think it would be a bigger deal if it was a FAAB budget league and you offered to throw in FAAB to ensure that player was getting into your hands. I don’t see an issue though but a league vote should be held. If this happened in my league, I wouldn’t see a problem.

It is not fair because other owners may have decided to claim that player from the waiver wire, had they also known about OP’s intent to make a favorable trade offer for him.

I did not say the commish handled the situation well, though. Asking for a majority vote is the reasonable way to go here. If the majority of owners is cool with such backroom deals, fine. My vote would have been in favor of “please don’t do that”.