No.
But do give us more info about possible collusion!
Found out more, I apparently missed a lot on the smack talk stream and for some reason yahoo wasn't showing any comments for a while.
The trade was allowed.
The issue was that team A, in second place, was fine losing a little value to stack team B because team B's opponents the last 3 weeks of the season are the 1st, 3rd, and 4th, place teams. Basically Team B marginally improved his team, but stacked a team that most likely will not make the playoffs to give himself a better chance at a bye.
Turns out the commish accidentally vetoed it at first on his phone, because he meant to hit the evaluate trade button and hit disallow instead, but a large discussion ensued.
Would have been a non issue except for team B's history of being somewhat manipulative (especially toward a previous owner who's not that smart and no longer in the league) and always coming out on top of lop sided trades. The trade drastically improves Team B, and the commish and others, thought he was manipulating the situation and overselling the value of a bye (in the league's 8 year history, only 1 team out of the 16 that have had byes have won the championship) to be on top of yet another lop sided trade.
my take was "meh, team A's a big boy and can make his own decisions," but others were screaming collusion and that trades should just better teams and forming "alliances" based on schedules and maximizing the chances of teams in the alliance by swapping players is collusion.
People take this way too seriously (especially when the buy in to the league is a (non-DeacMan) six pack).
