Possible collusion and what possible penalties should be enforced

[gregster75]

I'm in a keeper league where I handed the commish responsibilities to another member after about 5 years of doing the job.
As far as trades go, all trades go through unless there is an obvious display of collusion involved or their isn't a quality amount of prospects going back the other way.

There will be two trades discussed in this post.
The first one involved a trade offer that I initially turned down. A manager wanted Pettersson, Rinne and for his Hoffman, Kinkaid
At the time Pettersson was injured so statistically I would have gained about 20 points in the deal but going forward would be screwed so I turned it down...obviously

The next hour I learned that this same manager then offered the guy in first Hoffman and Kinkaid for Batherson and Ullmark. Batherson ended with 9 points in 20 games, while Ulllmark was a 50/50 goalie on a shitty team. AT the time Hoffman and Kincaid were the leading points guys on their teams. Once this was accepted I and another manager voted to have it go to a vote based on not enough going back the other way in Batherson and Ullmark. There was a 52 point bump to the manager in first. After the vote the trade was vetoed and later allowed to go through....for some reason by the new commish (not involved in the trade).

I don't understand how you can go to asking for Pettersson and Rinne to only wanting Batherson and Ullmark...seemed fishy....this trade happened late November.

SO fast forward to the trade deadline (which resembled the nhl deadline except ours closed at 9pm that night)

I was content with possibly finishing second (90 points behind 1st) and 10-20 points up on 3rd and 4th. During the day the guy in first trades with 3rd and fourth (figuring he had lots of room to "give away points")
to bump them ahead of me knocking me back into 4th.

The guy in fifth realises (based on these bump up trades) that he cant catch 4th for money and decides to try and start a mini rebuild by doing the following trade with me
He trades Kane, Toews, Carlson and Fleury FOR Laine, Pettersson, Hedman and Rinne

So with Kane and Toews both having career years and Hedman being injured for part of the year this trade will net me about 110 points but as per the rules he is DEFINATELY getting lots back in the form of prospects in Laine and Pettersson. So once this deal is sent in at 8:55 the commish says to me on the phone that he couldn't possibly put this throughor all hell with break loose. My reasoning....

If you made these one for one deals Kane for Pettersson, Toews for Laine, Hedman for Carlsson and Rinne for Fleury would there be a problem....he said no....so the fact that it was a 4 for 4 deal made it look bad due to the points going back and forth, BUT AGAIN there was compensation in the form of future.

As you can imagine the trade goes to a vote...after each manager was allowed to state why we did it and it quickly gets allowed to go through...except for the guy that was in first and a guy that was in 3rd at the time. I end up winning the pool by 101 points.

In a league get together for wings, of which I did not attend, the other manager I did the deal with gets harassed as to why he would possibly make such a deal and he responds with needing to rebuild due to the fact that he couldn't catch 3rd and fourth. The manager that was originally in first and the other two (one is commish) admit that those bump up deals were done to keep me out of 2nd and the good money.

So my question is: Is this collusion? and how should it be handled?

Sorry for the rambling

[evans334]

In a league get together for wings, of which I did not attend, the other manager I did the deal with gets harassed as to why he would possibly make such a deal and he responds with needing to rebuild due to the fact that he couldn't catch 3rd and fourth. The manager that was originally in first and the other two (one is commish) admit that those bump up deals were done to keep me out of 2nd and the good money.

Can you prove that it's true, or was this more a tongue and cheek comment someone makes when they are out with the league and joking around?

[lucafen4]

Turns out it's more Karma and they ALL took some

[gregster75]

The one that I did the deal with said the guys admitted that that was the plan...to knock me down to 4th.

[PenguinHunter]

The one that I did the deal with said the guys admitted that that was the plan...to knock me down to 4th.

Oh that would make me very upset!

Have you discussed this with the commish? I think that is very dirty dealing by the commish.

Also, I don't like it that the points for the season travel with the player in the trade... it allows for such dealings to happen.

[evans334]

Oh that would make me very upset!

Have you discussed this with the commish? I think that is very dirty dealing by the commish.

Also, I don't like it that the points for the season travel with the player in the trade... it allows for such dealings to happen.

This is the actual problem, it encourages stuff like this.

[lucafen4]

First step would be to address this openly as a league.
It's a bunch of friends.
They openly spoke about it over wings/beers.
So they're not hiding it.
Needs to be squashed in the butt or it risks ruining the league... for good.

[als_revenge]

Here's my question: the GM that was in first that had "points to give away" - if those trades didn't help him, and he was literally giving points away for no benefit, I view that as collusion. Alternatively, if he was trading assets from this year to get ever better assets for next year, while still trying to win - well, that's just good asset management.

If the first scenario is true, it wouldn't surprise me if the "plan" was for the GMs leapfrogging you to give part of their profits to the 1st place GM.

Hard to say much without knowing what those particular deals were...

[gregster75]

Here's my question: the GM that was in first that had "points to give away" - if those trades didn't help him, and he was literally giving points away for no benefit, I view that as collusion. Alternatively, if he was trading assets from this year to get ever better assets for next year, while still trying to win - well, that's just good asset management.

If the first scenario is true, it wouldn't surprise me if the "plan" was for the GMs leapfrogging you to give part of their profits to the 1st place GM.

Hard to say much without knowing what those particular deals were...

The two deals he did to bring the others up were giving away radulov for getzlaf AND Spurgeon for Parayko.

[lucafen4]

Radulov was a beast last year, Getzlaf was garbage.
One could argue there was hope Getz would find his form down the stretch.
but I'd take Spurgeon over Parayko every year.
Neither deal on the whole is a bad deal. In fact, both decently fair.

In context of last season though... based on Parayko & Getzlaf's seasons... those are pretty lopsided inseason deals

[stevegamer]

I'd simply say "Since you guys wanted to collude to keep me out of the good money, you've gotten your wish. I quit the league."

And then let it go and be done with it. Honestly, I'd think twice about trusting any of them with anything significant again, and I include anything involving money over $10 significant.

[SuperMario]

I'd simply say "Since you guys wanted to collude to keep me out of the good money, you've gotten your wish. I quit the league."

And then let it go and be done with it. Honestly, I'd think twice about trusting any of them with anything significant again, and I include anything involving money over $10 significant.

+1 to this. I'd have issues trusting anyone in this league at this point.

[Pengwin7]

The manager that was originally in first and the other two (one is commish) admit that those bump up deals were done to keep me out of 2nd and the good money.
So my question is: Is this collusion? and how should it be handled?

Oof. What a story.
Collusion? Yes.
This is actually the definition of collusion, if you check a dictionary.

From Merriam-Webster:
Definition of collusion
: secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose

Secret agreement or cooperation: yes.
Illegal: no, but
Deceitful: yes.

Personally, I'd say the penalty is that the colluding parties should pay you a "2nd place winnings". Call this "Event A".
This is what you would/should have earned if the colluding trade had not occurred.
Let them figure out how much each team should pay. They can collect it and give it to you in one envelope.

If you made this proposal, though, they would push back with an argument of "But (ultimately) we didn't get the 1st place winnings.. and YOU did."
That argument doesn't matter.
You sacrificed future assets - and your reward is a 1st place winnings.
This is your choice... and there's no way to accurately compute those "damages".
But this decision can be considered a separate "event", call it Event "B", from what would have taken place if the collusive trade had not happened (Event "A").

From Event A: 3 colluding teams pay you an amount of "2nd place winnings".
From Event B: You won first place, but sacrificed your team's future assets to do it.

My 2 cents.

[FWIW - I used to help a buddy with these "points carry" leagues. They are stupid. Eventually... when your leaguemates get smart... nobody makes "in-season" trades any more. GMs simply link-up as a "GoingForIt"/"Rebuilding" pair. They wait exactly until the last minute of trade deadline... and then pull off the best deal they can. Any trades made more than minutes before the trade deadline is mathematically - amateur. That's a GM showing his hand... which is why you were able to rally for 1st... because you had time to organize a counter-move. The guy that was in first made his move too early. Really not too bright about how to pull off this heist. Great that you caught him! ***But, again, these formats are stupid and... eventually... your leaguemates will get hip, only pull-off trades minutes before the deadline. If they happen to not visit this forum - then you've now got the secret for future years... though eventually others will do the same - which is what happened in my buddy's league after I tought him how to do it that way. Good luck.]

[Moses]

You gave up the Commish duties so you don’t get a real say in how it is handled. You just get to bitch and complain like the rest of us plebs.

[davidgoodburn]

Oof. What a story.
Collusion? Yes.
This is actually the definition of collusion, if you check a dictionary.

From Merriam-Webster:
Definition of collusion
: secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose

Secret agreement or cooperation: yes.
Illegal: no, but
Deceitful: yes.

Personally, I'd say the penalty is that the colluding parties should pay you a "2nd place winnings". Call this "Event A".
This is what you would/should have earned if the colluding trade had not occurred.
Let them figure out how much each team should pay. They can collect it and give it to you in one envelope.

If you made this proposal, though, they would push back with an argument of "But (ultimately) we didn't get the 1st place winnings.. and YOU did."
That argument doesn't matter.
You sacrificed future assets - and your reward is a 1st place winnings.
This is your choice... and there's no way to accurately compute those "damages".
But this decision can be considered a separate "event", call it Event "B", from what would have taken place if the collusive trade had not happened (Event "A").

From Event A: 3 colluding teams pay you an amount of "2nd place winnings".
From Event B: You won first place, but sacrificed your team's future assets to do it.

My 2 cents.

[FWIW - I used to help a buddy with these "points carry" leagues. They are stupid. Eventually... when your leaguemates get smart... nobody makes "in-season" trades any more. GMs simply link-up as a "GoingForIt"/"Rebuilding" pair. They wait exactly until the last minute of trade deadline... and then pull off the best deal they can. Any trades made more than minutes before the trade deadline is mathematically - amateur. That's a GM showing his hand... which is why you were able to rally for 1st... because you had time to organize a counter-move. The guy that was in first made his move too early. Really not too bright about how to pull off this heist. Great that you caught him! ***But, again, these formats are stupid and... eventually... your leaguemates will get hip, only pull-off trades minutes before the deadline. If they happen to not visit this forum - then you've now got the secret for future years... though eventually others will do the same - which is what happened in my buddy's league after I taught him how to do it that way. Good luck.]

+1 to this...except you are probably only entitled to the difference between 2nd and 4th place since absent Event A you finish 4th.