Weird situation - A trade involves "losing this week's matchup"

[snipshow101]

Alright so this is a new one for me. I'm in a standard cats H2H 1 year league (G A P +/- PIM PPP SOG Hits W GAA Sv% SO) and a trade was just accepted that is very difficult to determine whether it is collusion or not.

So the trade is between a manager who is basically tied for 1st place, and a guy who is in 10th of 16 (and currently fighting desperately for one of 8 playoff spots).

The deal is clearly lopsided. 1st place gives Hall and Yandle and gets Ovechkin and Krug.

But part of the deal is that next week, when these two teams face each other, 1st place manager (who gets Ovechkin) will bench his entire team, guaranteeing 10th place a 12-0 win. They were very open about this when the trade was accepted.

There's a bit of an argument going on in the group chat about whether this constitutes "collusion". The two managers argue that in order for it to be collusion, they have to be cheating in order to make one team win. But in this case, both teams benefit greatly. The 1st place team will probably drop a couple spots in the standings next week, but he'll get Ovechkin for fantasy playoffs, whereas the 10th place team will lose his best player, but get a giant push up the standings to get a very strong chance at a playoff spot.

It's pretty clear that both teams want to do this trade, it's just that the trade pisses off every other manager in the league. Teams fighting for a playoff spot are mad because it pretty much guarantees 10th place will now take one of the 8 spots, and everyone in the top~5 is mad because the current 1st place team is about to add Ovechkin.

Traditionally I feel like trades should be relatively fair deals invovling players for players and not involve other motivations. The other managers argue that in Keeper leagues (which many of us have participated in together previous years), you can trade picks for players, essentially using futures, and this isn't much different.

I am the commisioner, currently in 4th if that matters. The league is set to "league votes" for trade veto-ing, and for what its worth, no trades have been vetod this year, it has been a very fair and competitive league. Some of the chat is arguing I should overturn the trade as commisioner regardless of league votes for that reason. I really don't want to do that because I prefer the league govern itself.

What are your opinions/thoughts? What would you do?

[ericdaoust]

To me this is clear collusion and bad for the league in so many ways

[snipshow101]

To me this is clear collusion and bad for the league in so many ways

For what it's worth, my current position is that it's not collusion, because I agree that the definition of collusion is to benefit only one team. But I agree with you that it's terrible for the league overall. My worst fear is that it sets the precedent of borderline playoff teams trading players in exchange for matchup wins. I'm currently scheduled to face the current 8th place team on the last week of the regular season while I'm comfortably in a playoff spot. You could easily see this happening often, and it would change the dynamic of the league.

I really hate stepping in as commissioner though, I've had overactive commissioners before and it almost never works out

[als_revenge]

The idea of fantasy hockey is meant to mimic being a "real" GM. If you can show my an NHL trade where a team promised to tank a game in the future as a condition of the trade, then sure...this is fine.

Eventually, you'll end up with trades like: if we do this and you get into the playoffs, you have to tank if you play against my team. You'll league will just get more and more stupid if you let this through.

[als_revenge]

PS: Is this a money league?

[snipshow101]

The idea of fantasy hockey is meant to mimic being a "real" GM. If you can show my an NHL trade where a team promised to tank a game in the future as a condition of the trade, then sure...this is fine.

Eventually, you'll end up with trades like: if we do this and you get into the playoffs, you have to tank if you play against my team. You'll league will just get more and more stupid if you let this through.

I agree with this, with simulating the NHL this is clearly unrealistic

PS: Is this a money league?

No, just a fairly competitive between friends. There are fun "punishments" for losers that are determined by winners. People do take it seriously

[als_revenge]

How about this trade. The team in 10th place trades his entire team to 1st place for nothing. But the team in 1st place agrees not to dole out a punishment to the 10th place team? Both teams win, so I guess that's not collusion...

[snipshow101]

How about this trade. The team in 10th place trades his entire team to 1st place for nothing. But the team in 1st place agrees not to dole out a punishment to the 10th place team? Both teams win, so I guess that's not collusion...

A little different because that would be something that is completley outside of the scope of the league, would be similar to offering to split reward money in a money league. In this case it is purely within the league, using players and matchups, nothing outside of hockey. I see the point though.

[ericdaoust]

Collusion is not limited to something that benefits one team. But if you insist that it is the case then carry on as you wish.

[hockeymanG23]

A team tanking a matchup to "gift" the win to one GM for a week in exchange for a lopsided trade is unethical and collusion.

If it were simply a bad trade without this odd condition then theres not much to talk about. It would just be a crappy trade.

[jd2665]

If the guy hasn’t been able to get into the playoffs with his full roster, what makes him think he’s going to do anything in the playoffs without his best players? Starting league drama just so he can get curb stomped in the first round of the playoffs???

[jd2665]

Completely unethical, but if your league is set up for league votes I wouldn’t override it as commissioner. You have a system in place for dealing with it. The better question is why didn’t the league vote it down if they were upset?

[Grapes]

As a golfer rules are set to protect the field. As in this case one team taking a prearranged dive impacts all the teams in the league, not just the two trading partners.
A prearranged Deal between two teams at the expense of the league is collusion.

Collusion: secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.
This portion of the trade cheats the other teams vying for the playoff spots.

[DzingelBarries]

If the guy hasn’t been able to get into the playoffs with his full roster, what makes him think he’s going to do anything in the playoffs without his best players? Starting league drama just so he can get curb stomped in the first round of the playoffs???

Wait until the guy gets himself into playoff position and then they trade each others players back to each other.

I realize in fantasy, we're trying to simulate the actual NHL but I think the trade deadline should be much earlier to avoid such things.

[MZac]

In a non-money league I oddly don't have an issue with this. Part of collusion is that it is a secret but they are being open and honest plus both teams benefit. Of course the rest of the league doesn't like it but that's like any other good trade, it benefits the two GMs and hurts everyone else.

In a money league I don't like the Pandoras box it opens and wouldn't allow it. In a non-money for bragging rights who cares if it gets complicated. I probably put it to a vote but I'd in a non-money I'd vote that it's fine.