Fishy trade. Is this borderline cheating?

[Atomic Wedgy]

"Honestly guys, I'm in last and I don't really care about this year...Mike needed help so I just did it, meant nothing to me"

This has no bearing on the trade. Its a fair trade anyway you look at it. Its within the rules. Fair and square. If you think its fishy close the loophole in the off season.

[ridinryan44]

In my opnion, any trade that is made, that isn't considered to benefit both teams (especially at the admittance of one of the GM's) it isn't a good trade. While some may not call this collusion, to me this is a trade that hurts leagues. May not be "against the rules" but to me it's against basic ethics and not a deal i'd wanna be a part of. I'd be getting out of the league, or at least making sure trades like these didn't happen in the future

I've had gm's offer me a "trade me him back in the off season" type trades and said **** no, simply because of how it would affect the league. Each GM has to take responsibility for any trades or changes they might make, and be able to support a reason why. if you cant... it doesn't fly.

[ridinryan44]

This has no bearing on the trade. Its a fair trade anyway you look at it. Its within the rules. Fair and square. If you think its fishy close the loophole in the off season.

Surpised by this answer. The last thing I'd call this is a "fair trade". I don't see this as a fair trade at all. I see at as a trade made in good timing. i agree there is no rule against a move like this, but i sure as hell wouldn't stick around in a league that allowed it.

[PocketRockets05]

This has no bearing on the trade. Its a fair trade anyway you look at it. Its within the rules. Fair and square. If you think its fishy close the loophole in the off season.

Thanks for the response, but I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you here. The reasons they give is the kicker here. The players involved are irrelevant, as a trade should never be turned down due to player values anyways. I'll give you another example.

League 1.
Team A trades Crosby straight up to Team B for Tavares

Team A posts on the message board after the trade is made: I think Crosby's concussions will have a lingering effect on the rest of his career, and in my personal opinion Tavares is a future 100+ point player

Analysis: The trade is done in good faith. No cheating or collusion is taking place. ZERO issue with this trade.


League 2.
Team A trades Crosby straight up to Team B for Tavares

Team A posts on the message board after the trade is made: "Mike(Team B) called me and said he needed help to win this year and wanted Crosby and I'm in last place so I don't really care".

Analysis: Same trade, but not done in good faith. One manager is openly admitting to just helping out another manager, which qualifies as collusion. 100% issue with this trade.

I just used Crosby and Tavares as examples here, but the names are irrelevant. Sub Like Schenn and Dan Girardi, or even Matt Moulson and Jussi Jokinen in their spots and the Analysis on both outcomes is still the same......in my honest personal opinion

[horrorfan]

Yep, based on the new evidence, that is collusion. And if you want to talk about rules, here's what it says in Yahoo:

"No owner will engage in any action that might be deemed to be collusive (two or more owners agreeing to make moves that benefit one team, but not the other)."

That is exactly what has happened in this case. The last place team doesn't care about his team and has accepted a deal with the sole intent of helping his brother. That is collusion. Player values are completely irrelevant. To highlight this, we should replace Jokinen and Moulson with Player A and Player B.

[Atomic Wedgy]

Semin > Moulson
Jokinen > Moulson

Both teams made their teams better.

Its definitely an interesting case but its the same as cycling FA players in and out of your squad when you have unlimited moves. Its the rules that are bad in your league, not this deal. Dont get me wrong, I dont endorse cycling FA players, nor would I ever make a deal like the one that is being debated here. Its just not against the rules is all I'm saying. If it aint against the rules, its a good trade. Make sure you close the loophole in the off season.

Now if you want to put the kibosh on the deal, you would have to argue collusion. But I dont feel it can be collusion if he actually wins the trade... That just makes it mutually beneficial.

Jokinen > Moulson

What you have is a well exploited loophole. Exploiting loopholes in fantasy leagues is not everyone's cup of tea (certainly not mine), but it definitely aint cheating or collusion. I dont think it is possible to leave the players out of the discussion. If you replace Jokinen with Girardi, we aren't even having this debate. The players involved are at the very heart of the matter.

Are the people who are calling this trade collusion saying you are not allowed to trade a player that you cannot or are not willing to keep, in order to activate a IR player? Cause that sounds a bit over the top to me.

Are you allowed to trade one player for a better one, even if you dont particularly care one way or the other? I think you can manage your team how you see fit, especially if you are making your team better.

Both of these things separately are definitely ok, but if they may have been discussed before the trade, that makes it collusion? That doesn't sit right with me.



***** Great debate, very interesting arguments on both sides. This is what makes these forums to valuable to me. I have a feeling this thread will make a lot of leagues better. Great stuff!

[horrorfan]

Semin > Moulson
Jokinen > Moulson

Both teams made their teams better.

Its definitely an interesting case but its the same as cycling FA players in and out of your squad when you have unlimited moves. Its the rules that are bad in your league, not this deal.

Dont get me wrong, I dont endorse cycling FA players, nor would I ever make a deal like the one that is being debated here. Its just not against the rules is all I'm saying. If it aint against the rules, its a good trade. Make sure you close the loophole in the off season.

I dont feel it can be collusion if he actually wins the trade... That just makes it mutually beneficial.

Jokinen > Moulson

What you have is a well exploited loophole. Exploiting loopholes in fantasy leagues is not everyone's cup of tea (certainly not mine), but it definitely aint cheating or collusion.

I dont think it is possible to leave the players out of the discussion. If you replace Jokinen with Corey Locke, we aren't even having this debate. The players involved are at the very heart of the matter.



***** Great debate, very interesting arguments on both sides. This is what makes these forums to valuable to me. I have a feeling this thread will make a lot of leagues better.

The fact that it makes the last place team better is irrelevant because he doesn't care at all about his team. He only accepted this deal to help his brother out (doesn't respond to other offers - see earlier posts).

I don't agree that it's the same as cycling (streaming) players as everyone in the league would have the chance to do the same thing if it's not against the rules (unlimited moves). I don't like it, but it would be up to that manager.

The reason for making this deal is the whole point of this discussion, not the players involved. That's why I suggested that the players are not relevant. There are different types of collusion where knowing the players involved make it more relevant, like your example of Corey Locke. But in this case it's not a factor.

Last place team accepted the deal to help his brother out to improve his team. This wasn't to help his own team out at all, so to do so solely to improve his brother's team is the definition of collusion.

Personally, the fact that the last place team has admitted not caring anymore makes me think that he should have all trading privileges blocked for the rest of the season. I don't know if you can reverse the trade as well, since it affects activating Semin, but my initial suggestion is what I would recommend to the commish.

AW, one thing that I am in agreement with you - this is a good debate.

[emurdoch]

The only problem with this debate is how hung up some are on the answer given by the last place manager. It's not relevent, even when you say again in bold italics next time.

It is entirely feasible that the last place manager would have given the same response to anyone who approached him with a trade like this. He was the recipient of a legitimate trade offer and he accepted it for his own reasons... "I couldn't care less" isn't a good reason and I never like managers who get to that point... but it's not collusion. Just replace "Mike" with the name of any other manager in your league.

Disagree? Try it. Offer him a trade right now where you give the better player and see if he accepts it.

It's entirely within the scope of fantasy hockey to implement a strategy like this. I like the fact that he explained his plan before or when he offered the trade... regardless of who the trade was with... or why they agreed... it still made sense.

[PocketRockets05]

The only problem with this debate is how hung up some are on the answer given by the last place manager. It's not relevent, even when you say again in bold italics next time.

It is entirely feasible that the last place manager would have given the same response to anyone who approached him with a trade like this. He was the recipient of a legitimate trade offer and he accepted it for his own reasons... "I couldn't care less" isn't a good reason and I never like managers who get to that point... but it's not collusion. Just replace "Mike" with the name of any other manager in your league.

Disagree? Try it. Offer him a trade right now where you give the better player and see if he accepts it.

It's entirely within the scope of fantasy hockey to implement a strategy like this. I like the fact that he explained his plan before or when he offered the trade... regardless of who the trade was with... or why they agreed... it still made sense.

You know what, I agree. if Team B's response was: "I couldn't care less". That's fine. No collusion.

The difference between this case and the example you listed is he actually said: "Mike needed help so I did it". To me that's the deal breaker. If Team B kept his mouth shut you can't say nothing about this trade but at the end of the day his stupid response screwed over Team A's smart/crafty managerial skills, and forces the league to take action --- that's my honest opinion about this.

Atomic, thanks for your responses. Always great in debates to have guys on the other side of the debate. It is actually in the rules. States only two reasons a trade will ever be taken back are cheating and collusion, which is kind of funny because both can really never be proven and can only be speculated at unless some idiot actually admits to it...and to me, this case here displays that. On the other side of the ball, I still believe if in your league's scoring and setting if you have unlimited moves and you want to pick up 50 players a week...it's kind of gay, but still within in the rules as the commish didn't set a moves max.

[emurdoch]

The difference between this case and the example you listed is he actually said: "Mike needed help so I did it". To me that's the deal breaker.

He could make an easy case that he would have made the same trade and the same comment to any given manager in the league... that's not collusion, it's indifference. Not everyone has a masters in the nuances of language... breaking down the specific words used tends a little toward a witch hunt...

Sorry, I just don't see the issue.... especially when collusion needs to be undeniable, and there's already enough discussion on this thread to show that isn't the case.

If anything, I would give a warning to the last place team... the guy who initiated the trade doesn't deserve any penalties.

[horrorfan]

He could make an easy case that he would have made the same trade and the same comment to any given manager in the league...

If anything, I would give a warning to the last place team... the guy who initiated the trade doesn't deserve any penalties.

Your first point, yep that could happen. So with your second point, if there is a penalty, since the last place team doesn't care either way, like you suggesting he could say the same thing to everyone, then blocking the last place team from trades is my suggestion. He won't care any more now then he did before this deal, so his trades won't ever be to help his own team. It'll at least avoid this kind of situation in the future.

Good discussion.

[Shoeless]

"Mike needed help" - COLLUSION!!!!! Vetoed trade for sure and Semin should be on the bench.

[ynotzz]

This reminds me of my younger sister over analysing text messages from boys. You keep repeating the exact words he wrote on that board, as if they were well thought out. The fact that they are brothers shouldnt even have been revealed in this thread. He could basically be saying:

"This season is wasted for me anyways, so I havent been bothered to work on my team lately. X then called and asked me if we could do this trade that is good for both of us. We have a good relationship and he is the one in our league I prefer to trade with (for whatever reasons...some of the others always try to exploit my lack of knowledge). He has helped me in the past when I needed a trade, so...yeah...I logged on and did this trade. I know I cant climb the rankings this year, but who knows? Maybe I'll need a trade when my star player goes down next year."

I really dont see how the reasoning should even matter, as long as it is a good trade. He is just explaining why he even bothered to log on.