Commissioner Collusion - what say you? - Update - I’m playing the sketchy commish in the semi’s and Thomas is out (1 Viewer)

[Manster]

Last question from me and I'm on to this week - Do you think the real NFL teams who've clinched a playoff spot and rest starters in Week 17 are tanking or colluding?

Not close to the same.  They are hoping to keep players healthy for the real playoffs.  In fake football, there is nothing comparable.  REAL football controls what we do, and we adjust accordingly.  In fake football, leagues are structured so that every week counts, and every owner is expected to field a legal, and competitive team.  

In my leagues we have rules in place to address owners not putting in proper lineups.  There is nothing specific about the sitch like what happened here, because it's never come up.  I'm about 99.9% sure none of my leaguemates would be ok with this, because it affects the competitive balance.  

If you are ok with this scenario, then imo, you need to be ok with full on tanking.....where this might come into play would be the guy who has the division wrapped up, tanking to affect who gets the 2nd spot, based on him liking the matchup better.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

you’re misrepresenting the deal here.

1. the commish was one of the teams involved in the collusion. 

2. They collided. They lied about it then admitted to it. This is known. 

3. Has nothing to do with whether I don’t like the deal. It has to do with a team tanking as a condition of a deal. That’s unethical. 
 

Okay, then I'll address them.

1. The commissioner is a team owner and should be treated exactly like any other. Unless you think the commissioner is an unethical person, why would we assume they're only accepting it because it's their team? Are we assuming the commissioner is a shady person, because that would change things. 

2. You keep saying they colluded, which is not proof of collusion. I'm concerned about whether it's a fair condition and if the teams actually colluded.  

3. I think we have hit upon the issue. You think a condition is unethical. Is it conditions in general, or just not starting a player that you think is unethical? Because if the team had won anyway, the deal still goes through, right? So it's not "I beat you" as a condition. It's not starting a player you're getting in a trade. Is this correct? 

 

[davearm]

These are two different trades. In the first one, a team gets Mahomes, etc. What does the other team get?

In the other, same thing. I don't see how you can make it equitable. 

If it's all "one trade" then you're talking about renting a player which is very different. That's more than a "condition." I see your point, but I think you used an unrelated example. You'd have to find a way to compensate both sides, and I don't see how you compensate a team on a bye. Plus the other team could just keep Mahomes, etc. and not make the second trade. What team would risk that? 

"Player renting" meets all of your criteria for a valid trade (or should I say, your only criteria -- that both teams are trying to advance their odds of winning the title).

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

3. I think we have hit upon the issue. You think a condition is unethical. Is it conditions in general, or just not starting a player that you think is unethical? Because if the team had won anyway, the deal still goes through, right? So it's not "I beat you" as a condition. It's not starting a player you're getting in a trade. Is this correct? 

No. I think conditions happen all the time. 

I think THIS condition is unethical. The condition of benching a top player when they face each other. Because it is. 

 

[jvdesigns2002]

I don't like it. I'd recommend finding a new league or finding a new commissioner.  

First of all--I think if it was a "side condition" of a deal--that it reflects very poorly of the commissioner to not disclose that at the very moment the trade went down to the rest of the league.  If a trade is made--everything involving the trade (the players being moved, if there are future draft picks involved if its a dynasty league, any conditions that are tied to the trade..etc) needs to be announced to the rest of the league immediately.  When I sign up to play in a fantasy league--I do so knowing that I might not like every trade that goes down--but I absolutey do expect other owners to advocate full transparency---and I whole heartedly expect to have a commissioner that advocates full transparency.    That is a reasonable expectation that everybody who signs up for a fantasy league should have. 

We have a commissioner here who thinks that it's okay to participate in a trade that has a very questionable condition attached to it--and to keep that condition a secret until the rest of the league pressures him and the trade partner about it.  A big portion of the a commissioners job is to keep the transparency and the optics of the league fair to all of the owners.  We have a commissioner now that thinks its okay to  participate in "wink and nod" backroom deals knowing that other owners in the league might have an issue with it.   Who knows if he was involved in other wink and nod conditional trades in the past where he agreed to throw games for trade partners if they needed him to lose to make the playoffs?  Basically--what I'm saying is that I'm not against conditional trades as long as they are disclosed at the moment the trade goes down and as long as the other owners in the league have an opportunity to digest and opine if that condition should be allowable in regards to the integrity of the competive balance of the league.  That is not what happened here. 

 

[ratbast]

“Benching a top player” 

He’s not a top player.

 

[ghostguy123]

Yes, of course. I agree. No health reasons in fantasy. 

NFL teams bench perfectly-healthy players. Not hurt at all. They simply don't care about the game, so they let backups get some work and let the starters rest. Kind of loosely-related to "health" but other factors as well. 

The rationale is different than fantasy, but the strategy is the same. Don't play your best players today = better chance of winning a title tomorrow. 

Keeping players healthy is not "loosely" related to health.  Its 100% related to health.

And those NFL teams are not "tanking".  Tanking means you are trying to lose.  In that case they simply arent going all out to win.  Huge difference.  Between trying to lose and not trying everything to win.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

“Benching a top player” 

He’s not a top player.

The condition of benching any player = lineup fixing = tanking = bad

The condition here doesn’t care that you personally don’t think MT is a top player. What we know as fact is the team who received MT said he would have started him over Mattison (as would literally anyone) and so all that matters is he benched a player who he believed would outscore the player he started as a condition of the deal.

Again, this is an unethical arrangement that amounts to starting an inferior lineup. The commish didn’t need the win, the team benefitting did. 

But that all said, MT is a top player. He was out, he was hurt; but he’s a top player. 

 

[ghostguy123]

I am actually all for "no rules" with some small exceptions that I cant even think of at the moment.

Wanna tank?  Go for it.  Wanna make a conditional trade?  Go for it.

It's all fair if everyone plays by the same rules

 

[jvdesigns2002]

The condition of benching any player = lineup fixing = tanking = bad

The condition here doesn’t care that you personally don’t think MT is a top player. What we know as fact is the team who received MT said he would have started him over Mattison (as would literally anyone) and so all that matters is he benched a player who he believed would outscore the player he started as a condition of the deal.

Again, this is an unethical arrangement that amounts to starting an inferior lineup. The commish didn’t need the win, the team benefitting did. 

But that all said, MT is a top player. He was out, he was hurt; but he’s a top player. 

I think the ethics of the actual condition is debatable as evident here in this thread. What is not debatable is that it was completely unethical that a commissioner thinks it's okay to not disclose ot the rest of the league a condition attached to a trade.   There is no excuse for that.   Trades need to be announced to a league the moment they go down--and that means "everything about the trade"--including every and any condition involved.  Aspects of trades cannot be kept secret from other owners. 

Hypothetical--lets say the owner and the commissioner did have that condition--but the commissioner ended up starting Michael Thomas anyhow.   What then?  By deciding to not document the condition of the trade to the other owners at the moment the trade went down--the parameters of the trade could not be guaranteed to be enforced. This is why what happened was clearly unethical.  Even if it was a condition of the deal--if somebody "broke" that condition--it would have been unenforceable--meaning that in reality--it was never an actual or mertiable condition. 

 

[davearm]

Keeping players healthy is not "loosely" related to health.  Its 100% related to health.

And those NFL teams are not "tanking".  Tanking means you are trying to lose.  In that case they simply arent going all out to win.  Huge difference.  Between trying to lose and not trying everything to win.

I can't think of a single instance of a real football team "trying to lose".  What would that look like exactly?  Intentionally fumbling?  Refusing to tackle the opponent?  Running the ball backwards into your own endzone?

Tanking always takes the form of not going all out to win.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Tanking yes.

Colluding no.  No other team is cooperating.

Thanks.

 

[Gally]

“Benching a top player” 

He’s not a top player.

That is irrelevant.  The owner who benched him admitted he did not want to bench him and would have played him if the secret agreement was not in place.  The actual player name  is irrelevant.

 

[The Future Champs]

I am actually all for "no rules" with some small exceptions that I cant even think of at the moment.

Wanna tank?  Go for it.  Wanna make a conditional trade?  Go for it.

It's all fair if everyone plays by the same rules

Obviously these two guys weren’t playing by their leagues rules.   The denials confirm it.

 

[Gally]

How does that benefit you? And how does it benefit the other team to trade them back to you? In the original example, both teams benefit. How do both teams benefit in either trade?

Maybe the team he is playing is better.  Maybe I am friends with the guy I loaned Mahomes so if he wins I am happier.  Maybe I get to keep a player I needed in the deal when all is said and done which benefits my team.

As long as it benefits both teams its ok.....at least that is what you stated.

And if we kept this arrangement secret it now makes it collusion.  Which is exactly the concept of what happened in the OP.  Look at the definition of collusion...the OP clearly meets the definition.

 

[ratbast]

That is irrelevant.  The owner who benched him admitted he did not want to bench him and would have played him if the secret agreement was not in place.  The actual player name  is irrelevant.

I keep reading “MT a top player”. 
The infraction is the trade condition or not. I don’t care what he admitted. Benching MT is not tanking. 
 

Either the trade is bad or not. If the trade condition is determined bad it doesn’t matter who he played. If the trade condition is determined legal it is accepted and the condition is accepted. The case is the condition of the trade, not if he tanked because it never comes into play depending on the trade ruling. 

 

[styleride85]

We had a trade that raised suspicions from the start but allowed it.  Owner A was the commish receiving Michael Thomas.  Checked scores and it turns out he lost by 1 point Monday night.  Benched a healthy Michael Thomas and instead started backup Alexander Mattison in the flex.  What? 8th ranked WR vs 55 ranked RB.  25th overall in flex vs 170 or something.  Thomas scored a lousy 2, but Mattison 0 and owner lost by 1.  After heavy questioning owners admitted side deal was made to not start Thomas that week since they were playing each other.  They think nothing was wrong.  Rest of the league is incensed.  What say you?  Don't do a lot of polls so sorry if not framed correctly.

so what ended up happening from this?  How did both those teams do this week?

 

[jvdesigns2002]

I keep reading “MT a top player”. 
The infraction is the trade condition or not. I don’t care what he admitted. Benching MT is not tanking. 
 

Either the trade is bad or not. If the trade condition is determined bad it doesn’t matter who he played. If the trade condition is determined legal it is accepted and the condition is accepted. The case is the condition of the trade, not if he tanked because it never comes into play depending on the trade ruling. 

This is only half true.  I agree that the condition of the trade is fundamental in what is going on here--but the "disclosure" element is equally as important.  Trades that occur in fantasy leagues require league documentation so that the framework/parameters of the trade can be evaluated as well as enforced by all of the other owners.   Two owners choosing to keep a condition that is tied to a trade they made a secret can absolutely be debated as collusion--because it inhibits  other team owners from having the ability to evaluate if a trade falls within the league guidelines--and it makes it so that the condition cannot be enforced if it is broken. Like I said earlier in this thread--if the commissioner ended up breaking the condition and starting Michael Thomas--then what?   I would argue that any time team owners choose to not disclose conditions that are tied to trades to the rest of the league at the very moment the trade is announced--- they are by nature guilty of collusion because of this dynamic. 

 

[ratbast]

This is only half true.  I agree that the condition of the trade is fundamental in what is going on here--but the "disclosure" element is equally as important.  Trades that occur in fantasy leagues require league documentation so that the framework/parameters of the trade can be evaluated as well as enforced by all of the other owners.   Two owners choosing to keep a condition that is tied to a trade they made a secret can absolutely be debated as collusion--because it inhibits  other team owners from having the ability to evaluate if a trade falls within the league guidelines--and it makes it so that the condition cannot be enforced if it is broken. Like I said earlier in this thread--if the commissioner ended up breaking the condition and starting Michael Thomas--then what?   I would argue that any time team owners choose to not disclose conditions that are tied to trades to the rest of the league at the very moment the trade is announced are by nature guilty of collusion because of this dynamic. 

If it is a rule to announce the conditions then so be it. But that means the trade is legal. No need to announce an illegal trade. 

 

[styleride85]

If it is a rule to announce the conditions then so be it. But that means the trade is legal. 

So are all conditions legal unless stated illegal?  I could say "i'll trade you MT if you cook me dinner tonight?".  What about "if you start the jets d against me for the next 3 seasons".

If no, why are those banned but "you can't start MT against me this week" is okay?

 

[jvdesigns2002]

If it is a rule to announce the conditions then so be it. But that means the trade is legal. 

I would strongly argue otherwise--the vast majority of people would expect that if they are in a fantasy league that the details of trades made are fully disclosed to the league.  Can conditions that are tied to trades  made in the NFL be made without disclosure?  Unless the rules of the league state that it's not necessary to disclose conditions---they absolutely need to be disclosed.  You're looking at it the wrong way. 

 

[ratbast]

So are all conditions legal unless stated illegal?  I could say "i'll trade you MT if you cook me dinner tonight?".  What about "if you start the jets d against me for the next 3 seasons".

If no, why are those banned but "you can't start MT against me this week" is okay?

The trade needs to be legal to announce anything if that’s what is called for. 

 

[ratbast]

I would strongly argue otherwise--the vast majority of people would expect that if they are in a fantasy league that the details of trades made are fully disclosed to the league.  Can conditions that are tied to trades  made in he NFL leagues be made without disclosure? 

No one has ever announced conditions on an illegal trade. 
I don’t have a problem with announcing conditions. If the trade* is not legal there’s no need to announce the conditions.
 

if the trade is legal then pursue that if you want. 

“edit” if the condition is not legal

 

[styleride85]

The trade needs to be legal to announce anything if that’s what is called for. 

I'm confused by your stance.  

 

[ratbast]

I'm confused by your stance.  

Don’t waste time on anything past “can you add that condition to the trade” determine that. Then look at what’s next and punish accordingly. If that style of trade is illegal, stop there. If it’s legal, then address lack of announcement. 

 

[jvdesigns2002]

No one has ever announced conditions on an illegal trade. 
I don’t have a problem with announcing conditions. If the trade* is not legal there’s no need to announce the conditions.
 

if the trade is legal then pursue that if you want. 

“edit” if the condition is not legal

I'm not sure I follow you. The point that I'm trying to make is this "FOR ANY CONDITION OF A TRADE TO BE LEGAL--IT NEEDS TO BE DISCLSOED TO THE REST OF THE LEAGUE THE MOMENT THE TRADE GOES DOWN".   (I'm not using caps to indicate yelling--I'm just using caps to differentiate what the point is relative to the rest of my paragraph).    I'm not saying that the condition of the trade here is illegal by itself--that's debatable. However--the moment when both the commissioner and the trading partner decided to not disclose that condition to the rest of the league---it by default became illegal because of the failure to disclose it.  The condition by itself on the surface may have been legal--but not being transparent about it made it illegal imo. 

 

[ratbast]

I'm not sure I follow you. The point that I'm trying to make is this "FOR ANY CONDITION OF A TRADE TO BE LEGAL--IT NEEDS TO BE DISCLSOED TO THE REST OF THE LEAGUE THE MOMENT THE TRADE GOES DOWN".   (I'm not using caps to indicate yelling--I'm just using caps to differentiate what the point is relative to the rest of my paragraph).    I'm not saying that the condition of the trade here is illegal by itself--that's debatable. However--the moment when both the commissioner and the trading partner decided to not disclose that condition to the rest of the league---it by default became illegal because of the failure to disclose it.  The condition by itself on the surface may have been legal--but not being transparent about it made it illegal imo. 

If that’s a rule then it’s a rule. If it’s not, as I expect, then we just need to determine the trade condition legally. 
 

i suspect that the biggest issue here is that the trade was approved by the commish. An assistant commish should approve commish trades. Then the announcement happens if that is the rule

 

[ghostguy123]

I can't think of a single instance of a real football team "trying to lose".  What would that look like exactly?  Intentionally fumbling?  Refusing to tackle the opponent?  Running the ball backwards into your own endzone?

Tanking always takes the form of not going all out to win.

Organizations have tanked.  Players on the field and coaches dont tank.  There is much more at stake for them than just a win or loss.  

 

[Mr.Pack]

Last question from me and I'm on to this week - Do you think the real NFL teams who've clinched a playoff spot and rest starters in Week 17 are tanking or colluding?

Completely different scenario. No secret deal was made for them to not start players

 

[NotSmart]

It would be a very slippery slope to allow random additional side benefits to trades.

 

[ghostguy123]

Completely different scenario. No secret deal was made for them to not start players

Is it tanking?

 

[jvdesigns2002]

Is it tanking?

No--tanking is an action that a team makes were every other team in the league can understand why they are doing it--to protect a players health if they are already guaranteed a playoff spot, an improvement in draft position..etc.   Tanking is not two owners making a trade and not disclosing contingencies and conditional aspects that are tied into that trade.   At that point it becomes collusion.   I've said it before--what happens if the commish decided to break the condition and start Michael Thomas? Is the trade partner going to expect the other owners in the league to force Thomas to be benched because of a trade condition that was secretly kept from them?  Tanking is tanking when it's completely out in the open and transparent.  Tanking is not tanking when it's agreed upon by two teams that are facing each other and not disclosed to the rest of the league. 

 

[Gally]

Is it tanking?

Its playing an inferior lineup.  Call it what you want.

 

[ghostguy123]

Its playing an inferior lineup.  Call it what you want.

Smart??

 

[Manster]

I am actually all for "no rules" with some small exceptions that I cant even think of at the moment.

Wanna tank?  Go for it.  Wanna make a conditional trade?  Go for it.

It's all fair if everyone plays by the same rules

You mean like no collusion?

 

[NE_REVIVAL]

So what it the deal was “but if we see each other in the playoffs, you have to bench MT.”

still cool with that so long as it was transparent to the league?

you don’t think anyone in the league would take issue with that as a condition of the deal?

Just asking a reasonable, fair-minded question here. 

Thats a straw man, if the deal was contingent on some future playoff week it would be different or even anything beyond the current week the trade was executed would change things for me. However, those are straw men arguments afaic, I am basing my opinion on the contingency not to play the guy I am trading you this week (same week as transaction) because you are playing me this week and it is all 1 transaction imho. If you don't agree I am not trading him to you, if you are the other owner you are deciding whether you the value of having said player for rest of the season out weighs not being able to play him for the current week. Anything beyond the current week would be a no no.

Again, reasonable minds can disagree

 

[NE_REVIVAL]

After reading this thread it is abundantly clear that whether or not a condition like this can be seen as ok or not ok.  It's pretty close which is surprising to me.  I am well on the side that this should never happen as it manipulates the integrity of playing your best perceived lineup every week.  I think that is wrong.

That being said,, If the owners making the deal really did not think there was anything wrong with the condition they wouldn't have lied about.  They would have matter of fact said they did it because they didn’t think it was a big deal.   I see that many feel this way so if you thought it was no big deal they treat it as no big deal.  That did not happen as they lied about and tried to hide it.  Then finally came clean.  To me that means they fell on the side that it wasn't a proper condition.  

I agree they should have been up front about it, said so and won't defend it; however I have no problem with the contingency as part of the trade for the week the trade occurred in. I know that many disagree. Right or wrong I got no dog in the fight just callin it like I see it, I would have zero problem with other owners doing this as part of a transaction for that particular week in which the transaction occurs. Now if there are other mitigating factors it might make a difference but it looks like both teams are trying to win here (short and long term) unless I missed something sinister.

 

[TheWinz]

Anything beyond the current week would be a no no.

Totally disagree.  What makes the current week any different from any other week?  One owner is purposely starting an inferior player because another owner is demanding it as part of a deal.  This is the definition of collusion.  You can say whatever you want about Michael Thomas this year, but the fact is, the owner giving him up would not have made the stipulation if he wasn't afraid to play against him.  What if the stipulation was that he must start him?  Would it be exactly the same?  Anyone saying this deal is fair must say yes to this question.

 

[TheWinz]

I agree they should have been up front about it, said so and won't defend it; however I have no problem with the contingency as part of the trade for the week the trade occurred in. I know that many disagree. Right or wrong I got no dog in the fight just callin it like I see it, I would have zero problem with other owners doing this as part of a transaction for that particular week in which the transaction occurs. Now if there are other mitigating factors it might make a difference but it looks like both teams are trying to win here (short and long term) unless I missed something sinister.

100% wrong, as far as the current week goes.  One team is doing anything they can to win because they need to secure a playoff spot; the other team has already secured a playoff spot and is willing to lose the current week in hopes of a deeper playoff run.

 

[jvdesigns2002]

I agree they should have been up front about it, said so and won't defend it; however I have no problem with the contingency as part of the trade for the week the trade occurred in. I know that many disagree. Right or wrong I got no dog in the fight just callin it like I see it, I would have zero problem with other owners doing this as part of a transaction for that particular week in which the transaction occurs. Now if there are other mitigating factors it might make a difference but it looks like both teams are trying to win here (short and long term) unless I missed something sinister.

I totally agree with you that the condition/contingency in and of itself might not be a problem--but the lack of disclosure is.  I've mentioned this question several times and nobody has attempted to answer it--so I will pose it again.   Let's say the commish did not live up to the contingency and started Michael Thomas--then what?  Is the rest of the league supposed to uphold an agreement that was secretly being held from them?   The disclosure is not an after thought--the disclosure or lack of it--is the fundamental issue here.  

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

I totally agree with you that the condition/contingency in and of itself might not be a problem--but the lack of disclosure is.  I've mentioned this question several times and nobody has attempted to answer it--so I will pose it again.   Let's say the commish did not live up to the contingency and started Michael Thomas--then what?  Is the rest of the league supposed to uphold an agreement that was secretly being held from them?   The disclosure is not an after thought--the disclosure or lack of it--is the fundamental issue here.  

This is a good point I had not considered. If it was kept secret, was it really a contingency of the trade, or merely a gentleman's agreement on the side? If two owners have a side bet one week, the league can't force the loser to pay up. It's between them. 

I think you could argue it wasn't an official part of the trade since it wasn't announced that way, and there would be no repercussions to starting Thomas. If they argued it was an official part of the trade, why wasn't it announced? Tough to claim it was official but unspoken.

As an aside, if the league forced the new owner to start Thomas (let's say that's how they ruled it) against his wishes, and Mattison outscored him, how would the league compensate them for costing them a win? 

 

[jvdesigns2002]

This is a good point I had not considered. If it was kept secret, was it really a contingency of the trade, or merely a gentleman's agreement on the side? If two owners have a side bet one week, the league can't force the loser to pay up. It's between them. 

I think you could argue it wasn't an official part of the trade since it wasn't announced that way, and there would be no repercussions to starting Thomas. If they argued it was an official part of the trade, why wasn't it announced? Tough to claim it was official but unspoken.

As an aside, if the league forced the new owner to start Thomas (let's say that's how they ruled it) against his wishes, and Mattison outscored him, how would the league compensate them for costing them a win? 

Yup--and thats exactly where the murkiness comes in.  The disclosure element is what separates it from being a "conditional" aspect of a trade versus it being collusion.  Gentlemans agreements are a very slippery slope in the scope of fantasy leagues.  If my fantasy team is out of the playoff race--and another owner comes to me and says--trade me this player and in return I'll send you a 12 pack of beer--of course that would be a problem.  This is why when a trade is made--every detail of that trade (all conditions, if there are future picks, or faab dollars being exchanged..etc) need to be disclosed to the rest of the league.  If they are not--they effectively are not truly conditionally attached to the trade and thus the secret condition could be argued as being two owners colluding with one another to effect the competive balance of the league. So to me--the disclosure (frankly--the lack of it) is everything. 

I do think there are valid points on either side on whether or not this exact condition should be allowed.  This debate is exactly why a commissioner that is involved in a possibly ethically amigious trade should never think that the best way to handle the situation is through keeping secrets. A commssioner should be preaching transparency.   Had they announced the trade and the condition to the league the moment it went down--the other owners could have made a decision on whether or not it should be allowed and go from there. 

If it was up to me--I think that because both parties did not disclose to the league complete details of the trade at the time it was made--that it effectively was an illegal trade that may have not been approved by the league had all of the details been given.  Therefore--both teams technically started illegal rosters last week and both should be issued a loss.  That's just my two cents. 

 

[DropKick]

So if I agree to trade you Mahomes, Kelce, and Kamara for your first week in the playoffs because I have a bye and you do not and then you trade them back to me after that week it is OK because both teams are trying to win the title?

Do we really need contrived examples with no resemblance of the current situation?

 

[DropKick]

My reply would be, agreeing to tank to help another team win isn't valid currency to offer in a trade.  Even if it furthers your own title odds.

Except no one agreed to help another team win. If the team is good enough to have already secured a play-off spot without MT, he must be good enough to win one game without him.

 

[DropKick]

Not close to the same.  They are hoping to keep players healthy for the real playoffs.  In fake football, there is nothing comparable.  REAL football controls what we do, and we adjust accordingly.  In fake football, leagues are structured so that every week counts, and every owner is expected to field a legal, and competitive team.  

In my leagues we have rules in place to address owners not putting in proper lineups.  There is nothing specific about the sitch like what happened here, because it's never come up.  I'm about 99.9% sure none of my leaguemates would be ok with this, because it affects the competitive balance.  

If you are ok with this scenario, then imo, you need to be ok with full on tanking.....where this might come into play would be the guy who has the division wrapped up, tanking to affect who gets the 2nd spot, based on him liking the matchup better.

It is close to the same...  Of course, there is different motivation, but, in the NFL, teams sometimes get "gifted" a win and this does have consequences for would be play-off teams.  And that is the same competitive balance or "integrity" that you're demanding.

 

[DropKick]

Its playing an inferior lineup.  Call it what you want.

I play an inferior line-up almost every week.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Thats a straw man, if the deal was contingent on some future playoff week it would be different or even anything beyond the current week the trade was executed would change things for me. However, those are straw men arguments afaic, I am basing my opinion on the contingency not to play the guy I am trading you this week (same week as transaction) because you are playing me this week and it is all 1 transaction imho. If you don't agree I am not trading him to you, if you are the other owner you are deciding whether you the value of having said player for rest of the season out weighs not being able to play him for the current week. Anything beyond the current week would be a no no.

Again, reasonable minds can disagree

How is it a straw man? You may want to revisit your logic class, friend because your understanding of logical fallacy appears to be off. 

Hardly a straw man, this is actually what’s known as “an analogy”. 

Fact: It’s the same as the trade that went down. 100%, exactly the same. There is literally none difference. 

1. How this conditional deal went down: 

Team A gets Thomas on the condition that he can’t play him in a certain matchup against Team B, who traded him Thomas. 

2. How the trade would go down in my hypothetical analogy: 

Team A gets Thomas on the condition that he can’t play him in a certain matchup against Team B, who traded him Thomas. 

Reasonable minds can disagree, but only if they’re not disingenuously dismissing a point as a nonexistent logical fallacy. You would be quite unreasonable to have done that. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Except no one agreed to help another team win. If the team is good enough to have already secured a play-off spot without MT, he must be good enough to win one game without him.

Tacitly, they sure did. It need not be explicitly agreed that Team MT throw the game. 

but there’s zero question that Team A deliberately fielded a lesser lineup as a condition of this deal. 

Team MT admitted to doing that. Team MT said had it not been a condition, he would have started MT over Mattison.

He didn’t need the win. So he actively, deliberately set a lineup that he believed would score less as a condition to get the guy he wanted. 

A rose by any other name....

That’s called throwing the game. This element isn’t even remotely debatable.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Do we really need contrived examples with no resemblance of the current situation?

Actually @Gally’s  example employs the exact logic that you’ve been attempting to use to justify the conditional agreement  that happened in the trade that this topic is about.

It’s hardly contrived. It’s totally consistent. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

This is a good point I had not considered. If it was kept secret, was it really a contingency of the trade, or merely a gentleman's agreement on the side? If two owners have a side bet one week, the league can't force the loser to pay up. It's between them. 

a side bet doesn’t impact the other teams competing for a playoff spot. This is in no way the same as the collusive conditional roster-based agreement that actually went down. It’s irrelevant to this topic. 

I think you could argue it wasn't an official part of the trade since it wasn't announced that way, and there would be no repercussions to starting Thomas. If they argued it was an official part of the trade, why wasn't it announced? Tough to claim it was official but unspoken.

You could argue it, but you’d look really foolish for doing so since they admitted that they colluded. 

The proof is in the fact that he did not start Thomas. And when he benched the player he just went out of his way to obtain, the rest of the league called them on it. That was the red flag that triggered the subsequent league controversy.

all of this is known from the OP. No speculation is required here, and it really doesn’t matter if the cheating they did was or was not “official”. They cheated. Thats all that matters. 

As an aside, if the league forced the new owner to start Thomas (let's say that's how they ruled it) against his wishes, and Mattison outscored him, how would the league compensate them for costing them a win? 

This is called a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. It is after the fact 20-20 hindsight. 

Whatever happened after they cheated has no bearing on the fact that they cheated.

A man walks out of his house in the middle of a thunderstorm wearing only his pajamas. 100’ down the sidewalk he gets soaked to the bone. Freezing and dripping wet, he returns home to dry off & change into appropriate rain weather gear. “Good thing I was smart enough to notice it was raining after I went out there, or I might have gotten wet!” he smugly thinks to himself.

Same logic you’re trying to employ here. It makes no difference who scored what after the trade. As part of their deal, Team MT agreed to bench him as a condition of acquisition. Both the team dealing MT and the team acquiring MT believed he would score more. 

That’s the only thing that’s relevant here.