You want to call collusion when the reality is the 2-8 person just doesn’t care as much as we do. That’s pretty much it.
Can we assume the 9-1 team does care?
If the 2-8 team doesn’t care & the 9-1 team does care, that’s textbook collusion. Only one side stands to benefit from a trade.
In that circumstance it’s irrelevant who the players involved are. A team that can’t win shouldn’t be making trades with teams that can. It’s cut & dry.
How is that “textbook collusion”?
I’m sorry to break it to you but most players in friends and family leagues really just don’t care. They don’t care if they win much less if someone else wins.
These aren’t deep conspiracies, just a player who at 2-8, is out of it, and ready to move on with their life. They likely don’t care and at 2-8 they can’t make a case that having Cook has made their competitive experience any better.
If and only if you can prove that they are going to share the winnings then you have collusion but beyond that all you have is a lopsided trade that is within the range of outcomes of a manager who is 2-8. They just are not a good manager, period.
If one team has something to gain and the other does not, it’s collusion.
It literally defines collision.
You wrote a lot of words, but I stopped reading after 1 sentence, because it is absolutely and obviously collusion.
Two teams making a trade helping only 1 team to improve = collusion.
It’s impossible to be more collusion, if that’s the case & 1 of the teams is eliminated. It’s collusion any way you look at it.
Hope this helps to clear up your misunderstanding of the term “collusion”.
ETA, ok curiosity got the better of me and I read the rest. It doesn’t matter of anyone “cares”. It’s collusion. 100%. Has nothing to do with “conspiracy”, just the facts. 2 teams dealing to help 1 team win = collusion.
In fact, the team that’s playoff bound could even be losing the trade, and it’s STILL collusion. Because it’s collusion.