What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Does your (dynasty) league allow for the "renting" of players? (1 Viewer)

matttyl

matttyl

Footballguy
Was talking trade with another league member last night prior to the game, involving Carlos Hyde.  I was planning on starting him (over Fournette), but in that I'm playing a fairly weak team would likely win with either.  The other owner has a tough matchup, hence his coming to me about Hyde.  Since he wasn't offering me any more than a single unknown first round rookie pick in next year's draft for Hyde - the trade talks weren't going anyway.  We then came up with the idea that if he sends me a 3rd rounder, I'd let him have Hyde for this weekend only.  A type of "player rental."

Does your league allow for anything like this?  I'd be giving up a starter for the week, he'd be giving up something of value - so both buyer and seller are fully aware of what they are getting into.  We didn't do it, and have brought it up to the league for discussion.  Thought I would do the same here.

 
I was in a 16-team keeper league years ago that did this. It started to become really prevalent among contending teams down the stretch and I felt really ruined the league. I quit after that season when they refused to change it in offseason.

 
HairySasquatch said:
This is collusion...it is essentially doubling your roster size.  Should never be allowed. 
Click to expand...
Doubling who's roster size, the buyer or the seller?  Or both?

This isn't trading Hyde for a future 1st round pick and then trading back the following week.  One team is giving up something they will never get back.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It is allowed in my dynasty league but has only happened 2-3 times in the 10 years the league has been in existence.

 
Without knowing the personalities involved, it seems like a slippery path to killing a league.  His opponent might really put the screws to you in the future when the shoes on the other foot.  What prevents this from happening during playoffs????

 
Yotes1 said:
Without knowing the personalities involved, it seems like a slippery path to killing a league.  His opponent might really put the screws to you in the future when the shoes on the other foot.  What prevents this from happening during playoffs????
Click to expand...
Trade deadline?

 
It is an interesting concept and would make 3rd and 4th round picks have more value. If I was in a league like this I would want a rule where it can't be a starter from the other team. So if you have Rodgers and Wentz at qb and the guy is starting Rodgers you could loan out Wentz. 

 
Amused to Death said:
Its roster sharing and a form of collusion.  You're allowing teams to gang up on an opponent.  Should be strictly forbidden.
Click to expand...
No it isn't.  One guy is trying to put himself in the best position to win his game and the other guy is getting an asset. 

Of course that doesn't mean people wouldn't try to loan guys out to help give an opponent an edge because they need someone to lose. That also doesn't mean the other owner has to accept the trade. Maybe he doesn't want to win the game and lose draft position or give up picks because he is rebuilding. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm pretty laissez-faire when it comes to dynasty leagues, but I have a real problem with this. For one, as others have said, it verges on collusion. For another, it runs entirely counter to the spirit of a dynasty league, which is supposed to be about acquiring and building surplus value.

To me, this is the fantasy equivalent of a "wash sale", in which someone sells stock before year-end in return for a benefit (a claimed tax loss), then buys the same stock back a week later. The IRS takes a (ahem) dim view of this maneuver, and so should commissioners.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
msudaisy26 said:
No it isn't. The opponent has no relevance in it. One guy is trying to put himself in the best position to win his game and the other guy is getting an asset. 

Of course that doesn't mean people wouldn't try to loan guys out to help give an opponent an edge because they need someone to lose. That also doesn't mean the other owner has to accept the trade. Maybe he doesn't want to win the game and lose draft position or give up picks because he is rebuilding. 
Click to expand...
It is, and you even say so with the bolded.  Its roster sharing.  Collusion.  But have at it if you like.

 
It's an issue that I feel should be in the league constitution, with the parameters and limits, and voted on before the season.  Let those that are opposed decide if they want to continue or leave.  Personally....I'd be saying "Adios".

 
Amused to Death said:
It is, and you even say so with the bolded.  Its roster sharing.  Collusion.  But have at it if you like.
Click to expand...
So is it collusion when I lose both my qbs and I go trade a 2nd for Wentz? I did it to beat my opponent and he did it for an assets or because he needs that guy to lose? It isn't collusion and just like anything it could be abused and have to be monitored. 

 
msudaisy26 said:
So is it collusion when I lose both my qbs and I go trade a 2nd for Wentz? I did it to beat my opponent and he did it for an assets or because he needs that guy to lose? It isn't collusion and just like anything it could be abused and have to be monitored. 
Click to expand...
You do whatever makes you feel comfortable.  The question was asked, I answered.  Its textbook collusion.  "Hey, help me beat this guy and I'll give you your player back next week" is not a trade.

 
First unless your league allows you to trade some sort of future contingencies the trade shouldn't go through. And if it was cleared by the league first I wouldn't trade Hyde for a 3rd round pick hoping that the next week he sent him back to me for nothing. If I were moving Hyde I would want him to trade me picks greater in value than Hyde so he would certainly trade him back. I would also not be part of a league that allows renting players. This was an issue when the NFL first went to bye weeks so most league implemented a certain amount of weeks before you could reacquire a player. I haven't see that as an issue in my leagues for many years now.

I will now say that it is wrong to allow renting players and if you don't have owners that can recognize that on their own then you need to set some rules to prevent it. It's a slippery slope because it first starts with a transaction like in the original post and then it becomes playoff teams renting out players to teams playing against those that they are competing for playoff spots with and it can get ugly quick.

I'm glad to see the Op and his trade partner recognized that it isn't right and didn't do it because it may help needing to institute a bunch of rules to handle it.

Note that it should also be considered illegal because part of the trade was contingent on a future trade. That should tell you right there that it should be an illegal trade.

 
You colluded and should admit it to your league mates but my guess is you won't and your league will unravel into ####. 

 
matttyl said:
Was talking trade with another league member last night prior to the game, involving Carlos Hyde.  I was planning on starting him (over Fournette), but in that I'm playing a fairly weak team would likely win with either.  The other owner has a tough matchup, hence his coming to me about Hyde.  Since he wasn't offering me any more than a single unknown first round rookie pick in next year's draft for Hyde - the trade talks weren't going anyway.  We then came up with the idea that if he sends me a 3rd rounder, I'd let him have Hyde for this weekend only.  A type of "player rental."

Does your league allow for anything like this?  I'd be giving up a starter for the week, he'd be giving up something of value - so both buyer and seller are fully aware of what they are getting into.  We didn't do it, and have brought it up to the league for discussion.  Thought I would do the same here.
Click to expand...
Personally, I think it's fine.  As long as both sides are getting something out of it and you're willing to risk not having the guy.  It's no different than you trading Hyde for a 1st and 3rd, then the following week trading a 1 first to get him back.  If there were no prior agreement about the tradeback it's completely legit.  Think about the situation where you have two kickers on week 5 bye, and the other guy has two kickers on week 6 bye.  You both prefer the guys you have, but for one week you both get bye week relief by swapping kickers for those two weeks.  Both owners get something out of it.

Few leagues will see it this way though, and it's probably ripe for abuse if one put enough thought into it.  Mostly, it would make success in the league all about these microtransactions and less about long-term roster management and the owners that don't want to be spending hours on end working microtrades will end up with a significant disadvantage.

 
Hankmoody said:
Personally, I think it's fine.  As long as both sides are getting something out of it and you're willing to risk not having the guy.  It's no different than you trading Hyde for a 1st and 3rd, then the following week trading a 1 first to get him back.  If there were no prior agreement about the tradeback it's completely legit.  Think about the situation where you have two kickers on week 5 bye, and the other guy has two kickers on week 6 bye.  You both prefer the guys you have, but for one week you both get bye week relief by swapping kickers for those two weeks.  Both owners get something out of it.

Few leagues will see it this way though, and it's probably ripe for abuse if one put enough thought into it.  Mostly, it would make success in the league all about these microtransactions and less about long-term roster management and the owners that don't want to be spending hours on end working microtrades will end up with a significant disadvantage.
Click to expand...
The bolded is key.  Also, leagues may have restrictions on how soon a player can be re-acquired. 

 
msudaisy26 said:
No it isn't.  One guy is trying to put himself in the best position to win his game and the other guy is getting an asset. 

Of course that doesn't mean people wouldn't try to loan guys out to help give an opponent an edge because they need someone to lose. That also doesn't mean the other owner has to accept the trade. Maybe he doesn't want to win the game and lose draft position or give up picks because he is rebuilding. 
Click to expand...
And that's why you can't do it.  It becomes less "I get a 3rd rounder out of it" and more about ganging up on other owners.  If you had 12 owners that thought this was a fun way to play FF then it would probably be a blast, kind of like a game of Risk or Talisman with QB's and flex players, but very few leagues are going to think that's a cool way to go about it. 

 
Renting players opens a pandora's box of worms and other things you could never imagine. It's the definition of collusion. 

You either trade a player or you do not. You cannot rent them. 

If you trade players X and Y for player Z, you can never have X or Y again this year, nor can the other league mate have player Z again this year. 

Plain and simple. Cut and dry. 

 
We had an issue with this a few years ago.put in rule that you can trade player back to franchise within nine months.problem solved.

 
Yotes1 said:
Without knowing the personalities involved, it seems like a slippery path to killing a league.  His opponent might really put the screws to you in the future when the shoes on the other foot.  What prevents this from happening during playoffs????
Click to expand...
As noted above, trade deadline. 

Speaking of trade deadline, we often have teams out of it trading players to teams in the playoffs for future picks.  Sometimes that burns the opponent now facing a better lineup (just as it did to me last year when my round 1 opponent bought Murray at the trade deadline).  I'm now going to remember that move when dealing with that player - but that's all part of the game.

 
You can't have players rostered on two teams at the same time (which this basically is)

You can't collude

You can't rent players

Above are 3 reasons why this is a no-go... definitely a deal breaker to be in a league this loose with competition/fairness

 
Amused to Death said:
You do whatever makes you feel comfortable.  The question was asked, I answered.  Its textbook collusion.  "Hey, help me beat this guy and I'll give you your player back next week" is not a trade.
Click to expand...
.....help me beat this guy and I'll give you your player back and a pick now.....is a trade, though. 

Same league two years ago a very lucky team was heading to the playoffs and lost Luck and Foles heading into the playoffs - made a last minute trade for another QB (Dalton) for his playoff push.  Traded Dalton away in the offseason. 

 
Nope. Collusion.  

We haven't had any 'trade backs'...even after a year plus that players resided on a team.  But, EVEN in that case, I would question the trade (as commish).

 
ATB said:
You colluded and should admit it to your league mates but my guess is you won't and your league will unravel into ####. 
Click to expand...
No trade was done.  But it was brought up for discussion in the league where it's being debated now.  We agree that trades and then immediate trade backs shouldn't be allowed - but that's not what this would have been.  Team B would be giving up a pick for good, which he'll not get back (unless via a subsequent trade).  Also team A (me) could have lost this week's game because of having Fornette in (vs Baltimore in London) rather than the 21 points scored by Hyde last night.  I feel I'll win either way, but you never know.  The move could have ended up costing me the game - which is much more important to me than a 3rd round pick would be.

 
Lash said:
You can't have players rostered on two teams at the same time (which this basically is)

You can't collude

You can't rent players

Above are 3 reasons why this is a no-go... definitely a deal breaker to be in a league this loose with competition/fairness
Click to expand...
While I semi agree with what you are saying, I'm not sure why it wouldn't be "fair".  Nothing would have stopped the other owner from offering me a 3rd for Hyde for the week as well and me taking them up on it.  This isn't, or rather wasn't, a case of me doing something for one team that I wouldn't do for another - though I can totally see how those situations could arise. 

 
msudaisy26 said:
It is an interesting concept and would make 3rd and 4th round picks have more value. If I was in a league like this I would want a rule where it can't be a starter from the other team. So if you have Rodgers and Wentz at qb and the guy is starting Rodgers you could loan out Wentz. 
Click to expand...
If you allow this where does it end?

Say it's Week 13 and 2 teams are playing each other for the last playoff slot. What if one team with a bunch of late picks sends a few 4ths and 5ths for the right to "rent" Aaron Rodgers, Julio Jones and Gronkowski to teams out of the race or that have clinched? Things could get ugly real fast.

 
Dr. Octopus said:
If you allow this where does it end?

Say it's Week 13 and 2 teams are playing each other for the last playoff slot. What if one team with a bunch of late picks sends a few 4ths and 5ths for the right to "rent" Aaron Rodgers, Julio Jones and Gronkowski to teams out of the race or that have clinched? Things could get ugly real fast.
Click to expand...
I would limit it to the trade deadline, you can only rent 1 player a week. It can't be a starter from the other team, and you can only "rent" 3 to 5 times a year. 

 
msudaisy26 said:
I would limit it to the trade deadline, you can only rent 1 player a week. It can't be a starter from the other team, and you can only "rent" 3 to 5 times a year. 
Click to expand...
Obviously you can do what you want but now we are over complicating things and then you'll get arguments as to who a "starter" is.

It seems to go against the spirit of the game, even if we don't want to call it "collusion."

 
matttyl said:
No trade was done.  But it was brought up for discussion in the league where it's being debated now.  We agree that trades and then immediate trade backs shouldn't be allowed - but that's not what this would have been.  Team B would be giving up a pick for good, which he'll not get back (unless via a subsequent trade).  Also team A (me) could have lost this week's game because of having Fornette in (vs Baltimore in London) rather than the 21 points scored by Hyde last night.  I feel I'll win either way, but you never know.  The move could have ended up costing me the game - which is much more important to me than a 3rd round pick would be.
Click to expand...
It's no different. You're allowing the rental on the front-end rather than the back-end. In fact, it's sleazier because you can easily keep it from your league. No one has to know you two decided on the trade a week before you enacted it. But if you were to give back a player after renting him, everyone in the league knows what you did. 

Also, another point of discussion should be why you all are trading picks during the season. 

This is another can of worms that should be avoided in every league. You should only trade picks before/during the draft. During the season, the trading of picks allows losing teams to trade good players to winning teams to stock up on picks for next year and allow winning teams with a shot at the playoffs to stack good players for this year. 

It's an unfair advantage that has no place in fantasy football. 

Don't allow the rental of players and don't allow the trading of picks during the season. 

You'll be better off for it. 

 
Dr. Octopus said:
If you allow this where does it end?

Say it's Week 13 and 2 teams are playing each other for the last playoff slot. What if one team with a bunch of late picks sends a few 4ths and 5ths for the right to "rent" Aaron Rodgers, Julio Jones and Gronkowski to teams out of the race or that have clinched? Things could get ugly real fast.
Click to expand...
As stated above, trade deadline prevents this (week 9 or 10, it's on the league calendar).  At this point, everyone is still in the hunt.

 
Dr. Octopus said:
Obviously you can do what you want but now we are over complicating things and then you'll get arguments as to who a "starter" is.

It seems to go against the spirit of the game, even if we don't want to call it "collusion."
Click to expand...
Easy fix, use common sense. If it is to close to call then 2 owners can decide. 

 
ATB said:
It's no different. You're allowing the rental on the front-end rather than the back-end. In fact, it's sleazier because you can easily keep it from your league. No one has to know you two decided on the trade a week before you enacted it. But if you were to give back a player after renting him, everyone in the league knows what you did. 

Also, another point of discussion should be why you all are trading picks during the season. 

This is another can of worms that should be avoided in every league. You should only trade picks before/during the draft. During the season, the trading of picks allows losing teams to trade good players to winning teams to stock up on picks for next year and allow winning teams with a shot at the playoffs to stack good players for this year. 

It's an unfair advantage that has no place in fantasy football. 

Don't allow the rental of players and don't allow the trading of picks during the season. 

You'll be better off for it. 
Click to expand...
First off, had I traded Carlos Hyde last night for a single 3rd round pick - everyone would have immediately realized it wasn't a typical trade.  Nothing would be "kept from the league."  Had it gone through, I'd have quickly been extremely forthright to the league that it wasn't a permanent move, and that Hyde would be coming back next week. 

Secondly, who in their right might wants to prevent the trading of picks during the season?  That's even crazier than what I brought up!  Yes, of course the trading of picks midseason will cause those two examples - that's exactly what we want.  Good teams to make a run, and bad teams to rebuild so that next year or two they won't be so bad.

 
Amused to Death said:
Examine it thru the lens of making every trade stand on its own. No future deals tied to it. 
Click to expand...
This.

The first trade that sends the player is asset for asset ... but the trade to get the player back would be asset for nothing. 

Very bush league and I would be beyond furious if my opponent beat me by utilizing such shenanigans.

You could essentially find yourself playing against the same player two or three weeks in a row. So wrong.

 
matttyl said:
First off, had I traded Carlos Hyde last night for a single 3rd round pick - everyone would have immediately realized it wasn't a typical trade.  Nothing would be "kept from the league."  Had it gone through, I'd have quickly been extremely forthright to the league that it wasn't a permanent move, and that Hyde would be coming back next week. 
Click to expand...
And that's roster sharing.

What would you do if the other owner received an offer for Hyde after trading for him?  Would he be free to make that deal?  If the answer is no, then you're sharing a player.  And that's collusion.

 
Some of you guys need to think outside of the box and use common sense. There would be rules to this, not a free for all where a person could rent a whole new team for the week 16 super bowl. Come on shark pool, we are better than this. 

 
Bossman said:
This.

The first trade that sends the player is asset for asset ... but the trade to get the player back would be asset for nothing. 

Very bush league and I would be beyond furious if my opponent beat me by utilizing such shenanigans.

You could essentially find yourself playing against the same player two or three weeks in a row. So wrong.
Click to expand...
You realize he could rent that player and that can already happen. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
People can really talk themselves into anything being kosher.

Nah, I'm gonna stay in leagues where you have to choose from players that you acquired. 

The big possible problem, is someone trading Hyde to someone else after he acquires him in the rental.

Which would be hilarious to witness.

 
Amused to Death said:
And that's roster sharing.

What would you do if the other owner received an offer for Hyde after trading for him?  Would he be free to make that deal?  If the answer is no, then you're sharing a player.  And that's collusion.
Click to expand...
Well sure it's roster sharing.  But it ain't for free.  I'm getting paid (a third) in the deal.  I agree that if the deal were Hyde last night for a first, and then we trade the first back for Hyde - that would be wrong.  But this ain't that (and I'm not saying this is right, but it did get me thinking - and others in the league).  For whatever it's worth it's a 10 team league with most of the league having been in it for a decade or more now. 

I'd be giving up something (a better chance to win this week in my own game) and gaining something (a pick).  He'd be giving up something (a pick), and gaining something (a better chance to win his own game).  Now nothing should have stopped us from him trading me a pair of future 1st round picks for Hyde and that being the end of it - I think we could all agree to that.  But he wasn't willing to do that, so the idea of just a short rental came up. 

 
This post would be better with a poll.

Although I guess HairySasquatch is benefiting from the lack of a poll.

HairySasquatch said:
This is collusion...it is essentially doubling your roster size.  Should never be allowed. 

You, Ruffrodys05, Mr. Irrelevant and 10 others like this​
Click to expand...

 
matttyl said:
Well sure it's roster sharing.  But it ain't for free.  I'm getting paid (a third) in the deal.  I agree that if the deal were Hyde last night for a first, and then we trade the first back for Hyde - that would be wrong.  But this ain't that (and I'm not saying this is right, but it did get me thinking - and others in the league).  For whatever it's worth it's a 10 team league with most of the league having been in it for a decade or more now. 

I'd be giving up something (a better chance to win this week in my own game) and gaining something (a pick).  He'd be giving up something (a pick), and gaining something (a better chance to win his own game).  Now nothing should have stopped us from him trading me a pair of future 1st round picks for Hyde and that being the end of it - I think we could all agree to that.  But he wasn't willing to do that, so the idea of just a short rental came up. 
Click to expand...
You're just trying to justify collusion.

 
msudaisy26 said:
Some of you guys need to think outside of the box and use common sense. There would be rules to this, not a free for all where a person could rent a whole new team for the week 16 super bowl. Come on shark pool, we are better than this. 
Click to expand...
:lmao:

yes, lets figure out a way that an owner can give up nothing and gain a 3rd round rookie pick.

The owner can trade a player to another team but technically still hold the rights to that player thru an "agreement".

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

zamboni
Should There Be A League Trade Deadline (Keeper/Dynasty)?
Replies
33
Views
760
Mitchie
M
Deamon
The Jonathan Taylor effect moving forward- Does this set a precedent?
Replies
33
Views
640
Grahamburn
Grahamburn
Zow
Trade issue in new league - drama ensues
2 3
Replies
138
Views
4K
5-ish Finkle
5-ish Finkle

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top