Bye Week Trading (1 Viewer)

[Truman73]

What is you all's stance on this if done to benefit both teams in the trade and not involving major point producers?

I've been commish of a couple league's for a few years now. We've had our issue's....blah blah blah. But we're all friends and no one is out to screw anyone.

So two teams came to me this week and ask me if it's against the rules to trade due to Bye Weeks and then trade back. Now - let me say, they are both honest guys and the trade is of fairly CURRENT equal value involving backup/bench players for both teams. McNabb (playing awful right now) for the Giants Ward. One needs a QB and the other a 2nd or 3rd RB. You could even argue the guy getting Ward is getting the better deal in a 2 game window.

I wouldn't blink much of an eye seeing it go through. Yeah McNabb is a big name but he is playing awful right now. I would however raise an eyebrow seeing the exact trade going back again in 3 weeks after the 2 Bye Weeks.

Initially I thought COLLUSION = NO. But - is it really "collusion" here if two teams knowingly see that they can benefit each other at fair or equal value. This isn't two teams trying to stack one team. I have nothing in my bylaws against Bye Week trading. I do have rules about collusion in which two teams conspire to unfairly load one team with clear intentions of gaining an edge over the league.

I would tell these two that they enter this at their own risk if McNabb goes off and the guy won't trade him back.

Now - next year, I might include an rule prohibiting the trading of the exact same players twice for the purpose of Bye Week replacement just to avoid possible hassles...but this year?

What do you guys think?

 

[AllVolUT]

What is you all's stance on this if done to benefit both teams in the trade and not involving major point producers?

I've been commish of a couple league's for a few years now. We've had our issue's....blah blah blah. But we're all friends and no one is out to screw anyone.

So two teams came to me this week and ask me if it's against the rules to trade due to Bye Weeks and then trade back. Now - let me say, they are both honest guys and the trade is of fairly CURRENT equal value involving backup/bench players for both teams. McNabb (playing awful right now) for the Giants Ward. One needs a QB and the other a 2nd or 3rd RB. You could even argue the guy getting Ward is getting the better deal in a 2 game window.

I wouldn't blink much of an eye seeing it go through. Yeah McNabb is a big name but he is playing awful right now. I would however raise an eyebrow seeing the exact trade going back again in 3 weeks after the 2 Bye Weeks.

Initially I thought COLLUSION = NO. But - is it really "collusion" here if two teams knowingly see that they can benefit each other at fair or equal value. This isn't two teams trying to stack one team. I have nothing in my bylaws against Bye Week trading. I do have rules about collusion in which two teams conspire to unfairly load one team with clear intentions of gaining an edge over the league.

I would tell these two that they enter this at their own risk if McNabb goes off and the guy won't trade him back.

Now - next year, I might include an rule prohibiting the trading of the exact same players twice for the purpose of Bye Week replacement just to avoid possible hassles...but this year?

What do you guys think?

That right there says it all. IMO, initial trade seems fine...the 'trade-back' is BS.

 

[Nathan R. Jessep]

Definitely a risk of 'no givsies backsies' I suppose if either party wanted to be a tool about it when time comes for the trade back, but I suppose if both are gaining from the deal, I'd be OK with it in my league. The other issue I can think of is if one gets injured and is out for the year or most of it. There again, that's just part of the risk assumed when you make this kind of deal.

 

[GregR_2]

Yes, agreeing to share players is collusion. It is two teams pooling roster space. It allows both teams to get the advantage of having two backups filled by earlier drafted players while only having to have spent 1 earlier pick on the player, yet still getting that player back.

The problem is in the PRIOR AGREEMENT. That is when you cross the line from two teams acting independently in their own best interest, to agreeing to work together even if it turns out to be to one team's obvious detriment when it comes time for the second transaction.

As a commish, you are faced with the problem of "how can I tell whether this is two teams who made a trade, and later independently recognized a second trade that amounts to returning the players is in their new current interest... vs teams who planned it out in advance?" There's no simple answer to that. Some leagues just don't allow trade backs, of have a minimum number of weeks. Others just try to deal with it when it comes up.

In your case though, it's clear cut what they are doing since they've openly stated what the situation is. Yes, it is collusion, and you should not allow the teams to trade those players back at all if they do the trade, after what they've indicated the situation is.

 

[MarcO]

What is you all's stance on this if done to benefit both teams in the trade and not involving major point producers?

Initially I thought COLLUSION = NO. But - is it really "collusion" here if two teams knowingly see that they can benefit each other at fair or equal value. This isn't two teams trying to stack one team. I have nothing in my bylaws against Bye Week trading. I do have rules about collusion in which two teams conspire to unfairly load one team with clear intentions of gaining an edge over the league.

What do you guys think?

the very definition of collusion - rival teams cooperating for mutual benefit.

 

[GregR_2]

To expand on my previous post... here is collusion:

Team A: Hey, how about trading Ben Watson for Jason Elam? You need a kicker this week and I need a TE.

Team B: But I don't want to give up Watson long term.

Team A: Ok, I'll trade him back to you when it's over for Elam back.

Here is what should have happened if the teams acted in their own interest instead of mutually joining together even if it might not be in their interest:

Team A: Hey, how about trading Ben Watson for Jason Elam? You need a kicker this week and I need a TE.

Team B: But I don't want to give up Watson long term.

Team A: I can't say whether 2 weeks from now I'd think Watson is more valuable to me than Elam. For all I know my starting TE may get hurt in practice even though he's on bye. If you want to do the trade as is we can discuss our situation later.

 

[Nathan R. Jessep]

I agree with GregR and I didn't put it in my post, but the problem here is the premeditation, for sure. Of course, unless you can get one of them to admit to it, I don't suppose you have a way to prove that they did it for collusive reasons.

 

[Nathan R. Jessep]

To expand on my previous post... here is collusion:Team A: Hey, how about trading Ben Watson for Jason Elam? You need a kicker this week and I need a TE.Team B: But I don't want to give up Watson long term.Team A: Ok, I'll trade him back to you when it's over for Elam back.Here is what should have happened if the teams acted in their own interest instead of mutually joining together even if it might not be in their interest:Team A: Hey, how about trading Ben Watson for Jason Elam? You need a kicker this week and I need a TE.Team B: But I don't want to give up Watson long term.Team A: I can't say whether 2 weeks from now I'd think Watson is more valuable to me than Elam. For all I know my starting TE may get hurt in practice even though he's on bye. If you want to do the trade as is we can discuss our situation later.

 

[Truman73]

Thanks guys. I think I'll avoid the hassle and simply state that I can't allow this to happen and it falls under the collusion agreement since they were straight up and planned it ahead of time.

In the past I have been involved in a tradeback but it not preplanned and did not include exactly the same players. I traded a guy for his starting LB because I wanted the upgrade. Later in the year I really needed a RB, the LB had cooled down, the guy had a RB I wanted and I knew he liked this LB, so I threw him a LB+RB for an upgraded RB deal and he took it. Same guy...but not premeditated and for different reasons. Guess I was letting that experience influence my thoughts on this.

I don't agree that two teams mutually agreeing to help each other out is automatically collusion though. Many times when I'm looking to trade someone, I'll look to at how I can help him out...just not as much as he'd be helping me out.

I do agree though now after listening to your feedback that allowing a trade and tradeback for the sole purpose of Bye Weeks is in fact pooling rosters to a degree.

Makes sense when put that way.

Thanks

 

[Resident A]

Any decent league has rules preventing "loaning" players. It's a form of collusion IMO.

 

[atcdav]

Trading with the intent of trading back is bad bad bad. As said in a previous post, if at a later date another trade comes up that happens to return a player to a previous owner so be it. trading back is a fast track to destroying your league and compromising friendships, people are funny about munny.

 

[Paddy O'Seanessy]

Yes, agreeing to share players is collusion. It is two teams pooling roster space. It allows both teams to get the advantage of having two backups filled by earlier drafted players while only having to have spent 1 earlier pick on the player, yet still getting that player back.The problem is in the PRIOR AGREEMENT. That is when you cross the line from two teams acting independently in their own best interest, to agreeing to work together even if it turns out to be to one team's obvious detriment when it comes time for the second transaction.As a commish, you are faced with the problem of "how can I tell whether this is two teams who made a trade, and later independently recognized a second trade that amounts to returning the players is in their new current interest... vs teams who planned it out in advance?" There's no simple answer to that. Some leagues just don't allow trade backs, of have a minimum number of weeks. Others just try to deal with it when it comes up.In your case though, it's clear cut what they are doing since they've openly stated what the situation is. Yes, it is collusion, and you should not allow the teams to trade those players back at all if they do the trade, after what they've indicated the situation is.

In the sake of full disclosure I have to admit that my league allows only one trade per year per pair of teams. This was put in place to stop dumping. However, all this interceding on trades and citing the collusion boogie man is just power hunger. I guess if you're in some sort of professional competition you would have to worry about it but if you're playing with guys who want to cheat then it's a bad league regardless of your politburo decrees.As far as round trip trades I would make it clear that the league only recognizes trades and not future contracts. If someone decides to renege on the return transaction, well that's not anyone else's problem. Now the trade carries all the necessary risk.As far as this being two teams extending each other's roster space. Fine -- at what cost? Charge transactions fees. Now the prize winners benefit from the rental space.

 

[tombonneau]

I was in a league where guys started doing these 1-week trades. Absolutely lame. I quit the next year, even though they instituted a rule where you could only trade back players after a 3-wk period.

I think it's just stupid. If you want to trade bye week fillers permanently on the same bye, have at it. I just think doing the rent-a-filler way is a bit weak.

 

[John Mamula]

in all of my leagues once you trade a player you can not get him back. the only exception is a keeper league where you can get him back after the current season.

trading players back and forth is the quickest way to have people quit your league.

 

[raven1911]

We just had this issue in my league as well. Definitely collusion I believe and cheating. If you allow such trades then why do I worry about my bye weeks during the draft? A person in the league that prepares properly for a draft should not have bye week problems IMO. Also, if you allow such trades, what is to say that they might try the same thing in the playoffs, would you allow it then?

 

[Nathan R. Jessep]

We just had this issue in my league as well. Definitely collusion I believe and cheating. If you allow such trades then why do I worry about my bye weeks during the draft? A person in the league that prepares properly for a draft should not have bye week problems IMO. Also, if you allow such trades, what is to say that they might try the same thing in the playoffs, would you allow it then?

in our league, we have never had any of this go on, but we cut off all transactions (including waivers, trades, IR, etc.) after the start of week 13