Collusion question? (1 Viewer)

[Gottabesweet]

We have a no collusion rule but how do you define it?

Last week Saturday the Lamar (didn’t play) owner traded Trevor Lawrence on Bye for Jordan Love.

This week Saturday. Jordan Love was returned in trade for Trevor Lawrence. Same teams.

It feels like it was an agreement to loan a player for a bye but obviously can’t be proven?

How can we incorporate something in our by laws so this doesn’t happen.

 

[Wigglytuff's Gruff]

Quite simple really, unless a roster has suffered some injuries during the game week, a reverse of a trade made the previous week is not an option.

They have quite clearly colluded and done a one week rental.

 

[MrJimiT]

You could add "A traded player may not directly return to it's traded from team."

 

[Birdie048]

You could add "A traded player may not directly return to it's traded from team."

Past league I was Commish, I had a rule a Player traded away from a team could not be traded back to that same original owner in the same NFL Season.

But in this case, it is a clear "player loan" and without additional pieces, appears clear collusion IMO.
If I had a vote, I would say YES = Collusion.
If I was Commish, I would undo the 2nd part and prevent them from trading to each other for 3 weeks (or until after the Trade deadline allowed) .. (if the rule allowed such penalty)

 

[phandango]

I'm in a dynasty that's in its 20th season. We had a similar situation early on, and we put in a rule that if a player was traded from one team to another, then that player could not be traded back to the original team for 365 days (unless the same player was traded to a third team, and then back to original team). That rule was too strict. This season we changed it so that if a team trades a player after the start of the regular season, then the player can't be traded back until after the fantasy playoffs.

 

[Gottabesweet]

Trading for the same player throughout the season doesn’t bother me as much but it being 1 for 1 exactly a week later is very suspect.

The guy that traded for Love is the commish and never has done anything like this. 30+ year league. Usually his brother and nephew make some suspect trades around the trade deadline

 

[Godsbrother]

We have a rule where a player cannot be reacquired for a period of 4 fantasy weeks.

 

[Gottabesweet]

Another guy just questioned him if this was legal and he replied “why not”

 

[smbkrypt24]

We have a no collusion rule but how do you define it?

Last week Saturday the Lamar (didn’t play) owner traded Trevor Lawrence on Bye for Jordan Love.

This week Saturday. Jordan Love was returned in trade for Trevor Lawrence. Same teams.

It feels like it was an agreement to loan a player for a bye but obviously can’t be proven?

How can we incorporate something in our by laws so this doesn’t happen.

Have those owners been asked why the reversal one week from when they made the trade?

 

[smbkrypt24]

I'm in a dynasty that's in its 20th season. We had a similar situation early on, and we put in a rule that if a player was traded from one team to another, then that player could not be traded back to the original team for 365 days (unless the same player was traded to a third team, and then back to original team). That rule was too strict. This season we changed it so that if a team trades a player after the start of the regular season, then the player can't be traded back until after the fantasy playoffs.

I don't think rules like this are needed. But the exact reversal so close to the original trade date stinks.

 

[zamboni]

We have a rule where a player cannot be reacquired for a period of 4 fantasy weeks.

We have the same rule. Easily prevents these short-term moves.

 

[tricky92]

We have a no collusion rule but how do you define it?

Last week Saturday the Lamar (didn’t play) owner traded Trevor Lawrence on Bye for Jordan Love.

This week Saturday. Jordan Love was returned in trade for Trevor Lawrence. Same teams.

It feels like it was an agreement to loan a player for a bye but obviously can’t be proven?

How can we incorporate something in our by laws so this doesn’t happen.

We've done that in my league, but usually the team getting the player to help fill a role will at least provide some FAAB to the other team. So, there's still a gain from both sides even though they plan on reversing their trade in the future. All trades need to be mutual beneficial.

 

[Ray_T]

Past league I was Commish, I had a rule a Player traded away from a team could not be traded back to that same original owner in the same NFL Season.

This is likely the proper answer.

or a modified one where the player cant be traded back for at least 6 weeks. This way if an early season trade is made and then the situation changes, and the trade back makes sense for both teams, it allows for that. (or just say automatic review by commish in those situations)

in this case I would have been inclined to reject the second trade. Those guys were colluding to loan a player out. that goes against the competitive spirit of the league. and if members of the league have complained you as a commish have to resolve this somehow as those affected have a legitimate beef.

 

[Max Power]

We have a no collusion rule but how do you define it?

Last week Saturday the Lamar (didn’t play) owner traded Trevor Lawrence on Bye for Jordan Love.

This week Saturday. Jordan Love was returned in trade for Trevor Lawrence. Same teams.

It feels like it was an agreement to loan a player for a bye but obviously can’t be proven?

How can we incorporate something in our by laws so this doesn’t happen.

We've done that in my league, but usually the team getting the player to help fill a role will at least provide some FAAB to the other team. So, there's still a gain from both sides even though they plan on reversing their trade in the future. All trades need to be mutual beneficial.

I'm in a 14 team dynasty league that has to do rental defense trades from time to time. Free agent dollars and draft picks tend to get used to make sure things are on the up and up.

 

[Marauder]

Past league I was Commish, I had a rule a Player traded away from a team could not be traded back to that same original owner in the same NFL Season.

This is likely the proper answer.

or a modified one where the player cant be traded back for at least 6 weeks. This way if an early season trade is made and then the situation changes, and the trade back makes sense for both teams, it allows for that. (or just say automatic review by commish in those situations)

in this case I would have been inclined to reject the second trade. Those guys were colluding to loan a player out. that goes against the competitive spirit of the league. and if members of the league have complained you as a commish have to resolve this somehow as those affected have a legitimate beef.

I'm ok with a 4 week or maybe even 6 week rule, but I don't like the "within the same NFL season rule" unless you're limiting it to straight 1 for 1 trades. If your an active trader and you have other active traders in your league, it's not uncommon to re-acquire a player you traded away a month or so ago as part of a package deal. I'd hate it if those trades were blocked.

 

[BearsFan4Life]

Seen in done in our league of 30+ years, but never a direct 1 for 1 trade one week and the next. There is usually a draft pick attached on the first deal as a "rental fee" to get around the direct 1 for 1 trade and swap back.

 

[tkrull2.0]

Another guy just questioned him if this was legal and he replied “why not”

Ugh. I hate to say bail out of a 30+ year league, but this stinks.

 

[Gally]

How can we incorporate something in our by laws so this doesn’t happen.

We have a rule that a player cannot be returned in trade for a minimum of 3 weeks or multiple teams ownership prior to the 3 week time frame. It doesn't mean that those teams can't just wait the three weeks and trade back but usually that isn't something that happens.

If it was the exact same trade in return I would think that is pretty strong evidence that it was a loan.

 

[Mitchie]

We had this controversy a while back and implemented a one year rule before that player could be traded back to same team. Maybe could do a shorter time period but this has worked for us.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Another guy just questioned him if this was legal and he replied “why not”

"Because we have a rule against collusion, and this was obviously collusion."

 

[msudaisy26]

I don't think you need a rule about trading a player back to the same team, but this is clearly collusion. Forfeit of a draft pick or faab should be in order.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

clearly collusion. 1 week rental for a BYE - two owners colluding to help one win a week. It can be nothing but collusion, and I'd boot both owners and replace the next year.

 

[Ray_T]

clearly collusion. 1 week rental for a BYE - two owners colluding to help one win a week. It can be nothing but collusion, and I'd boot both owners and replace the next year.

well, in a 30 year league its not that easy. likely a good number of the team owners are friends. and to boot you need someone who is willing to step in as well. also not easy. especially in a 30 year league where the age of most of the guys are 45+ (possibly older) its not like you are gonna get a 21 year old to join the league. you kind of want someone who fits in with everyone else.

 

[fred_1_15301]

Yeah I think the OP is better off just leaving the league next year if he feels this will become a trend.

 

[socrates]

If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, it is probably a duck.

As a Commissioner for over 35 years, here is my approach: I begin with the presumption that any trade for the same players between the same teams during the same fantasy season is collusion. I believe it is a rebuttable presumption, but the burden is on the trading parties to demonstrate a lack of collusion and justification to allow the trade. We have an appeals process that can put the issue before the entire League, less the parties involved.

 

[kyoun1e]

Complete BS.

Definite collusion.

I'd want them both out of the league.

 

[OrganizedChaos]

Another guy just questioned him if this was legal and he replied “why not”

It was clearly collusion. The second trade needs to be reversed. Nothing can be done about the first one at this time. Speaking as commish of a league for over 20 years.

 

[JohnnyU]

Take both of them snipe hunting