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

[Stinkin Ref]

As an owner my obligation is to manage my team as best I can within the league rules. I am not required to manage my team to the benefit of others. 
 

If gaining a potential league winning player costs the risk of being short handed one week, mind, you I don’t have the player without meeting the conditions anyway, then I’ll do the deal for me. If sitting a player I have current doubts about seals the deal that is a no brainer for my team to win down the road. 
 

And after last week, I may not start MT this week even if it is “obvious” to do so.  My motives are mine and not the leagues. 
 

Im not playing for other players. If you need points for a tie breaker that’s on you. I’m under no obligation to do what YOU feel I need to do to help you get into the playoffs. 

the possible dub or no dub usually matters first.....

 

[Judge Smails]

I can’t believe this is such a big deal. It’s not collusion. They were playing each other! You can not blame anyone for benching Thomas this year anyway. 
 

Owner 1: I want Thomas

Owner 2: I’m playing you this week. 

Owner 1: I’m not going to play him this week anyway. 

Owner 2: Great let’s do it. 
 

The 3rd line is wrong.  Take out that and say instead say “how about if I give you my word I won’t play him”?

 

[Judge Smails]

In my early years of playing, I used to do “swap me a defense for a TE” trade to cover bye weeks with the agreement that we would trade back the following week. 
 

This is both collusion and unfair to the rest of the league. And I think the trade you described is essentially the same thing. 
 

I am now a part of multiple dynasty leagues which have language in the bylaws expressly prohibiting conditional trades and a requirement for all teams to submit their most competitive lineup. 
 

In this case, given how bad Thomas has been, I can see benching him for any reasonable alternative. Mattison isn’t it. And you have the owners admitting it.  

Please pm me your bylaws.  We need help 

 

[BigJim®]

I'd struggle with this one as a league commissioner because I'm generally hands off... never reversed a trade in 20 years. That said, I wouldn't want this happening in my league. Joe & others talk about reasonableness of conditions - that's a rabbit hole I won't go down when outcomes can be affected, and the fates of other team hinging on games not being 'thrown.' No thank you. If you want to say a draft pick in 2021 is conditional on some metric, be my guest.

 

[The Future Champs]

I think what a lot of posters fail to understand is that “managing my team as best I can” is perfectly compatible with collusion, and irrelevant to this discussion.   The two owners colluded, and admitted to doing so.  The fact that both of their teams might have benefitted from the collusion is also irrelevant.

 

[candian fantasy guy]

I'd struggle with this one as a league commissioner because I'm generally hands off... never reversed a trade in 20 years. That said, I wouldn't want this happening in my league. Joe & others talk about reasonableness of conditions - that's a rabbit hole I won't go down when outcomes can be affected, and the fates of other team hinging on games not being 'thrown.' No thank you. If you want to say a draft pick in 2021 is conditional on some metric, be my guest.

I'm on the same boat, except I don't see this as him" throwing his game away". 

This also is based on the OP who is squarely on one side as he pegs MT as a top 5WR in his original question. I would love to chat with the other owners to clear things up and get a clear vision of what went down and not just the jaded side of the story. 

I can’t believe this is such a big deal. It’s not collusion. They were playing each other! You can not blame anyone for benching Thomas this year anyway. 
 

Owner 1: I want Thomas

Owner 2: I’m playing you this week. 

Owner 1: I’m not going to play him this week anyway. 

Owner 2: Great let’s do it. 
 

This is very possible once the dust and emotions settle. 

 

[rockaction]

It's collusion, but it's not ban-worthy. It's lose your commissioner status worthy, though. This guy must have known this was ethically shady territory and never should have undertaken the endeavor. A commish has gotta be above board with everything, or there's no justice in the league.

NO JUSTICE IN THE LEAGUE!!! Sounds dramatic, doesn't it?

But really, if you can't trust the guy not to collude when he ought to have been given pause (and one presumes he was because it was an agreement not reflected in the public transaction) by what he was about to do, what can you really trust him with?

And this thread is semi-insane. Of course it's collusion.

 

[DropKick]

I think what a lot of posters fail to understand is that “managing my team as best I can” is perfectly compatible with collusion, and irrelevant to this discussion.   The two owners colluded, and admitted to doing so.  The fact that both of their teams might have benefitted from the collusion is also irrelevant.

Feel free to define the word "collusion".

 

[Tom Hagen]

In my early years of playing, I used to do “swap me a defense for a TE” trade to cover bye weeks with the agreement that we would trade back the following week. 
 

This is both collusion and unfair to the rest of the league. And I think the trade you described is essentially the same thing. 
 

I am now a part of multiple dynasty leagues which have language in the bylaws expressly prohibiting conditional trades and a requirement for all teams to submit their most competitive lineup. 
 

In this case, given how bad Thomas has been, I can see benching him for any reasonable alternative. Mattison isn’t it. And you have the owners admitting it.  

I'm curious how the bolded works.  If I wanted to play Michael Pittman over Michael Thomas last week would I have been be allowed to do so?

I'm not trying to be snarky here, there has been a lot of talk in this thread about being required to start your best lineup but I don't know how you judge that. 

 

[habsfan]

I'm curious how the bolded works.  If I wanted to play Michael Pittman over Michael Thomas last week would I have been be allowed to do so?

I'm not trying to be snarky here, there has been a lot of talk in this thread about being required to start your best lineup but I don't know how you judge that. 

I suspect many league rules/bylaws are riddled with motherhood statements that only "work" when illustrated using extreme examples. In practice principles like "the competitive balance of the league" really just give people with opinions something to point at when they want to assert those opinions.

 

[habsfan]

Please pm me your bylaws.  We need help 

I run a simple redraft league but the "bylaw" that could be enforced if this happened is:

"Trades with future considerations, trades or transactions involving consideration outside the fantasy football league or involving consideration beyond player for player."

This trade arguably violates all three but certainly two of three. In this instance, MT appears to be changing teams this week but in practical terms, he really isn't changing teams until next week.

In your league, I would suggest you establish which forms of "consideration" are acceptable, with any other forms being unacceptable.

 

[Gally]

Feel free to define the word "collusion".

It has been done many times in this thread but here you go again:

Collusion:  Secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.

 

[Gally]

I'm on the same boat, except I don't see this as him" throwing his game away". 

This also is based on the OP who is squarely on one side as he pegs MT as a top 5WR in his original question. I would love to chat with the other owners to clear things up and get a clear vision of what went down and not just the jaded side of the story. 

This is very possible once the dust and emotions settle. 

But that is not what happened.  The owner involved in the trade eventually admitted to the secret agreement and that if he was free to do what he wanted he would have started MT over Mattison.  It was admitted collusion when all was said and done.  

 

[tangfoot]

I'm curious how the bolded works.  If I wanted to play Michael Pittman over Michael Thomas last week would I have been be allowed to do so?

I'm not trying to be snarky here, there has been a lot of talk in this thread about being required to start your best lineup but I don't know how you judge that.

Of course it's subjective, but anything within reason is allowed.  We do not retroactively look at starting lineup choices with a fine toothed comb.

If you're starting Robert Griffin in place of Lamar Jackson, it will get noticed.

If you're starting bye week, injured or players ruled Out, it will get noticed.

 

[I Am the Stig]

Taysom Hill will be the starting QB this week. 
 

This is why you let people just do their thing as the Fantasy Gods will always sort it out. 
 

So much wasted energy on these things. Just let it play out, add rules at the end of the season that work for your league and move on. 

 

[Gally]

I'm curious how the bolded works.  If I wanted to play Michael Pittman over Michael Thomas last week would I have been be allowed to do so?

I'm not trying to be snarky here, there has been a lot of talk in this thread about being required to start your best lineup but I don't know how you judge that. 

For us it means don't play guys on bye, IR or ruled Out days ahead of the game.  Actual lineup choices are not addressed unless the aforementioned is done.  Other lineup choices are subject to ridicule if they don't pan out per normal ball busting protocols.  

 

[Gally]

Taysom Hill will be the starting QB this week. 
 

This is why you let people just do their thing as the Fantasy Gods will always sort it out. 
 

So much wasted energy on these things. Just let it play out, add rules at the end of the season that work for your league and move on. 

What does this have to do with the topic?

 

[Babooya]

But that is not what happened.  The owner involved in the trade eventually admitted to the secret agreement and that if he was free to do what he wanted he would have started MT over Mattison.  It was admitted collusion when all was said and done.  

We never got the whole story. If the commish admitted to hiding and lying and cheating it isn’t a discussion. Throw everyone out. We never received the commish’s rationale behind it. But again the conversation was framed to elicit a certain response (eg Top 5 WR). Frankly that is irrelevant, and even if Mattison and MT were equal options it is irrelevant as well.

the fact he lost by 1pt is also irrelevant (although that is the cruxct of the anger)
 

Which is an interesting position because the source of anger is irrelevant, and the real issue in this case is fairly de minimus. As it’s involving one week of a dynasty career

 

[Gally]

We never got the whole story. If the commish admitted to hiding and lying and cheating it isn’t a discussion. Throw everyone out. We never received the commish’s rationale behind it. But again the conversation was framed to elicit a certain response (eg Top 5 WR). Frankly that is irrelevant, and even if Mattison and MT were equal options it is irrelevant as well.

the fact he lost by 1pt is also irrelevant (although that is the cruxct of the anger)
 

Which is an interesting position because the source of anger is irrelevant, and the real issue in this case is fairly de minimus. As it’s involving one week of a dynasty career

I believe the crux of the question was whether or not this was collusion.  Based on the facts provided it is clearly collusion.  Everything else in the discussion is just window dressing.  Two teams admitted to a secret agreement for one team to sit a player he normally would have started (the players are irrelevant to the discussion) as a condition of a trade.  This is as cut and dry as there is.  

 

[I Am the Stig]

What does this have to do with the topic?

Nothing beyond Karma solving this. You people really have a 12 foot pole up your ...

 

[Babooya]

I believe the crux of the question was whether or not this was collusion.  Based on the facts provided it is clearly collusion.  Everything else in the discussion is just window dressing.  Two teams admitted to a secret agreement for one team to sit a player he normally would have started (the players are irrelevant to the discussion) as a condition of a trade.  This is as cut and dry as there is.  

Whether or not he was going to start MT is completely irrelevant. The outcomes are irrelevant. All that is relevant is that he accepted the condition knowing it was illegal and lied about it. But is that the case? Who knows? It’s all motivation and intent

 

[habsfan]

I believe the crux of the question was whether or not this was collusion.  Based on the facts provided it is clearly collusion.  Everything else in the discussion is just window dressing.  Two teams admitted to a secret agreement for one team to sit a player he normally would have started (the players are irrelevant to the discussion) as a condition of a trade.  This is as cut and dry as there is.  

You could argue an unfair advantage was created as well. The condition they struck wasn't common and you could argue the other teams were denied the opportunity to to make a similar offer employing these kinds of conditions.

A lot of the back and forth here comes down to different kinds of personalities in the world.

If two people agree to race each other to the end of the street and back and then one of those people opens their backpack and pulls out rollerblades and puts them on, the first person would think that was cheating. The second person might argue, "Hey you never said we had to run so I'm going to rollerblade". Other people might think that was obviously unethical and still others might say it was down right clever. These various "camps" will never convince each other they are right or wrong.

 

[Babooya]

Nothing beyond Karma solving this. You people really have a 12 foot pole up your ...

It’s all the same stuff you see on social media. Attacking people who don’t agree with you. Just smile and let them vent. Enough things going on in this world right now to just let things go.

 

[Gally]

You could argue an unfair advantage was created as well. The condition they struck wasn't common and you could argue the other teams were denied the opportunity to to make a similar offer employing these kinds of conditions.

A lot of the back and forth here comes down to different kinds of personalities in the world.

If two people agree to race each other to the end of the street and back and then one of those people opens their backpack and pulls out rollerblades and puts them on, the first person would think that was cheating. The second person might argue, "Hey you never said we had to run so I'm going to rollerblade". Other people might think that was obviously unethical and still others might say it was down right clever. These various "camps" will never convince each other they are right or wrong.

Sure but to the question of whether this was collusion or not is a straight forward exercise.  The answer doesn't have to pass judgement.  It just has to identify if it met the conditions of collusion.  

So here goes:  Collusion: secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.

Team A & B made a secret agreement and then lied to the rest of the league when initially asked about it.  So it meets for the first part -  There was a secret cooperation between the two teams.  So does it meet the second part?  The party involved lied about their being a secret agreement which deceived the other owners in the league.  Walla!  Both sections were met so this is clearly collusion based on the facts provided and the definition of collusion.

 

[Gally]

It’s all the same stuff you see on social media. Attacking people who don’t agree with you. Just smile and let them vent. Enough things going on in this world right now to just let things go.

I was not attacking.  I just asked a simple question regarding his statement and the applicability to this thread.  

 

[habsfan]

Sure but to the question of whether this was collusion or not is a straight forward exercise.  The answer doesn't have to pass judgement.  It just has to identify if it met the conditions of collusion.  

So here goes:  Collusion: secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.

Team A & B made a secret agreement and then lied to the rest of the league when initially asked about it.  So it meets for the first part -  There was a secret cooperation between the two teams.  So does it meet the second part?  The party involved lied about their being a secret agreement which deceived the other owners in the league.  Walla!  Both sections were met so this is clearly collusion based on the facts provided and the definition of collusion.

A common definition of collusion also adds "in order to achieve a competitive advantage". You can include it (or not) and/or argue that part is irrelevant but it also applies here (as in, an advantage was created).

 

[Gally]

A common definition of collusion also adds "in order to achieve a competitive advantage". You can include it (or not) and/or argue that part is irrelevant but it also applies here (as in, an advantage was created).

That only adds to the fact it was collusion (by the definition)

 

[Babooya]

I was not attacking.  I just asked a simple question regarding his statement and the applicability to this thread.  

That wasn’t you. But while I’m here, as to your definitional analysis if I were putting out this case study I’d have the commissioners perspective of the trade. I don’t think you can evaluate the situation fully without it. The framing of he question itself in the OP was biased. The goal is to strip away bias and get to the heart of the issue to make the best decision.

i didn’t originally see the confrontation story, which obviously becomes the defining issue. But we are only getting one side of the story, if there is no defense there is no discussion. Presume there is based on the hesitancy to take action 

 

[tangfoot]

Nothing beyond Karma solving this. You people really have a 12 foot pole up your ...

Alvin Karma is going to ball this week.

 

[Gally]

That wasn’t you. But while I’m here, as to your definitional analysis if I were putting out this case study I’d have the commissioners perspective of the trade. I don’t think you can evaluate the situation fully without it. The framing of he question itself in the OP was biased. The goal is to strip away bias and get to the heart of the issue to make the best decision.

i didn’t originally see the confrontation story, which obviously becomes the defining issue. But we are only getting one side of the story, if there is no defense there is no discussion. Presume there is based on the hesitancy to take action 

Action was taken.  The Commish (involved in the initial trade) stepped down from Commish-ing.  Based on the testimony we heard there is no reason to believe the OP is making up the part about the party eventually confirming the secret condition and only sitting the player because of said condition.  In most cases, the accused lawyer would probably recommend he doesn't take the stand or if he did he would plead the 5th so he doesn't self incriminate himself.  Therefore it is likely you will never get to hear that parties side of the case.  

 

[Babooya]

Action was taken.  The Commish (involved in the initial trade) stepped down from Commish-ing.  Based on the testimony we heard there is no reason to believe the OP is making up the part about the party eventually confirming the secret condition and only sitting the player because of said condition.  In most cases, the accused lawyer would probably recommend he doesn't take the stand or if he did he would plead the 5th so he doesn't self incriminate himself.  Therefore it is likely you will never get to hear that parties side of the case.  

It’s not a court room, it’s a bunch of friends in a FF league. So strange. 

 

[Babooya]

I think worthy punishment is having to roster MT for the rest of the year. But not be forced to start him. That would be cruel and unusual punishment 

 

[wlwiles]

I didn't read every single post through 12 pages, but did the OP ever say if Team A (who acquired MT) admitted he was tanking that one week or taking a loss?  All kinds of crazy things happen in matchups.   I have a hard time calling it "tanking" or "throwing the matchup" when all he did was change out one player.  Benching multiple starters for backups is tanking, not starting the wrong flex player.  

Yes, I get that he admitted he would have started MT if not for the secret side deal.  But if he was already a 30 point projected favorite, then agreeing to sit MT for Mattison is a calculated risk that's he obviously agreed to.  You can't call that tanking.  If his intention was to acquire MT AND give his opponent a win, then it's 100% collusion but I never heard that was his intention. 

 

[Gally]

It’s not a court room, it’s a bunch of friends in a FF league. So strange. 

You were the one wanting to interview the other guy rather than take the facts as they were presented.  I was just going with that thought process.  There was no reason not to believe the OP so I didn't need to hear the other guy.  You apparently did.  

 

[Babooya]

You were the one wanting to interview the other guy rather than take the facts as they were presented.  I was just going with that thought process.  There was no reason not to believe the OP so I didn't need to hear the other guy.  You apparently did.  

The strangeness is the whole interaction as described. Yep I like the hear the whole story. It’s not about believing, it’s about hear what the guys motivation and intent were

calling MT a top 5 WR in OP to sensationalize it. he sucks and is worthless this year. This is a longer term dynasty play without question.

go hang out in the MT thread and try to argue he was a top 5 WR start last week. Good for a laugh 

this is more about principle than any kind of real competitive balance  

Clearly the condition was asked by the JuJu owner. At the time of the trade did the commish acknowledge it was illegal and they would hide it? or did he go forward thinking it was undefined in the rules  and a de minimus issue so no big deal. 

The OP discussed what happened when he was confronted with it. 

 

[Judge Smails]

The strangeness is the whole interaction as described. Yep I like the hear the whole story. It’s not about believing, it’s about hear what the guys motivation and intent were

calling MT a top 5 WR in OP to sensationalize it. he sucks and is worthless this year. This is a longer term dynasty play without question.

go hang out in the MT thread and try to argue he was a top 5 WR start last week. Good for a laugh 

this is more about principle than any kind of real competitive balance  

Clearly the condition was asked by the JuJu owner. At the time of the trade did the commish acknowledge it was illegal and they would hide it? or did he go forward thinking it was undefined in the rules  and a de minimus issue so no big deal. 

The OP discussed what happened when he was confronted with it. 

1)  This is 100% redraft.  Not dynasty.  Never stated anything about dynasty

2) I gave stats from this site of where both Thomas and Mattison were ranked this week.  Thomas was ranked on this site as WR8.  Light years apart from Mattison's RB 55 ranking and 100+ slots difference with flex.  Of course nobody had knowledge that Brees would get hurt.  I think it's safe to say that most people figured a healthy Thomas with a healthy Brees was likely a top 10 WR here on out if not higher.  I didn't see ROS rankings.  The potential issue was between his ears.  But he was healthy, and with a healthy Brees one would think he would get rolling.  Don't know why you think that is so off base, unless you're just reacting to what was unknown - Brees injury.  If I polled 100 people on this site for a flex - would you start Thomas or Alexander Mattison in the flex going into last week it would have been 100-0.  Even for the biggest Vikings fans and Thomas haters.

 

[Kevrunner]

I can understand opinions on both side, even the vote is not too much in favor of my that this is collusion.  But what I can’t for the life of me get behind the idea than any knowledgeable fantasy player could justify benching Michael Thomas for Alexander Mattison for week 10 of the season.    Thomas just returned from missing 6 games to put up 10 points PPR leagues and an owner is going to bench him for Mattison.   There should be 100% agreement at least that nobody would do that from what we saw in week 9 from Thomas and Mattison.  

 

[ghostguy123]

So in the OP this situation was in a redraft league not dynasty?  That actually changes a lot for me.  Conditional trades are even worse in redraft IMO especially a case where there is a lineup condition.  

On a side now its silly to hear what some people view as unethical.  

 

[Babooya]

1)  This is 100% redraft.  Not dynasty.  Never stated anything about dynasty

2) I gave stats from this site of where both Thomas and Mattison were ranked this week.  Thomas was ranked on this site as WR8.  Light years apart from Mattison's RB 55 ranking and 100+ slots difference with flex.  Of course nobody had knowledge that Brees would get hurt.  I think it's safe to say that most people figured a healthy Thomas with a healthy Brees was likely a top 10 WR here on out if not higher.  I didn't see ROS rankings.  The potential issue was between his ears.  But he was healthy, and with a healthy Brees one would think he would get rolling.  Don't know why you think that is so off base, unless you're just reacting to what was unknown - Brees injury.  If I polled 100 people on this site for a flex - would you start Thomas or Alexander Mattison in the flex going into last week it would have been 100-0.  Even for the biggest Vikings fans and Thomas haters.

This is redraft? Lol

 

[Babooya]

So in the OP this situation was in a redraft league not dynasty?  That actually changes a lot for me.  Conditional trades are even worse in redraft IMO especially a case where there is a lineup condition.  

On a side now its silly to hear what some people view as unethical.  

Agreed

 

[davearm]

1)  This is 100% redraft.  Not dynasty.  Never stated anything about dynasty

2) I gave stats from this site of where both Thomas and Mattison were ranked this week.  Thomas was ranked on this site as WR8.  Light years apart from Mattison's RB 55 ranking and 100+ slots difference with flex.  Of course nobody had knowledge that Brees would get hurt.  I think it's safe to say that most people figured a healthy Thomas with a healthy Brees was likely a top 10 WR here on out if not higher.  I didn't see ROS rankings.  The potential issue was between his ears.  But he was healthy, and with a healthy Brees one would think he would get rolling.  Don't know why you think that is so off base, unless you're just reacting to what was unknown - Brees injury.  If I polled 100 people on this site for a flex - would you start Thomas or Alexander Mattison in the flex going into last week it would have been 100-0.  Even for the biggest Vikings fans and Thomas haters.

All true, but all you really need to know is that the guy that did this trade had Thomas > Mattison last week.  The only opinion/ranking that matters.

 

[Babooya]

All true, but all you really need to know is that the guy that did this trade had Thomas > Mattison last week.  The only opinion/ranking that matters.

All that matters is that he hid it. Although if the interrogation went like this thread. I’d imagine he’ll ride out the season with a chance leave with some $ and then be gone. Either because he’s a cheater no one respects or he’s bitter he got railroaded over something he though wasn’t an issue. 

 

[yoman]

All that matters is that he hid it. Although if the interrogation went like this thread. I’d imagine he’ll ride out the season with a chance leave with some $ and then be gone. Either because he’s a cheater no one respects or he’s bitter he got railroaded over something he though wasn’t an issue. 

But if you trade George Kittle for.....  . This thread did get kind of ridiculous.  

 

[DropKick]

It has been done many times in this thread but here you go again:

Collusion:  Secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.

I would hardly call this a conspiracy and I don't think anyone was cheated.

They made a trade.  

 

[DropKick]

All true, but all you really need to know is that the guy that did this trade had Thomas > Mattison last week.  The only opinion/ranking that matters.

Holy irrelevance, Batman.

 

[ghostguy123]

Do you think trades should be allowed that have a condition where you cant start the player you trade for?  If so where is the limit of what is accepted?  Would you only allow it for one week?  What if the two teams play each other 4 weeks later and the condition is you cant start the player that week?  What if the condition was that you cant start that player against a certain team for the next 2 years?  If you answered yes to the first question (which I do) then where do you draw the line of acceptable conditions?  Me personally I would say the condition can not go past that particular week.

If you answered no to the first question then obviously you think that this type of condition is not acceptable whether they announce into the league or not

 

[DropKick]

Do you think trades should be allowed that have a condition where you cant start the player you trade for?  If so where is the limit of what is accepted?  Would you only allow it for one week?  What if the two teams play each other 4 weeks later and the condition is you cant start the player that week?  What if the condition was that you cant start that player against a certain team for the next 2 years?  If you answered yes to the first question (which I do) then where do you draw the line of acceptable conditions?  Me personally I would say the condition can not go past that particular week.

If you answered no to the first question then obviously you think that this type of condition is not acceptable whether they announce into the league or not

Not a fan of trades with strings attached,  But I am in agreement with you that the first week is the limit.  As I posted earlier, it is similar to trading for MT on his bye week.

 

[Gally]

Not a fan of trades with strings attached,  But I am in agreement with you that the first week is the limit.  As I posted earlier, it is similar to trading for MT on his bye week.

It is similar in outcome (you can't play MT) but dictating who someone can or cannot play, keeping it secret and lying about it is drastically different.

 

[ghostguy123]

Maybe not the right thread but whatever.

What about player rentals?  Obviously only for dynasty leagues.

For example this would be the trade.

Team A trades Aaron Jones

Team B trades two 2nd round picks

The condition is "after the season Aaron Jones returns to the previous owner".  So, team B essentially rents Jones for the rest of the year for two 2nds.

This is kind of like a hush hush deal where two teams make a trade with the agreement to make the same trade in reverse when the season is over with maybe a slight value change.  Except in this case its out in the open and other teams would likely look into the same types of deals.

Personally I think it would be interesting, awesome, and terrible all at the same time

 

[Deamon]

Maybe not the right thread but whatever.

What about player rentals?  Obviously only for dynasty leagues.

For example this would be the trade.

Team A trades Aaron Jones

Team B trades two 2nd round picks

The condition is "after the season Aaron Jones returns to the previous owner".  So, team B essentially rents Jones for the rest of the year.

This is kind of like a hush hush deal where two teams make a trade with the agreement to make the same trade in reverse when the season is over with maybe a slight value change.

This is absolutely, unquestionably, not allowed.