msudaisy26
Footballguy
I would assume there would be a rule where it is a one week rental and you can't rerent a player you are renting.
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)
- Thread starter matttyl
- Start date
Bossman
Footballguy
oh, and by most fantasy players definition .... "agreement" = collusion
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".
msudaisy26
Footballguy
As opposed the guy who cries foul because you might face the same guy 3 weeks in a row.
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".
Except that can already happen!!!
msudaisy26
Footballguy
massraider
Footballguy
apalmer
Footballguy
Then do it. Give him Hyde and take his 3rd pick. He just can't give Hyde back to you. That's the part that's collusive.
Amused to Death
Footballguy
As I've already said, you do whatever you're comfortable with. Just realize you're trying to rationalize some lite collusion. "Just the tip" as it were.As opposed the guy who cries foul because you might face the same guy 3 weeks in a row.
Except that can already happen!!!
JoeSteeler
Footballguy
yepmsudaisy26 said:
apalmer
Footballguy
So what if the deal is: "I'll let you use Hyde this week if you let me use your #2 QB and #1 TE the week after that when my guys are on bye. Then you can use one of my WRs the week after that when you're shorthanded there." You can make the same argument that each team is giving up something by decreasing their chances to win at some point, but it's clearly roster-sharing which shouldn't be tolerated.
ATB
Footballguy
God help you if I paid $100+ to be in this league. I'd quit so fast you'd feel your pecker flap in a breeze. And how would I get my money back? I'm sure you bow-leggers wouldn't agree to refunds seeing as you're too busy scheming on how to a$$-#### one another out of money. No, I reckon I'd have to resort to petty revenge. Piss in your tail pipe? Maybe. But pissing in your wife's tail pipe would be better...
Last edited by a moderator:
massraider
Footballguy
matttyl
Footballguy
I wouldn't be giving up nothing - I'd be giving up Hyde's 21 points from last night. That could end up costing me my game.
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".
I understand how most of you feel about this, I just want to be sure it's being illustrated and understood properly.
matttyl
Footballguy
Had we done it last night, I likely would have given Hyde for a 1st and third - then the move back would have been Hyde for the first (in an attempt to prevent that).
If I were in a league that started allowing this I would trade a 3rd round pick to "rent" OBJ and then refuse to trade him back the following week just to show the rest of the league how dumb it is.
-OZ-
Footballguy
HairySasquatch said:
Amused to Death said:
No, it isn't. At least not if it's allowed and known.
ATB
Footballguy
Yes and it's worked best for us to not allow this. Trade your picks before the draft, then live with what you end up with and trade players normally. I hate watching the top 4 teams in the league completely dismantling their roster to load up for the playoffs. Then of what importance was the draft?
Bossman
Footballguy
matttyl
Footballguy
No I didn't. I started him over Fournette - says so in the OP. My game's score is currently 21-0 because of it.
Last edited by a moderator:
ATB
Footballguy
It just ensures a misbalance to the league year-in and year-out.
"Let me move all my draft picks next year so I can win this year" and "Lemme tank this year to stock up draft picks for next year" are horrible mentalities for any league.
Draft the players you think give you the best chance to win then trade players if you wanna improve. But tanking should never be allowed.
Bossman
Footballguy
When I said "agreement" = collusion .... I took my own words out of context...
The owner can trade a player to another team but technically still hold the rights to that player thru an "agreement".
An "agreement" between two owners, outside of the assets being exchanged = collusion.
In fact, that would be the definition of fantasy sports collusion.
Hankmoody
Footballguy
I again question if you are in the same dynasty leagues we're talking about here. "The draft" shouldn't be the majority of the equation. Success should be based on 4 equally important things - trades, waivers, contracts/free agency, draft. Trading of draft picks is what drives dynasty leagues. Those with bad teams need to be able to trade off aging/decaying assets to get younger/more diverse in an attempt to get better.
ATB
Footballguy
I quit that league long ago so it's possible I'm not remembering the details as well as I once did.
-OZ-
Footballguy
A dynasty league is going to be imbalanced. That's part of the fun - prioritizing this year vs the future, whether you like hording picks or like veteran players, etc. The biggest challenge is to stay competitive over time. Allowing trading of picks during the year allows teams to make up for injuries, address weakness, rebuild better, etc.
Hankmoody
Footballguy
apalmer
Footballguy
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
No, tradebacks or "rentals" are considered collusion in my leagues.
Back when I was in 5 leagues, all 5 had rules about both of these types of transactions.
In theory, you could collude with another owner to beat another opponent at an opportune time at little cost. Example: I need team C to lose this week, so I loan you a player to help you beat him.
That's textbook cheating.
So whether it's done with innocent intentions or not, it's collusion. Make a fair trade with someone or don't, but there shouldn't be tradebacks of any kind.
One man's opinion.
Back when I was in 5 leagues, all 5 had rules about both of these types of transactions.
In theory, you could collude with another owner to beat another opponent at an opportune time at little cost. Example: I need team C to lose this week, so I loan you a player to help you beat him.
That's textbook cheating.
So whether it's done with innocent intentions or not, it's collusion. Make a fair trade with someone or don't, but there shouldn't be tradebacks of any kind.
One man's opinion.
Last edited by a moderator:
massraider
Footballguy
matttyl
Footballguy
Yeah, what? In the first example it's just Hyde and a first, back and fourth. In what I would have likely done last night, there would have been a 3rd rounder that I would have kept. He wasn't going to get to start Hyde this week for "free".
ATB
Footballguy
May have forgotten how the draft differs over all these years but you've still got a thing or two to learn about collusion.
massraider
Footballguy
ATB
Footballguy
No. Any team, regardless of their record, agreeing to trade players but waiting a week to actually do so is definable collusion.
massraider
Footballguy
Bossman
Footballguy
After the trade, do you agree that you would still have rights to Hyde in this arrangement?
... since the other owner has "agreed" to give him back, that owner can not trade him.
How can you logically argue that this isn't player sharing?
-------------
Here is what my commissioner has written in our rules as far as trading:
(G) TRADES MAY BE MADE ONLY FOR PLAYERS AND DRAFT PICKS. TRADES FOR CASH, FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS, FOR PLAYERS TO BE NAMED LATER, WITH RESERVATIONS, OR FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS ARE NOT ALLOWED.
---------------
He's actually listed Future Considerations twice ... which is what a trade back would be.
A trade should be for assets of somewhat equal value without any future contingencies. Anything other than that would not fly in our league.
-OZ-
Footballguy
To each their own, but does your league allow conditional picks? ie "I trade you Eric Decker for a 2nd round pick, which becomes your 1st if he scores 200 points in 2017"? Ours allows it, even though it isn't often done (I might have been the last, when the contingent pick ended up being Ronnie Brown)
My last thoughts on this are if this is the route you want to go, you better have 10 pages of "what if" in your constitution, and hire a full time commissioner to interpret and rule. Or go the "everything and anything goes" route and have a long list of potential new owners on speed dial to replace the ones that leave or get whacked.
Bossman
Footballguy
absolutely not. What recourse do you have when that owner trades his 1st rd pick before Decker scores 200 points? "Whoops, my bad. I didn't think he was gonna get there."
... or is that owners 1st round pick (and the 2nd rd pick) "frozen" until the end of the season?
I don't see how this adds much to the league and I'd be content not to go down that road myself.
Amused to Death
Footballguy
15 year dynasty. We also did away with all conditional picks. All trades must be executed and final in one transaction.
Ruffrodys05
IBL Representative
Regarding the OP's question;
My league does not allow this type of transaction. We have a specific rule addressing it.
My league does not allow this type of transaction. We have a specific rule addressing it.
-OZ-
Footballguy
The picks are frozen. Most people don't want to freeze two picks, so the trades are rare but they're not prohibited.
Mr. Irrelevant
IBL Representative
I've never run a league - and I've run many, of every imaginable format - whose bylaws ran longer than one 8x11 page.
The last bylaw always reads something like: "Don't violate the spirit of the rules or the integrity of the league. If you even have to ask whether your idea might run afoul of this rule, it does."
I've also never, not once, lost an owner over rules disputes.
Ten pages of rules is an invitation to look for loopholes (like the OPs, IMO). Short, sweet, and reasonable is better.
Hankmoody
Footballguy
Our policy:
Trades are final as executed. Any "conditional" trades are between the two owners to resolve. The League will take no official stance, ruling, or action to resolve any dispute that may arise.
In other words, caveat emptor. You better trust your trade partner, and both of you better track what's at risk. If your dude trades the 1st away it's between you two to determine fair compensation. We've had dozens of conditional trades over the years and only had one minor snafu like this - and it was quickly solved with a few FAAB $ to cover the loss. Solid membership with little turnover and a lot of long-time owners. It's just like anything else involving trust, they start slow and build up from there.
Also, we require conditions to be pretty specifically defined. No "If Decker goes over 200 points owner A will give some extra cash TBD based on actual scoring". Too much potential for drama and too much opportunity for reciprocity/bro deals/collusion.
msudaisy26
Footballguy
Come on, different strokes for different folks. If everyone in that league is cool with it let them be. Seriously, did you just say a sleazy way to gamble on football games we have no control over?
Similar threads
