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

[jvdesigns2002]

It's clear as day collusion.  If it's not collusion it's player dumping.    There is a reason why this is not allowed in professional sports as player "rentals" can effect the competitive balance of the league.   Trading a player away and then trading the player back is two independent transactions.  If you trade away a player for a 3rd round pick--and then get him back in a separate trade back for nothing--that essentially becomes player dumping.   If there are owners that actually think this is okay--either you need to find owners that have a more finely tuned moral compass or something needs to get written in your leagues rule book immediately preventing this.  

 

[msudaisy26]

It's clear as day collusion.  If it's not collusion it's player dumping.    There is a reason why this is not allowed in professional sports as player "rentals" can effect the competitive balance of the league.   Trading a player away and then trading the player back is two independent transactions.  If you trade away a player for a 3rd round pick--and then get him back in a separate trade back for nothing--that essentially becomes player dumping.   If there are owners that actually think this is okay--either you need to find owners that have a more finely tuned moral compass or something needs to get written in your leagues rule book immediately preventing this.  

Doesn't soccer rent players out all the time?

 

[jvdesigns2002]

Doesn't soccer rent players out all the time?

We're using European soccer leagues as the barometer of what should be allowed in a fantasy football league?  Did I really need to clarify none of the major professional US team sports allow it?  Let's talk about the major US sports and see what happens.  You think the NFL would be cool with the Packers loaning out Aaron Rodgers to another team during his bye week for compensation?  You think the NBA would be cool with Dubs loaning Steph Curry to another team for a few weeks?  C'mon--we all know that you aren't a fantasy sports newbie and even you have to know that player renting is bending the rules waaay too far.  

 

[msudaisy26]

We're using European soccer leagues as the barometer of what should be allowed in a fantasy football league?  Did I really need to clarify none of the major professional US team sports allow it?  Let's talk about the major US sports and see what happens.  You think the NFL would be cool with the Packers loaning out Aaron Rodgers to another team during his bye week for compensation?  You think the NBA would be cool with Dubs loaning Steph Curry to another team for a few weeks?  C'mon--we all know that you aren't a fantasy sports newbie and even you have to know that player renting is bending the rules waaay too far.  

Excuse me, soccer is a pro sport and by popularity is the most popular sport in the world.

This is FANTASY sports, and other than using the players stats, they have absolutely nothing in common with the real sports. This high horse crap about hurting the hobby, and bending the rules too far is . It is a made up fake gambling game, where you bet on players and plays that you have no control of, some people are so hardcore into they root for players to get hurt. Who really cares if someone wants to make up their own rules to the game and find others that want to do it? This is the way people probably acted when someone thought of PPR, IDP, flex players, or superflex. OMG the horror they are corrupting our fake game.

 

[jvdesigns2002]

Excuse me, soccer is a pro sport and by popularity is the most popular sport in the world.

This is FANTASY sports, and other than using the players stats, they have absolutely nothing in common with the real sports. This high horse crap about hurting the hobby, and bending the rules too far is . It is a made up fake gambling game, where you bet on players and plays that you have no control of, some people are so hardcore into they root for players to get hurt. Who really cares if someone wants to make up their own rules to the game and find others that want to do it? This is the way people probably acted when someone thought of PPR, IDP, flex players, or superflex. OMG the horror they are corrupting our fake game.

The fact that fantasy sports is a form of gambling is more reason why the rules of leagues should do whatever they can about preserving the competitive balance of the league.  I think most of us that participate in gambling like to do so knowing that other players cannot bend rules to stack the deck against us.  If you are fine with that--then we agree to disagree. By the way-- If you have a different opinion than somebody--you realize that it's okay to do so in a respectful way?   Using a laughing emoticon for having an opposing point of you does not strengthen your argument--it comes across as being rude and immature.  

 

[Yotes1]

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?

i guess I missed the part where OP said everyone in his league was cool with it.  If so...why post it on here.  I thought he was asking if members of the forum thought it was cool and everyone has expressed their opinion.  Based on what I've seen, the chances of everyone in his league being cool with it are pretty slim.  

 

[[icon]]

I commish 4 leagues... some dating back 15 years. There is zero chance this #### would fly in any of them. Pure collusion in the spirit of standard fantasy football. Don't believe us? Make a poll. If it's anything less than 75% agreeing I'll eat my hat. 

Now, you want to get funky and mix it up with some crazy rules? That's your right. Be prepared for it to blow up in your face and cost you owners if not the league altogether. If you're okay with that chance then give it a shot. 

Me... I'll pass. Enjoy, though. 

 

[[icon]]

If someone pulled this in a league I was in, and the commish allowed it. I'd make it a point to loan my studs to the guy's opponent every week in exchange for 2039 5th rounders and quit the league after cockblocking his playoff chances. 

 

[Hurl Bruce]

My league does conditional picks all the time.  It's been tied to player performance, how an owner's team finishes, if a suspension hits.  It's never been for no picks, but a draft pick may be added or moved up a round.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

But pissing in your wife's tail pipe would be better...

League trade ethics aside, I'm wondering if this is a euphamis. 

 

[msudaisy26]

The fact that fantasy sports is a form of gambling is more reason why the rules of leagues should do whatever they can about preserving the competitive balance of the league.  I think most of us that participate in gambling like to do so knowing that other players cannot bend rules to stack the deck against us.  If you are fine with that--then we agree to disagree. By the way-- If you have a different opinion than somebody--you realize that it's okay to do so in a respectful way?   Using a laughing emoticon for having an opposing point of you does not strengthen your argument--it comes across as being rude and immature.  

You should use your own advice, and for the record these leagues, other than the NF,  do loan out players, for free. They play in the Olympics for free, or the World baseball classic, with a chance of getting hurt.

 

[msudaisy26]

i guess I missed the part where OP said everyone in his league was cool with it.  If so...why post it on here.  I thought he was asking if members of the forum thought it was cool and everyone has expressed their opinion.  Based on what I've seen, the chances of everyone in his league being cool with it are pretty slim.  

That isn't what you said to me or what you were quoting. I said it was interesting and would needs rules. You told me it wasn't interesting at all and sleazy, so thank you for telling me how I feel.

Post it on here on to get thoughts or ideas, not to be told you are ruining the fantasy football, or that other people can't think it is interesting.

 

[zoonation]

You should use your own advice, and for the record these leagues, other than the NF,  do loan out players, for free. They play in the Olympics for free, or the World baseball classic, with a chance of getting hurt.

Even if you're right about that it is still a terrible argument for why renting players in FF is no big deal.  

 

[zoonation]

We have a keep 2 player league.  We allow trading players for future picks until the deadline (then reopening after playoffs in the off season).   Only one rule: the conditional pick or future considerations cannot include the player being traded.  The reason is so obvious it hardly needs to be articulated.   

 

[Short Corner]

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. 

Any trade involving future considerations, ie sending Hyde back, is collusion.

 

[Short Corner]

.....help me beat this guy and I'll give you your player back and a pick now.....is a trade, though. 

No

 

[BobbyLayne]

Amazing thread.

To the OP @matttyl - I didn’t count how many times people    this - 10, 30? - but if roster sharing and/or two parties working together to affect the outcome of a FF h2h match is NOT collusion, would you mind explaining WHAT IS?

 

[Tool]

That isn't what you said to me or what you were quoting. I said it was interesting and would needs rules. You told me it wasn't interesting at all and sleazy, so thank you for telling me how I feel.

Post it on here on to get thoughts or ideas, not to be told you are ruining the fantasy football, or that other people can't think it is interesting.

While everyone is entitled to their opinion, renting players is sleazy and the only rule needed is to not allow it.

 

[-OZ-]

To be honest, I did not realize there were so many different definitions of collusion. It's interesting to see what others think violates a code of ethics in ff. Obviously there needs to be one, but if your league agrees to allow certain moves, and everything is open, it probably isn't collusion. 

It might be interesting to have a league that allows these moves but that would be an extremely frustrating league. The possibility being ahead by a dozen or so points, thinking you're facing K Williams just to see your opponent rent Zeke from a team who didn't need him this week would send most others packing.  

 

[msudaisy26]

Any trade involving future considerations, ie sending Hyde back, is collusion.

No it isn't, the bold part could not be more wrong.

 

[Tool]

To be honest, I did not realize there were so many different definitions of collusion. It's interesting to see what others think violates a code of ethics in ff. Obviously there needs to be one, but if your league agrees to allow certain moves, and everything is open, it probably isn't collusion. 

It might be interesting to have a league that allows these moves but that would be an extremely frustrating league. The possibility being ahead by a dozen or so points, thinking you're facing K Williams just to see your opponent rent Zeke from a team who didn't need him this week would send most others packing.  

True if league allows it by definition not collusion- still pretty dumb though.

 

[jvdesigns2002]

You should use your own advice, and for the record these leagues, other than the NF,  do loan out players, for free. They play in the Olympics for free, or the World baseball classic, with a chance of getting hurt.

Those are cases where they loan players out to completely different leagues and completely different events.  Far different than what is being discussed here. We are talking about loaning out players for one week within the same league.  Even in European soccer--the least that a player can be loaned out for is one month.     Lastly--if this is allowed--what is to stop the two "trading" partners from pulling the same type of loan again?  For example--team owner A loans team owner B a player for a 3rd round pick week 5---and in week 8 team owner B lets team owner A borrow one of his players and gets his 3rd round pick back.  Then what?   That's the definition of roster sharing or collusion--where owners can conspire with one another to share rosters to effect the competitive balance of the league?   Even if you think this concept should be allowed--it's obvious that it has many flaws.  

 

[apalmer]

Those are cases where they loan players out to completely different leagues and completely different events.  Far different than what is being discussed here. We are talking about loaning out players for one week within the same league.  Even in European soccer--the least that a player can be loaned out for is one month.     Lastly--if this is allowed--what is to stop the two "trading" partners from pulling the same type of loan again?  For example--team owner A loans team owner B a player for a 3rd round pick week 5---and in week 8 team owner B lets team owner A borrow one of his players and gets his 3rd round pick back.  Then what?   That's the definition of roster sharing or collusion--where owners can conspire with one another to share rosters to effect the competitive balance of the league?   Even if you think this concept should be allowed--it's obvious that it has many flaws.  

As I said above, the OP claims he would have given something of value because he would have risked losing this week by not having Hyde. The logical extension of that is: "I'll let you use Hyde this week if you let me use your #1 WR next week, then you can use my #2 TE the week after that. Both teams give something of value so they're reasonable rentals. And, if it just so happens that we do this when we're playing the first place team we're both trying to catch, so what?" 

 

[ldizzle]

As I said above, the OP claims he would have given something of value because he would have risked losing this week by not having Hyde. The logical extension of that is: "I'll let you use Hyde this week if you let me use your #1 WR next week, then you can use my #2 TE the week after that. Both teams give something of value so they're reasonable rentals. And, if it just so happens that we do this when we're playing the first place team we're both trying to catch, so what?" 

It's dirty and ruins the integrity of the league. If it's not in the rules then that's on the commissioner and is technically fair play. I wouldn't join a league like that personally. 

Edit: If that happened to me and a team rented a player against me, out of spite I'd rent my best players vs that team for the rest of the year.

 

[jvdesigns2002]

As I said above, the OP claims he would have given something of value because he would have risked losing this week by not having Hyde. The logical extension of that is: "I'll let you use Hyde this week if you let me use your #1 WR next week, then you can use my #2 TE the week after that. Both teams give something of value so they're reasonable rentals. And, if it just so happens that we do this when we're playing the first place team we're both trying to catch, so what?" 

Exactly--and if we are talking about future picks--this same cycle could continue endlessly. I assure you that team owners that are victims of this corrupt strategy will then work together to do the same thing in retaliation--and before you know it--the entire league is one giant cluster.  

 

[msudaisy26]

Those are cases where they loan players out to completely different leagues and completely different events.  Far different than what is being discussed here. We are talking about loaning out players for one week within the same league.  Even in European soccer--the least that a player can be loaned out for is one month.     Lastly--if this is allowed--what is to stop the two "trading" partners from pulling the same type of loan again?  For example--team owner A loans team owner B a player for a 3rd round pick week 5---and in week 8 team owner B lets team owner A borrow one of his players and gets his 3rd round pick back.  Then what?   That's the definition of roster sharing or collusion--where owners can conspire with one another to share rosters to effect the competitive balance of the league?   Even if you think this concept should be allowed--it's obvious that it has many flaws.  

I feel like you just want to argue and haven't read any of my posts except for the part you want to argue with. 

Once again you are comparing fantasy sports to real sports. They are nothing a like except we use the same players. 

I have said numerous times in numerous posts that their would be rules, you really think something as simple as 2 teams loaning the same player back and forth for the same pick wouldn't be covered? Come on. 

Everything has flaws that is why we have PPR , standard, daily, yearly, dynasty, 2 qb, IDP. If we had one perfect way, it would just be the way. 

 

[whiskey7]

No

 

[jvdesigns2002]

I feel like you just want to argue and haven't read any of my posts except for the part you want to argue with. 

Once again you are comparing fantasy sports to real sports. They are nothing a like except we use the same players. 

I have said numerous times in numerous posts that their would be rules, you really think something as simple as 2 teams loaning the same player back and forth for the same pick wouldn't be covered? Come on. 

Everything has flaws that is why we have PPR , standard, daily, yearly, dynasty, 2 qb, IDP. If we had one perfect way, it would just be the way. 

How is it that it's me wanting to argue with you?  I posted my opinion and YOU replied to one of my posts--so let's get that clear.  You had an opposing opinion to my post and commented on it--and all I did was extend the discussion.  I have no problem with people having opposing opinions because that's what makes this place interesting. With that being said--I don't enjoy discussing things with people that can't do so in a polite and civil fashion--and for some reason you choose to use a condescending emoticon or a snarky comment in every one of your responses to an otherwise civil discussion.   Let's just choose to agree to disagree.   

 

[JohnnyU]

Collusion is a no-no in the leagues I commish.  It is strictly forbidden. 

 

[ATB]

League trade ethics aside, I'm wondering if this is a euphamis. 

Very much intentional. 

 

[Amused to Death]

Collusion is a no-no in the leagues I commish.  It is strictly forbidden. 

I'm amazed it took more than 3 posts for people to agree with this.  Yet here we are on page 4.

Choose your leagues carefully people.

 

[spodog]

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.

Have always had an explicit rule forbidding this in our league.    Renting is a form of collusion (aka cheating).   Not allowed in the nfl and shouldn't be allowed in a fantasy league.    Dynasty or redraft makes no difference. 

 

[ghostguy123]

Sounds stupid

 

[ghostguy123]

Seems like the rule may as well say there are no rules pertaining to roster moves.  

The rule itself makes collusion allowed.  Everyone can gang up against someone they dont like and ruin his year every single year.  Wouldnt be hard to throw around a bunch of 7th rounders to screw someone over.  

I suppose if you allow collusion then technically nothing would be collusion, but yeah, sounds like a horrible league to be a part of that would have zero staying power even if you found 12 people who wanted to do it.

 

[BobbyLayne]

It’s really surprising this is debatable to some. No matter if you play dynasty or redraft, we all have a set number of roster spots. If I cover a bye by renting your player and/or to do the same by renting one of mine, that’s an unfair competitive advantage. The consideration is not on point; it’s irrelevant if the rentee receives a draft pick or $20. 

Its a textbook example of collusion. It’s the same as a boomerang trade - allows one or both teams to extend their rosters / options without affecting their FABB resource or waiver priority.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Oh, and soccer leagues, the most common form of loan players (by far) is for an upper division team to let out younger players to a lower level league for development purposes. Rarely affects the competitive balance of the league because it’s not two teams working in concert within the same league.

 

[Arodin]

If anyone recalls the glory days of the XFL...

My longtime NFL fantasy football league decided to do a spinoff XFFL league.  In the spirit of the XFL relaxing arbitrary rules, we decided to do the same in our new league.  We'd allow cash transactions.  We'd let owners trade to facilitate defeats of teams with better records.  Anything would go as long as it was properly documented for the commish.

Going into it with eyes open, it turned out to be a lot of fun.  But you can probably guess how it ended up.  A couple weeks into the season, the top two teams started buying up starters from the weaker teams to widen their lead.  Other owners panicked and got into the feeding frenzy.  Most of the weakest teams managed to recoup their entire entry fee with payments from owners eyeing the large and growing prize pool.  Some even guaranteed a profit in return for the use of their stars.  By playoff time, the league had divided into two factions, each supplying to their leader whatever players would make the best lineup for their faction.  The two leaders had pledged enough cash to their allies that everyone in their group stood to profit regardless of the outcome.  The Super Bowl happened.  The winner, after paying out agreements to his co-conspirators, netted a profit of $0.25.  I think the loser managed to come out ahead too, with the value of the second place payout.  One owner had gotten a girlfriend around week 2 and stopped paying attention.  Essentially his entry fee ended up becoming the profits of every other owner in the league.

Since we knew going in that it was going to potentially get crazy, there were no ill feelings and the NFL side of the league carried on for another decade.  But none of us anticipated just how far and how fast competitive owners would go at exploiting rules to advantage.

The debate in this thread reminded me of this incident.  My view:  have whatever rules you want, but make sure everyone in the league knows what they are and agrees to them.  Because if you can imagine a way something can be exploited, it will happen eventually.  Guaranteed.

 

[Bossman]

After the trade, do you agree that you would still have rights to Hyde in this arrangement?

... since the other owner has "agreed" colluded to give him back, that owner can not trade him.  

How can you logically argue that this isn't player sharing?

.

Fixed

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I'm amazed it took more than 3 posts for people to agree with this.  Yet here we are on page 4.

Choose your leagues carefully people.

I just had this same thought, "what could possibly cause this to go 4 pages and still be on the front page?"

so cut & dry. 

 

[DropKick]

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?

Did I stutter?  Sleazy is sleazy.  Renting a bench player?  Really?  Do you need me to tell you that.s a crap move?

 

[Bossman]

What's this? He rented a player to a league mate?

"Give him a tour of the Chamber of Misery."

"The Chamber of Misery! Dilly, Dilly!!"

 

[Hankmoody]

Pit of misery.