Does Your League Allow 2-Step Trades? (1 Viewer)

[Islander]

Let's say team 1 and 2 agree today to trade players A and B in exchange for C and D. Team 1 does not want to give up B right away however, because D is on bye so team 1 needs B to start one more time before trading him. Team 2 does not object to that, but team 2 would like to get A right away because C is on bye. Team 1 has no objection about trading A right away.

Team 1 and 2 cannot trade A for C now and then next week trade B for D because both of these trades would be seen as lopsided if taken in isolation (unless they announce the B/D portion of the trade right away, but that would be the same as the situation described above).

So does your league allow a trade A/B in return for C/D but players B and D switch teams only effective after this week's games regardless of potential injuries this week?

Different folks in my league have diverging opinions.

 

[TheFanatic]

We allow this in the form of future considerations. Usually they involve a draft pick (this is a dynasty league) that one owner has promised to give in a trade but does not own yet and has to go acquire to complete the trade. It could be that a certain player will be traded back to the original owner after the season. Sort of like letting a guy go in the last season of a contract and have him come back to the team after the season (Keith Tkachuk back to the blues this offseason).

While I don't recall this happening specifically, but it's possible in my league that two teams could make a trade and have future considerations at the end and then the following week one team sends a player or D to the other team as completion of those future considerations....If the Owners agree to it I have no problem with it...

 

[Wilbur Wood]

I've made "forward" deals with another owner. Seems fine as long as its not prohibited in the rules.

I agree today to trade Foster for Greise with another owner. However, we agree that the deal will not be executed until after Week 7 games. The deal is binding with an "injury" off ramp. It is basically an agreement of honor between the two of us as the software doesn't recognize the move. No collusion it is just in the best interest of one of teams to not shoulder the "bye". It sort of balances the deal a bit.

 

[Walter Slovotsky]

Let's say team 1 and 2 agree today to trade players A and B in exchange for C and D. Team 1 does not want to give up B right away however, because D is on bye so team 1 needs B to start one more time before trading him. Team 2 does not object to that, but team 2 would like to get A right away because C is on bye. Team 1 has no objection about trading A right away.Team 1 and 2 cannot trade A for C now and then next week trade B for D because both of these trades would be seen as lopsided if taken in isolation (unless they announce the B/D portion of the trade right away, but that would be the same as the situation described above).So does your league allow a trade A/B in return for C/D but players B and D switch teams only effective after this week's games regardless of potential injuries this week?Different folks in my league have diverging opinions.

This is called roster sharing. Essentially two teams are combining their rosters to field two teams. It is a form of collusion and I would not participate in a league that allows this kind of trade.

 

[Paddy O'Seanessy]

Let's say team 1 and 2 agree today to trade players A and B in exchange for C and D. Team 1 does not want to give up B right away however, because D is on bye so team 1 needs B to start one more time before trading him. Team 2 does not object to that, but team 2 would like to get A right away because C is on bye. Team 1 has no objection about trading A right away.Team 1 and 2 cannot trade A for C now and then next week trade B for D because both of these trades would be seen as lopsided if taken in isolation (unless they announce the B/D portion of the trade right away, but that would be the same as the situation described above).So does your league allow a trade A/B in return for C/D but players B and D switch teams only effective after this week's games regardless of potential injuries this week?Different folks in my league have diverging opinions.

This is called roster sharing. Essentially two teams are combining their rosters to field two teams. It is a form of collusion and I would not participate in a league that allows this kind of trade.

No it's not collusion; it's two trades.In our league all transactions are done before the games start so this would have to be done over two weeks. We have no futures contracts. But there is no reason why you couldn't.

 

[Walter Slovotsky]

Let's say team 1 and 2 agree today to trade players A and B in exchange for C and D. Team 1 does not want to give up B right away however, because D is on bye so team 1 needs B to start one more time before trading him. Team 2 does not object to that, but team 2 would like to get A right away because C is on bye. Team 1 has no objection about trading A right away.Team 1 and 2 cannot trade A for C now and then next week trade B for D because both of these trades would be seen as lopsided if taken in isolation (unless they announce the B/D portion of the trade right away, but that would be the same as the situation described above).So does your league allow a trade A/B in return for C/D but players B and D switch teams only effective after this week's games regardless of potential injuries this week?Different folks in my league have diverging opinions.

This is called roster sharing. Essentially two teams are combining their rosters to field two teams. It is a form of collusion and I would not participate in a league that allows this kind of trade.

No it's not collusion; it's two trades.In our league all transactions are done before the games start so this would have to be done over two weeks. We have no futures contracts. But there is no reason why you couldn't.

It is clearly not two trades. It could be considered two trades it the owners would be willing to do one of the trades and not the other, but from the description given above I doubt that they would be willing to just trade A for C or just B for D, so it is one trade. The fact that they want to split it over two weeks does not make it two trades.These two teams are essentially sharing the four players for two weeks to gain a competitive advantage on the league. You wouldn't allow team 2 to start player A if he was on team 1's roster, would you? By allowing this trade to go down in this fashion, that is basically what you are allowing to happen.

 

[Koya]

We do not. Simply led to too much collusion and/or questionable trades.

Sure, there COULD be legit reasons for this, but too often it was "hey, Ill help your bye, you help mine, its just bench players - and Ill buy first round next week" stuff

 

[Islander]

Let me clarify one thing. Our league does not allow to re-acquire a player you have traded away during the season. So it is illegal to lend a player just for one week with the set up above with players A-D. So my original question did not mean to mix up the 2-step trade issue with the roster sharing issue.

So the best way to describe it is as The Fanatic said. It's like trading A for C and "future considerations". The next week, "future considerations" are announced and it's B for D. Team 1 is not allowed to get back A or B for the rest of the year exactly to avoid roster sharing. I would also be against that sort of thing.

 

[thayman]

Let's say team 1 and 2 agree today to trade players A and B in exchange for C and D. Team 1 does not want to give up B right away however, because D is on bye so team 1 needs B to start one more time before trading him. Team 2 does not object to that, but team 2 would like to get A right away because C is on bye. Team 1 has no objection about trading A right away.Team 1 and 2 cannot trade A for C now and then next week trade B for D because both of these trades would be seen as lopsided if taken in isolation (unless they announce the B/D portion of the trade right away, but that would be the same as the situation described above).So does your league allow a trade A/B in return for C/D but players B and D switch teams only effective after this week's games regardless of potential injuries this week?Different folks in my league have diverging opinions.

This is called roster sharing. Essentially two teams are combining their rosters to field two teams. It is a form of collusion and I would not participate in a league that allows this kind of trade.

No it's not collusion; it's two trades.In our league all transactions are done before the games start so this would have to be done over two weeks. We have no futures contracts. But there is no reason why you couldn't.

It is clearly not two trades. It could be considered two trades it the owners would be willing to do one of the trades and not the other, but from the description given above I doubt that they would be willing to just trade A for C or just B for D, so it is one trade. The fact that they want to split it over two weeks does not make it two trades.These two teams are essentially sharing the four players for two weeks to gain a competitive advantage on the league. You wouldn't allow team 2 to start player A if he was on team 1's roster, would you? By allowing this trade to go down in this fashion, that is basically what you are allowing to happen.

Even if it's not collusion in this case, you set a precedent where it's very easy to collude. Not really in the best interests of the league.

 

[Anthony Borbely]

Let's say team 1 and 2 agree today to trade players A and B in exchange for C and D. Team 1 does not want to give up B right away however, because D is on bye so team 1 needs B to start one more time before trading him. Team 2 does not object to that, but team 2 would like to get A right away because C is on bye. Team 1 has no objection about trading A right away.Team 1 and 2 cannot trade A for C now and then next week trade B for D because both of these trades would be seen as lopsided if taken in isolation (unless they announce the B/D portion of the trade right away, but that would be the same as the situation described above).So does your league allow a trade A/B in return for C/D but players B and D switch teams only effective after this week's games regardless of potential injuries this week?Different folks in my league have diverging opinions.

This is called roster sharing. Essentially two teams are combining their rosters to field two teams. It is a form of collusion and I would not participate in a league that allows this kind of trade.

No it's not collusion; it's two trades.In our league all transactions are done before the games start so this would have to be done over two weeks. We have no futures contracts. But there is no reason why you couldn't.

It is clearly not two trades. It could be considered two trades it the owners would be willing to do one of the trades and not the other, but from the description given above I doubt that they would be willing to just trade A for C or just B for D, so it is one trade. The fact that they want to split it over two weeks does not make it two trades.These two teams are essentially sharing the four players for two weeks to gain a competitive advantage on the league. You wouldn't allow team 2 to start player A if he was on team 1's roster, would you? By allowing this trade to go down in this fashion, that is basically what you are allowing to happen.

Even if it's not collusion in this case, you set a precedent where it's very easy to collude. Not really in the best interests of the league.

 

[kal-el]

We allow it--with the caveat that it's up to the owners involved to make all parts of the trade happen. The commissioner is not responsible to enforce the second half of the trade.

 

[Shrek]

Let's say team 1 and 2 agree today to trade players A and B in exchange for C and D. Team 1 does not want to give up B right away however, because D is on bye so team 1 needs B to start one more time before trading him. Team 2 does not object to that, but team 2 would like to get A right away because C is on bye. Team 1 has no objection about trading A right away.Team 1 and 2 cannot trade A for C now and then next week trade B for D because both of these trades would be seen as lopsided if taken in isolation (unless they announce the B/D portion of the trade right away, but that would be the same as the situation described above).So does your league allow a trade A/B in return for C/D but players B and D switch teams only effective after this week's games regardless of potential injuries this week?Different folks in my league have diverging opinions.

This is called roster sharing. Essentially two teams are combining their rosters to field two teams. It is a form of collusion and I would not participate in a league that allows this kind of trade.

Yep. You don't see NFL teams sharing players back and forth during the course of a regular season. They trade, and that's it. Roster sharing is some bull####.