FF ethics question (1 Viewer)

[Raidersfan18]

Need a ruling on a fantasy football ethics question. Just saw a trade of Julio Jones for Beanie Wells. Whatever, seems fair enough. However, guy trading Julio is hit hard by byes this week, so they swung the following deal. Julio owner traded ww scrub (del one Carter) for Beanie. Other guy doesn't need Jones to start this week. So, next week, original Julio owner will trade Julio for a scrub WR, so that the original Julio owner can play both of them in week 5.

Is this kosher? I don't have a big problem with it, but some of my leaguemates seemed a little peeved (namely, the guy the original Julio owner is playing). Thought id get the thoughts of the forum on this.

 

[The Doctor]

 

[Apple Jack]

Need a ruling on a fantasy football ethics question. Just saw a trade of Julio Jones for Beanie Wells. Whatever, seems fair enough. However, guy trading Julio is hit hard by byes this week, so they swung the following deal. Julio owner traded ww scrub (del one Carter) for Beanie. Other guy doesn't need Jones to start this week. So, next week, original Julio owner will trade Julio for acerb WR, so that the original Julio owner can play both of them in week 5.Is this kosher? I don't have a big problem with it, but some of my leaguemates seemed a little peeved (namely, the guy the original Julio owner is playing). Thought id get the thoughts of the forum on this.

I don't see a problem.

 

[GregR]

Need a ruling on a fantasy football ethics question. Just saw a trade of Julio Jones for Beanie Wells. Whatever, seems fair enough. However, guy trading Julio is hit hard by byes this week, so they swung the following deal. Julio owner traded ww scrub (del one Carter) for Beanie. Other guy doesn't need Jones to start this week. So, next week, original Julio owner will trade Julio for acerb WR, so that the original Julio owner can play both of them in week 5.Is this kosher? I don't have a big problem with it, but some of my leaguemates seemed a little peeved (namely, the guy the original Julio owner is playing). Thought id get the thoughts of the forum on this.

Most leagues won't allow this. It's essentially sharing players and roster space. Most of the time a transaction has to happen all at once and stand on its own merits. So he'd have to justify how Beanie for the scrub is a benefit to his team, without being able to call on a later trade in his reasoning.

 

[Apple Jack]

After further thought, it probably is a form of collusion.

 

[Saint]

Need a ruling on a fantasy football ethics question. Just saw a trade of Julio Jones for Beanie Wells. Whatever, seems fair enough. However, guy trading Julio is hit hard by byes this week, so they swung the following deal. Julio owner traded ww scrub (del one Carter) for Beanie. Other guy doesn't need Jones to start this week. So, next week, original Julio owner will trade Julio for acerb WR, so that the original Julio owner can play both of them in week 5.Is this kosher? I don't have a big problem with it, but some of my leaguemates seemed a little peeved (namely, the guy the original Julio owner is playing). Thought id get the thoughts of the forum on this.

Most leagues won't allow this. It's essentially sharing players and roster space. Most of the time a transaction has to happen all at once and stand on its own merits. So he'd have to justify how Beanie for the scrub is a benefit to his team, without being able to call on a later trade in his reasoning.

Spot on. This is not allowed in our league. We call it collusion.

 

[adrenaline]

I wouldn't like this either. This could be looked at in a way that it fits the definition of collusion.

 

[rainram]

After further thought, it probably is a form of collusion.

Correct.And if you don't wanna look at it as collusion, you can look at the two separate trades individually, which or course, are bunk.Delone Carter for Wells...don' think so...especially in this context.Pretty easy one says me

 

[davearm]

Obvious case of roster sharing. The one guy doesn't get to play both Jones and Beanie this week.

It's not collusion because there's nothing secretive happening. It's just not legal (or shouldn't be).

 

[VaCatFan]

Need a ruling on a fantasy football ethics question. Just saw a trade of Julio Jones for Beanie Wells. Whatever, seems fair enough. However, guy trading Julio is hit hard by byes this week, so they swung the following deal. Julio owner traded ww scrub (del one Carter) for Beanie. Other guy doesn't need Jones to start this week. So, next week, original Julio owner will trade Julio for acerb WR, so that the original Julio owner can play both of them in week 5.Is this kosher? I don't have a big problem with it, but some of my leaguemates seemed a little peeved (namely, the guy the original Julio owner is playing). Thought id get the thoughts of the forum on this.

Most leagues won't allow this. It's essentially sharing players and roster space. Most of the time a transaction has to happen all at once and stand on its own merits. So he'd have to justify how Beanie for the scrub is a benefit to his team, without being able to call on a later trade in his reasoning.

Spot on. This is not allowed in our league. We call it collusion.

What these guys said. Roster sharing and collusion. Most good leagues would never allow this and have rules specifically regarding it.

 

[shadyridr]

clearly collusion

 

[g5jamz]

Yep...can't rent players out.

 

[davearm]

clearly collusion

Not everything that's against the rules is automatically collusion. These guys don't seem to be hiding what they're doing.

 

[Raidersfan18]

But I don't see it as collusion, as the premise of the deal is an unqualified detriment to the original Beanie Wells owner. In collusion, both teams should benefit (e.g., trading extra RB for ano extra WR on another team to cover byes, and then trading them back immediately afterwards) So you could say that the cost of getting Julio is Beanie + one week of Julios performance this year. I have no question that they aren't trying to collude, as they are both rivals. I just think the Beanie owner really wanted Julio, and this is what he had to do to get it done.

Eg, the original beanie owner will be starting Devery Henderson at WR this week because he's not getting Julio till next week. So it's clearly hurting him, in what should be a close matchup.

 

[shadyridr]

clearly collusion

Not everything that's against the rules is automatically collusion. These guys don't seem to be hiding what they're doing.

So if it were week 10 and I was 0-10 and traded away Arian Foster to my brother who is 7-3 and in return he trades me Jackie Battle, as long as I announce to everyone in the league that I am making this trade to help my brother out and that I am out of it, its ok and not collusion?

 

[Squintz82]

Sharing players is collusion, period

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

I understand why people have a problem with it, but I'd like to give a different view (I'm not involved in this trade).

This is not two separate trades. It's one trade where the parameters have players going to teams at different times. Let's say the Beanie owner really wants Jones. The Jones owner won't give him up unless he agrees to keep Jones an extra week before trading. The Beanie owner figures one less week of Beanie is worth the rest of the season with Jones, and agrees. I admit it's unusual, but it's not collusion and I'm not sure why it would be illegal.

The Jones owner can justify it (obviously) and the Beanie owner can say it's worth having one week with neither guy to have the guy he really wants for weeks 6-14 (and beyond).

Now, this would have to be seen as one trade. If Jones gets injured and is out for the year after this week, that part of the trade still goes through (part of an already-accepted trade). That's the risk the Beanie owner is taking.

I don't see it as roster sharing as much as the Jones owner playing hardball and "winning" the condition he wants (a week with both guys). If both teams believe they're helping their team and the terms are out in the open, how is it collusion?

 

[davearm]

clearly collusion

Not everything that's against the rules is automatically collusion. These guys don't seem to be hiding what they're doing.

So if it were week 10 and I was 0-10 and traded away Arian Foster to my brother who is 7-3 and in return he trades me Jackie Battle, as long as I announce to everyone in the league that I am making this trade to help my brother out and that I am out of it, its ok and not collusion?

It's not ok.It's also not collusion.

 

[davearm]

I understand why people have a problem with it, but I'd like to give a different view (I'm not involved in this trade).This is not two separate trades. It's one trade where the parameters have players going to teams at different times. Let's say the Beanie owner really wants Jones. The Jones owner won't give him up unless he agrees to keep Jones an extra week before trading. The Beanie owner figures one less week of Beanie is worth the rest of the season with Jones, and agrees. I admit it's unusual, but it's not collusion and I'm not sure why it would be illegal.The Jones owner can justify it (obviously) and the Beanie owner can say it's worth having one week with neither guy to have the guy he really wants for weeks 6-14 (and beyond). Now, this would have to be seen as one trade. If Jones gets injured and is out for the year after this week, that part of the trade still goes through (part of an already-accepted trade). That's the risk the Beanie owner is taking.I don't see it as roster sharing as much as the Jones owner playing hardball and "winning" the condition he wants (a week with both guys). If both teams believe they're helping their team and the terms are out in the open, how is it collusion?

But it is roster sharing. A textbook case, in fact. An element of the trade is that the guy dealing away Wells must share Jones with the other owner for the upcoming week.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

I understand why people have a problem with it, but I'd like to give a different view (I'm not involved in this trade).This is not two separate trades. It's one trade where the parameters have players going to teams at different times. Let's say the Beanie owner really wants Jones. The Jones owner won't give him up unless he agrees to keep Jones an extra week before trading. The Beanie owner figures one less week of Beanie is worth the rest of the season with Jones, and agrees. I admit it's unusual, but it's not collusion and I'm not sure why it would be illegal.The Jones owner can justify it (obviously) and the Beanie owner can say it's worth having one week with neither guy to have the guy he really wants for weeks 6-14 (and beyond). Now, this would have to be seen as one trade. If Jones gets injured and is out for the year after this week, that part of the trade still goes through (part of an already-accepted trade). That's the risk the Beanie owner is taking.I don't see it as roster sharing as much as the Jones owner playing hardball and "winning" the condition he wants (a week with both guys). If both teams believe they're helping their team and the terms are out in the open, how is it collusion?

But it is roster sharing. A textbook case, in fact. An element of the trade is that the guy dealing away Wells must share Jones with the other owner for the upcoming week.

I understand how you feel, but just saying it's a "textbook case" doesn't make it one. Roster sharing is using both owner's players to help each other out. That's not happening here. In this case, one guy is playing hardball. He's saying "You want Jones? If you give me Beanie for 10 weeks you can have Jones for nine weeks." The other guy thinks it's worth it. You don't think he wants Jones for 10 weeks, too?Roster sharing is using both resources to help each other out. This sounds like one guy taking a hard-line stance and winning. He's not sharing anything. He has what someone else wants and he's using that as leverage.Again, how is this roster sharing, or collusion?

 

[BroadwayG]

Seems fine by me.

 

[pantagrapher]

I don't think it's sharing players as much as it's making a trade with future considerations involved. And that opens up opportunity for abuse. Making one deal with an agreement that the trade will be completed later in the season with another deal should not be allowed. But I don't think it's a slam dunk by any means.

 

[loompa17]

I understand why people have a problem with it, but I'd like to give a different view (I'm not involved in this trade).This is not two separate trades. It's one trade where the parameters have players going to teams at different times. Let's say the Beanie owner really wants Jones. The Jones owner won't give him up unless he agrees to keep Jones an extra week before trading. The Beanie owner figures one less week of Beanie is worth the rest of the season with Jones, and agrees. I admit it's unusual, but it's not collusion and I'm not sure why it would be illegal.The Jones owner can justify it (obviously) and the Beanie owner can say it's worth having one week with neither guy to have the guy he really wants for weeks 6-14 (and beyond). Now, this would have to be seen as one trade. If Jones gets injured and is out for the year after this week, that part of the trade still goes through (part of an already-accepted trade). That's the risk the Beanie owner is taking.I don't see it as roster sharing as much as the Jones owner playing hardball and "winning" the condition he wants (a week with both guys). If both teams believe they're helping their team and the terms are out in the open, how is it collusion?

But it is roster sharing. A textbook case, in fact. An element of the trade is that the guy dealing away Wells must share Jones with the other owner for the upcoming week.

I understand how you feel, but just saying it's a "textbook case" doesn't make it one. Roster sharing is using both owner's players to help each other out. That's not happening here. In this case, one guy is playing hardball. He's saying "You want Jones? If you give me Beanie for 10 weeks you can have Jones for nine weeks." The other guy thinks it's worth it. You don't think he wants Jones for 10 weeks, too?Roster sharing is using both resources to help each other out. This sounds like one guy taking a hard-line stance and winning. He's not sharing anything. He has what someone else wants and he's using that as leverage.Again, how is this roster sharing, or collusion?

You make a nice argument NBZ. I think if this were the league I commish, I'd let it go through.

 

[Flying Elvis]

I don't think it's sharing players as much as it's making a trade with future considerations involved. And that opens up opportunity for abuse. Making one deal with an agreement that the trade will be completed later in the season with another deal should not be allowed. But I don't think it's a slam dunk by any means.

I concur. It's not a clear cut case of anything, but it seems like a bad deal to allow. A smart commish should nix the trade and cite some version of "slippery slope" concerns.

 

[davearm]

I understand why people have a problem with it, but I'd like to give a different view (I'm not involved in this trade).This is not two separate trades. It's one trade where the parameters have players going to teams at different times. Let's say the Beanie owner really wants Jones. The Jones owner won't give him up unless he agrees to keep Jones an extra week before trading. The Beanie owner figures one less week of Beanie is worth the rest of the season with Jones, and agrees. I admit it's unusual, but it's not collusion and I'm not sure why it would be illegal.The Jones owner can justify it (obviously) and the Beanie owner can say it's worth having one week with neither guy to have the guy he really wants for weeks 6-14 (and beyond). Now, this would have to be seen as one trade. If Jones gets injured and is out for the year after this week, that part of the trade still goes through (part of an already-accepted trade). That's the risk the Beanie owner is taking.I don't see it as roster sharing as much as the Jones owner playing hardball and "winning" the condition he wants (a week with both guys). If both teams believe they're helping their team and the terms are out in the open, how is it collusion?

But it is roster sharing. A textbook case, in fact. An element of the trade is that the guy dealing away Wells must share Jones with the other owner for the upcoming week.

I understand how you feel, but just saying it's a "textbook case" doesn't make it one. Roster sharing is using both owner's players to help each other out. That's not happening here. In this case, one guy is playing hardball. He's saying "You want Jones? If you give me Beanie for 10 weeks you can have Jones for nine weeks." The other guy thinks it's worth it. You don't think he wants Jones for 10 weeks, too?Roster sharing is using both resources to help each other out. This sounds like one guy taking a hard-line stance and winning. He's not sharing anything. He has what someone else wants and he's using that as leverage.Again, how is this roster sharing, or collusion?

I already stated why this is roster sharing: the guy dealing away Wells must share Jones with the other owner for the upcoming week. He gives up his guy now (Wells), but doesn't get a player in return (Jones) until the following week -- ergo, he's lending out Jones for one week. (Or he's lending out Wells, if you prefer to look at it that way.)The guy with Jones can't use an illegal roster move as leverage, even if the other owner is fine with it.

 

[Amused to Death]

Wonder what happens if either player comes up gimpy this week.

If the Jones owner really needs him this week, the trade should wait a week imo. Don't trade him till you can afford to deal him.

There used to be a feature here, Fantasy Judge or Ask the Judge...don't see it on the site anymore.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

I understand why people have a problem with it, but I'd like to give a different view (I'm not involved in this trade).This is not two separate trades. It's one trade where the parameters have players going to teams at different times. Let's say the Beanie owner really wants Jones. The Jones owner won't give him up unless he agrees to keep Jones an extra week before trading. The Beanie owner figures one less week of Beanie is worth the rest of the season with Jones, and agrees. I admit it's unusual, but it's not collusion and I'm not sure why it would be illegal.The Jones owner can justify it (obviously) and the Beanie owner can say it's worth having one week with neither guy to have the guy he really wants for weeks 6-14 (and beyond). Now, this would have to be seen as one trade. If Jones gets injured and is out for the year after this week, that part of the trade still goes through (part of an already-accepted trade). That's the risk the Beanie owner is taking.I don't see it as roster sharing as much as the Jones owner playing hardball and "winning" the condition he wants (a week with both guys). If both teams believe they're helping their team and the terms are out in the open, how is it collusion?

But it is roster sharing. A textbook case, in fact. An element of the trade is that the guy dealing away Wells must share Jones with the other owner for the upcoming week.

I understand how you feel, but just saying it's a "textbook case" doesn't make it one. Roster sharing is using both owner's players to help each other out. That's not happening here. In this case, one guy is playing hardball. He's saying "You want Jones? If you give me Beanie for 10 weeks you can have Jones for nine weeks." The other guy thinks it's worth it. You don't think he wants Jones for 10 weeks, too?Roster sharing is using both resources to help each other out. This sounds like one guy taking a hard-line stance and winning. He's not sharing anything. He has what someone else wants and he's using that as leverage.Again, how is this roster sharing, or collusion?

I already stated why this is roster sharing: the guy dealing away Wells must share Jones with the other owner for the upcoming week. He gives up his guy now (Wells), but doesn't get a player in return (Jones) until the following week -- ergo, he's lending out Jones for one week. (Or he's lending out Wells, if you prefer to look at it that way.)The guy with Jones can't use an illegal roster move as leverage, even if the other owner is fine with it.

I guess this is where we disagree. Nobody is sharing anything. The Wells owner isn't sharing Jones because he doesn't have Jones. You can't share what you don't have. The trade involved him getting shorted a week...and he thinks it's still worth it.The Jones owner is saying "Not only do I get Wells, but I won't do the deal unless I keep Jones an extra week. Take it or leave it." You might leave it, but the Wells owner took it. He's trying to help his team and he agreed to the terms of the deal. He's not sharing Jones...he doesn't get Jones at all until the following week. I'm sure he'd much rather have Jones and use him this week, but he couldn't make that deal work.It's not roster sharing because nobody is "helping out" anyone. The deal involves the Jones owner getting a little extra juice to make it work. He had the upper hand in negotiations, I guess. It's not collusion because nobody is trying to undermine competition or let anyone win or not do their best for their own team. It might be an unusual trade, but I don't see any roster sharing or collusion. You seem to see it differently but I'm not seeing where you pinpoint either.

 

[Amused to Death]

I understand why people have a problem with it, but I'd like to give a different view (I'm not involved in this trade).This is not two separate trades. It's one trade where the parameters have players going to teams at different times. Let's say the Beanie owner really wants Jones. The Jones owner won't give him up unless he agrees to keep Jones an extra week before trading. The Beanie owner figures one less week of Beanie is worth the rest of the season with Jones, and agrees. I admit it's unusual, but it's not collusion and I'm not sure why it would be illegal.The Jones owner can justify it (obviously) and the Beanie owner can say it's worth having one week with neither guy to have the guy he really wants for weeks 6-14 (and beyond). Now, this would have to be seen as one trade. If Jones gets injured and is out for the year after this week, that part of the trade still goes through (part of an already-accepted trade). That's the risk the Beanie owner is taking.I don't see it as roster sharing as much as the Jones owner playing hardball and "winning" the condition he wants (a week with both guys). If both teams believe they're helping their team and the terms are out in the open, how is it collusion?

But it is roster sharing. A textbook case, in fact. An element of the trade is that the guy dealing away Wells must share Jones with the other owner for the upcoming week.

I understand how you feel, but just saying it's a "textbook case" doesn't make it one. Roster sharing is using both owner's players to help each other out. That's not happening here. In this case, one guy is playing hardball. He's saying "You want Jones? If you give me Beanie for 10 weeks you can have Jones for nine weeks." The other guy thinks it's worth it. You don't think he wants Jones for 10 weeks, too?Roster sharing is using both resources to help each other out. This sounds like one guy taking a hard-line stance and winning. He's not sharing anything. He has what someone else wants and he's using that as leverage.Again, how is this roster sharing, or collusion?

I already stated why this is roster sharing: the guy dealing away Wells must share Jones with the other owner for the upcoming week. He gives up his guy now (Wells), but doesn't get a player in return (Jones) until the following week -- ergo, he's lending out Jones for one week. (Or he's lending out Wells, if you prefer to look at it that way.)The guy with Jones can't use an illegal roster move as leverage, even if the other owner is fine with it.

I guess this is where we disagree. Nobody is sharing anything. The Wells owner isn't sharing Jones because he doesn't have Jones. You can't share what you don't have. The trade involved him getting shorted a week...and he thinks it's still worth it.The Jones owner is saying "Not only do I get Wells, but I won't do the deal unless I keep Jones an extra week. Take it or leave it." You might leave it, but the Wells owner took it. He's trying to help his team and he agreed to the terms of the deal. He's not sharing Jones...he doesn't get Jones at all until the following week. I'm sure he'd much rather have Jones and use him this week, but he couldn't make that deal work.It's not roster sharing because nobody is "helping out" anyone. The deal involves the Jones owner getting a little extra juice to make it work. He had the upper hand in negotiations, I guess. It's not collusion because nobody is trying to undermine competition or let anyone win or not do their best for their own team. It might be an unusual trade, but I don't see any roster sharing or collusion. You seem to see it differently but I'm not seeing where you pinpoint either.

If its not roster sharing and being handled as 2 separate trades, can another owner now step in with a better offer?

 

[Kenny Powers]

Beanie owner is losing on the deal and gets 1 less week of Julio at the same time

I wouldnt call it collusion, but it doesnt seem legal. As you said, if Im playing the Julio owner Im getting an unfair disadvantage and the guy playing Beanie owner gets an unnecessary advantage. I dont think you can allow it.

 

[shadyridr]

clearly collusion

Not everything that's against the rules is automatically collusion. These guys don't seem to be hiding what they're doing.

So if it were week 10 and I was 0-10 and traded away Arian Foster to my brother who is 7-3 and in return he trades me Jackie Battle, as long as I announce to everyone in the league that I am making this trade to help my brother out and that I am out of it, its ok and not collusion?

It's not ok.It's also not collusion.

so in leagues in which trades are only vetoed due to collusion this trade should be ok, right?

 

[davearm]

I understand why people have a problem with it, but I'd like to give a different view (I'm not involved in this trade).This is not two separate trades. It's one trade where the parameters have players going to teams at different times. Let's say the Beanie owner really wants Jones. The Jones owner won't give him up unless he agrees to keep Jones an extra week before trading. The Beanie owner figures one less week of Beanie is worth the rest of the season with Jones, and agrees. I admit it's unusual, but it's not collusion and I'm not sure why it would be illegal.The Jones owner can justify it (obviously) and the Beanie owner can say it's worth having one week with neither guy to have the guy he really wants for weeks 6-14 (and beyond). Now, this would have to be seen as one trade. If Jones gets injured and is out for the year after this week, that part of the trade still goes through (part of an already-accepted trade). That's the risk the Beanie owner is taking.I don't see it as roster sharing as much as the Jones owner playing hardball and "winning" the condition he wants (a week with both guys). If both teams believe they're helping their team and the terms are out in the open, how is it collusion?

But it is roster sharing. A textbook case, in fact. An element of the trade is that the guy dealing away Wells must share Jones with the other owner for the upcoming week.

I understand how you feel, but just saying it's a "textbook case" doesn't make it one. Roster sharing is using both owner's players to help each other out. That's not happening here. In this case, one guy is playing hardball. He's saying "You want Jones? If you give me Beanie for 10 weeks you can have Jones for nine weeks." The other guy thinks it's worth it. You don't think he wants Jones for 10 weeks, too?Roster sharing is using both resources to help each other out. This sounds like one guy taking a hard-line stance and winning. He's not sharing anything. He has what someone else wants and he's using that as leverage.Again, how is this roster sharing, or collusion?

I already stated why this is roster sharing: the guy dealing away Wells must share Jones with the other owner for the upcoming week. He gives up his guy now (Wells), but doesn't get a player in return (Jones) until the following week -- ergo, he's lending out Jones for one week. (Or he's lending out Wells, if you prefer to look at it that way.)The guy with Jones can't use an illegal roster move as leverage, even if the other owner is fine with it.

I guess this is where we disagree. Nobody is sharing anything. The Wells owner isn't sharing Jones because he doesn't have Jones. You can't share what you don't have. The trade involved him getting shorted a week...and he thinks it's still worth it.The Jones owner is saying "Not only do I get Wells, but I won't do the deal unless I keep Jones an extra week. Take it or leave it." You might leave it, but the Wells owner took it. He's trying to help his team and he agreed to the terms of the deal. He's not sharing Jones...he doesn't get Jones at all until the following week. I'm sure he'd much rather have Jones and use him this week, but he couldn't make that deal work.It's not roster sharing because nobody is "helping out" anyone. The deal involves the Jones owner getting a little extra juice to make it work. He had the upper hand in negotiations, I guess. It's not collusion because nobody is trying to undermine competition or let anyone win or not do their best for their own team. It might be an unusual trade, but I don't see any roster sharing or collusion. You seem to see it differently but I'm not seeing where you pinpoint either.

The one guy is giving something up, and getting nothing back in the first week. Ergo, he's either sharing what he's giving (Wells), or sharing what he's getting later (Jones). You can characterize it either way, but it's definitely one or the other.And there's also no debating the fact that the Jones owner has gained an extra roster spot for one week, which is clearly unfair to the rest of the league and undermines the competitive balance.Would you permit a trade where I give you, say, Jordy Nelson for the rest of the season, and you give me Calvin Johnson for this week only? I would sure hope not. This is that same situation, only not as extreme.

 

[firstseason1988]

total collusion.

/thread

 

[davearm]

clearly collusion

Not everything that's against the rules is automatically collusion. These guys don't seem to be hiding what they're doing.

So if it were week 10 and I was 0-10 and traded away Arian Foster to my brother who is 7-3 and in return he trades me Jackie Battle, as long as I announce to everyone in the league that I am making this trade to help my brother out and that I am out of it, its ok and not collusion?

It's not ok.It's also not collusion.

so in leagues in which trades are only vetoed due to collusion this trade should be ok, right?

I already said it's not ok.There are all sorts of reasons why a trade might be disallowed. My point is, you can't throw the term collusion over all of them.

 

[footballnerd]

collusion, working together to gain advantage over others is collusion aka lending players is cheating

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

I understand why people have a problem with it, but I'd like to give a different view (I'm not involved in this trade).This is not two separate trades. It's one trade where the parameters have players going to teams at different times. Let's say the Beanie owner really wants Jones. The Jones owner won't give him up unless he agrees to keep Jones an extra week before trading. The Beanie owner figures one less week of Beanie is worth the rest of the season with Jones, and agrees. I admit it's unusual, but it's not collusion and I'm not sure why it would be illegal.The Jones owner can justify it (obviously) and the Beanie owner can say it's worth having one week with neither guy to have the guy he really wants for weeks 6-14 (and beyond). Now, this would have to be seen as one trade. If Jones gets injured and is out for the year after this week, that part of the trade still goes through (part of an already-accepted trade). That's the risk the Beanie owner is taking.I don't see it as roster sharing as much as the Jones owner playing hardball and "winning" the condition he wants (a week with both guys). If both teams believe they're helping their team and the terms are out in the open, how is it collusion?

But it is roster sharing. A textbook case, in fact. An element of the trade is that the guy dealing away Wells must share Jones with the other owner for the upcoming week.

I understand how you feel, but just saying it's a "textbook case" doesn't make it one. Roster sharing is using both owner's players to help each other out. That's not happening here. In this case, one guy is playing hardball. He's saying "You want Jones? If you give me Beanie for 10 weeks you can have Jones for nine weeks." The other guy thinks it's worth it. You don't think he wants Jones for 10 weeks, too?Roster sharing is using both resources to help each other out. This sounds like one guy taking a hard-line stance and winning. He's not sharing anything. He has what someone else wants and he's using that as leverage.Again, how is this roster sharing, or collusion?

I already stated why this is roster sharing: the guy dealing away Wells must share Jones with the other owner for the upcoming week. He gives up his guy now (Wells), but doesn't get a player in return (Jones) until the following week -- ergo, he's lending out Jones for one week. (Or he's lending out Wells, if you prefer to look at it that way.)The guy with Jones can't use an illegal roster move as leverage, even if the other owner is fine with it.

I guess this is where we disagree. Nobody is sharing anything. The Wells owner isn't sharing Jones because he doesn't have Jones. You can't share what you don't have. The trade involved him getting shorted a week...and he thinks it's still worth it.The Jones owner is saying "Not only do I get Wells, but I won't do the deal unless I keep Jones an extra week. Take it or leave it." You might leave it, but the Wells owner took it. He's trying to help his team and he agreed to the terms of the deal. He's not sharing Jones...he doesn't get Jones at all until the following week. I'm sure he'd much rather have Jones and use him this week, but he couldn't make that deal work.It's not roster sharing because nobody is "helping out" anyone. The deal involves the Jones owner getting a little extra juice to make it work. He had the upper hand in negotiations, I guess. It's not collusion because nobody is trying to undermine competition or let anyone win or not do their best for their own team. It might be an unusual trade, but I don't see any roster sharing or collusion. You seem to see it differently but I'm not seeing where you pinpoint either.

The one guy is giving something up, and getting nothing back in the first week. Ergo, he's either sharing what he's giving (Wells), or sharing what he's getting later (Jones). You can characterize it either way, but it's definitely one or the other.And there's also no debating the fact that the Jones owner has gained an extra roster spot for one week, which is clearly unfair to the rest of the league and undermines the competitive balance.Would you permit a trade where I give you, say, Jordy Nelson for the rest of the season, and you give me Calvin Johnson for this week only? I would sure hope not. This is that same situation, only not as extreme.

Again, you cannot share what you don't have. He didn't get Jones and then loan him out. He doesn't get Jones at all until the following week. He can't share Wells because he has to give up Wells a week early. That's the deal the Jones owner wanted, and he got what he wanted this time. It's not "unfair" if both sides are helping their own team and getting what they believe is a fair deal. My understanding was there were other players in the deal to make the roster sizes work (but they're not important to the discussion). Finally, a one-week delay is not the same as your example. The "more extreme" part makes it different. I'm not sure how that trade could be justified if you asked the owners. This one makes sense for both sides. Good for the Jones owner to get a little extra. I guess the Wells owner was desperate. I don't see how that's roster sharing or collusion. I see why this is unusual and makes people uncomfortable, but to say "I'm going to treat this like it's illegal because it's weird to me" isn't a great precedent, either.

 

[Amused to Death]

clearly collusion

Not everything that's against the rules is automatically collusion. These guys don't seem to be hiding what they're doing.

So if it were week 10 and I was 0-10 and traded away Arian Foster to my brother who is 7-3 and in return he trades me Jackie Battle, as long as I announce to everyone in the league that I am making this trade to help my brother out and that I am out of it, its ok and not collusion?

It's not ok.It's also not collusion.

so in leagues in which trades are only vetoed due to collusion this trade should be ok, right?

I already said it's not ok.There are all sorts of reasons why a trade might be disallowed. My point is, you can't throw the term collusion over all of them.

They have acted together to give one team a competitive edge.

 

[davearm]

I understand why people have a problem with it, but I'd like to give a different view (I'm not involved in this trade).This is not two separate trades. It's one trade where the parameters have players going to teams at different times. Let's say the Beanie owner really wants Jones. The Jones owner won't give him up unless he agrees to keep Jones an extra week before trading. The Beanie owner figures one less week of Beanie is worth the rest of the season with Jones, and agrees. I admit it's unusual, but it's not collusion and I'm not sure why it would be illegal.The Jones owner can justify it (obviously) and the Beanie owner can say it's worth having one week with neither guy to have the guy he really wants for weeks 6-14 (and beyond). Now, this would have to be seen as one trade. If Jones gets injured and is out for the year after this week, that part of the trade still goes through (part of an already-accepted trade). That's the risk the Beanie owner is taking.I don't see it as roster sharing as much as the Jones owner playing hardball and "winning" the condition he wants (a week with both guys). If both teams believe they're helping their team and the terms are out in the open, how is it collusion?

But it is roster sharing. A textbook case, in fact. An element of the trade is that the guy dealing away Wells must share Jones with the other owner for the upcoming week.

I understand how you feel, but just saying it's a "textbook case" doesn't make it one. Roster sharing is using both owner's players to help each other out. That's not happening here. In this case, one guy is playing hardball. He's saying "You want Jones? If you give me Beanie for 10 weeks you can have Jones for nine weeks." The other guy thinks it's worth it. You don't think he wants Jones for 10 weeks, too?Roster sharing is using both resources to help each other out. This sounds like one guy taking a hard-line stance and winning. He's not sharing anything. He has what someone else wants and he's using that as leverage.Again, how is this roster sharing, or collusion?

I already stated why this is roster sharing: the guy dealing away Wells must share Jones with the other owner for the upcoming week. He gives up his guy now (Wells), but doesn't get a player in return (Jones) until the following week -- ergo, he's lending out Jones for one week. (Or he's lending out Wells, if you prefer to look at it that way.)The guy with Jones can't use an illegal roster move as leverage, even if the other owner is fine with it.

I guess this is where we disagree. Nobody is sharing anything. The Wells owner isn't sharing Jones because he doesn't have Jones. You can't share what you don't have. The trade involved him getting shorted a week...and he thinks it's still worth it.The Jones owner is saying "Not only do I get Wells, but I won't do the deal unless I keep Jones an extra week. Take it or leave it." You might leave it, but the Wells owner took it. He's trying to help his team and he agreed to the terms of the deal. He's not sharing Jones...he doesn't get Jones at all until the following week. I'm sure he'd much rather have Jones and use him this week, but he couldn't make that deal work.It's not roster sharing because nobody is "helping out" anyone. The deal involves the Jones owner getting a little extra juice to make it work. He had the upper hand in negotiations, I guess. It's not collusion because nobody is trying to undermine competition or let anyone win or not do their best for their own team. It might be an unusual trade, but I don't see any roster sharing or collusion. You seem to see it differently but I'm not seeing where you pinpoint either.

The one guy is giving something up, and getting nothing back in the first week. Ergo, he's either sharing what he's giving (Wells), or sharing what he's getting later (Jones). You can characterize it either way, but it's definitely one or the other.And there's also no debating the fact that the Jones owner has gained an extra roster spot for one week, which is clearly unfair to the rest of the league and undermines the competitive balance.Would you permit a trade where I give you, say, Jordy Nelson for the rest of the season, and you give me Calvin Johnson for this week only? I would sure hope not. This is that same situation, only not as extreme.

Again, you cannot share what you don't have. He didn't get Jones and then loan him out. He doesn't get Jones at all until the following week. He can't share Wells because he has to give up Wells a week early. That's the deal the Jones owner wanted, and he got what he wanted this time. It's not "unfair" if both sides are helping their own team and getting what they believe is a fair deal. My understanding was there were other players in the deal to make the roster sizes work (but they're not important to the discussion). Finally, a one-week delay is not the same as your example. The "more extreme" part makes it different. I'm not sure how that trade could be justified if you asked the owners. This one makes sense for both sides. Good for the Jones owner to get a little extra. I guess the Wells owner was desperate. I don't see how that's roster sharing or collusion. I see why this is unusual and makes people uncomfortable, but to say "I'm going to treat this like it's illegal because it's weird to me" isn't a great precedent, either.

He's sharing one player or the other. There's no getting around that fact, as much as you may try.It's not unusual or weird. It's a clear-cut case of roster sharing.

 

[davearm]

clearly collusion

Not everything that's against the rules is automatically collusion. These guys don't seem to be hiding what they're doing.

So if it were week 10 and I was 0-10 and traded away Arian Foster to my brother who is 7-3 and in return he trades me Jackie Battle, as long as I announce to everyone in the league that I am making this trade to help my brother out and that I am out of it, its ok and not collusion?

It's not ok.It's also not collusion.

so in leagues in which trades are only vetoed due to collusion this trade should be ok, right?

I already said it's not ok.There are all sorts of reasons why a trade might be disallowed. My point is, you can't throw the term collusion over all of them.

They have acted together to give one team a competitive edge.

Correct. And that should be illegal.Doesn't make it collusion though.With collusion, both teams gain an unfair advantage, and do so through a secret, fraudulent agreement.Here there's nothing secret, it's all out in the open. And the team getting Foster is not gaining an advantage.

 

[Ray_T]

Need a ruling on a fantasy football ethics question. Just saw a trade of Julio Jones for Beanie Wells. Whatever, seems fair enough. However, guy trading Julio is hit hard by byes this week, so they swung the following deal. Julio owner traded ww scrub (del one Carter) for Beanie. Other guy doesn't need Jones to start this week. So, next week, original Julio owner will trade Julio for a scrub WR, so that the original Julio owner can play both of them in week 5.Is this kosher? I don't have a big problem with it, but some of my leaguemates seemed a little peeved (namely, the guy the original Julio owner is playing). Thought id get the thoughts of the forum on this.

I dont think so.in my league there is a rule stating:If you had a player on your roster and traded that player away, you are not allowed to re-acquire that player for the rest of the year. Exceptions would include: Waiver wire transactions

 

[Pipes]

clearly collusion

Not everything that's against the rules is automatically collusion. These guys don't seem to be hiding what they're doing.

So if it were week 10 and I was 0-10 and traded away Arian Foster to my brother who is 7-3 and in return he trades me Jackie Battle, as long as I announce to everyone in the league that I am making this trade to help my brother out and that I am out of it, its ok and not collusion?

It's not ok.It's also not collusion.

so in leagues in which trades are only vetoed due to collusion this trade should be ok, right?

I already said it's not ok.There are all sorts of reasons why a trade might be disallowed. My point is, you can't throw the term collusion over all of them.

They have acted together to give one team a competitive edge.

Correct. And that should be illegal.Doesn't make it collusion though.With collusion, both teams gain an unfair advantage, and do so through a secret, fraudulent agreement.Here there's nothing secret, it's all out in the open. And the team getting Foster is not gaining an advantage.

The term collusion is used incorrectly all over these boards. Oftentimes you see people say you can't overturn trades unless it's collusion. Well if that were the case it would be impossible to overturn a trade like this because it's technically not collusion. This trade is bogus for the reasons mentioned by others.

 

[footballnerd]

Correct. And that should be illegal.Doesn't make it collusion though.With collusion, both teams gain an unfair advantage, and do so through a secret, fraudulent agreement.Here there's nothing secret, it's all out in the open. And the team getting Foster is not gaining an advantage.

it is collusion, the original Wells owner is lending Wells to the Jones owner for a week. forget the fluffers the true deal is not made until both players are exchanged.they both gain advantage because the Jones owner said the deal would not happen unless he could borrow Wells one extra week. So the Wells owner is gaining a trade that would not be made otherwise.otherwise wait a week, force that Jones owner to start his original RBs, and make that trade all at once

 

[Wrigley]

Sharing players is collusion, period

 

[kutta]

I understand why people have a problem with it, but I'd like to give a different view (I'm not involved in this trade).

This is not two separate trades. It's one trade where the parameters have players going to teams at different times. Let's say the Beanie owner really wants Jones. The Jones owner won't give him up unless he agrees to keep Jones an extra week before trading. The Beanie owner figures one less week of Beanie is worth the rest of the season with Jones, and agrees. I admit it's unusual, but it's not collusion and I'm not sure why it would be illegal.

The Jones owner can justify it (obviously) and the Beanie owner can say it's worth having one week with neither guy to have the guy he really wants for weeks 6-14 (and beyond).

Now, this would have to be seen as one trade. If Jones gets injured and is out for the year after this week, that part of the trade still goes through (part of an already-accepted trade). That's the risk the Beanie owner is taking.

I don't see it as roster sharing as much as the Jones owner playing hardball and "winning" the condition he wants (a week with both guys). If both teams believe they're helping their team and the terms are out in the open, how is it collusion?

But it is roster sharing. A textbook case, in fact. An element of the trade is that the guy dealing away Wells must share Jones with the other owner for the upcoming week.

I understand how you feel, but just saying it's a "textbook case" doesn't make it one. Roster sharing is using both owner's players to help each other out. That's not happening here. In this case, one guy is playing hardball. He's saying "You want Jones? If you give me Beanie for 10 weeks you can have Jones for nine weeks." The other guy thinks it's worth it. You don't think he wants Jones for 10 weeks, too?Roster sharing is using both resources to help each other out. This sounds like one guy taking a hard-line stance and winning. He's not sharing anything. He has what someone else wants and he's using that as leverage.

Again, how is this roster sharing, or collusion?

I already stated why this is roster sharing: the guy dealing away Wells must share Jones with the other owner for the upcoming week. He gives up his guy now (Wells), but doesn't get a player in return (Jones) until the following week -- ergo, he's lending out Jones for one week. (Or he's lending out Wells, if you prefer to look at it that way.)

The guy with Jones can't use an illegal roster move as leverage, even if the other owner is fine with it.

I guess this is where we disagree. Nobody is sharing anything. The Wells owner isn't sharing Jones because he doesn't have Jones. You can't share what you don't have. The trade involved him getting shorted a week...and he thinks it's still worth it.The Jones owner is saying "Not only do I get Wells, but I won't do the deal unless I keep Jones an extra week. Take it or leave it." You might leave it, but the Wells owner took it. He's trying to help his team and he agreed to the terms of the deal. He's not sharing Jones...he doesn't get Jones at all until the following week. I'm sure he'd much rather have Jones and use him this week, but he couldn't make that deal work.

It's not roster sharing because nobody is "helping out" anyone. The deal involves the Jones owner getting a little extra juice to make it work. He had the upper hand in negotiations, I guess. It's not collusion because nobody is trying to undermine competition or let anyone win or not do their best for their own team.

It might be an unusual trade, but I don't see any roster sharing or collusion. You seem to see it differently but I'm not seeing where you pinpoint either.

The one guy is giving something up, and getting nothing back in the first week. Ergo, he's either sharing what he's giving (Wells), or sharing what he's getting later (Jones). You can characterize it either way, but it's definitely one or the other.And there's also no debating the fact that the Jones owner has gained an extra roster spot for one week, which is clearly unfair to the rest of the league and undermines the competitive balance.

Would you permit a trade where I give you, say, Jordy Nelson for the rest of the season, and you give me Calvin Johnson for this week only? I would sure hope not.

This is that same situation, only not as extreme.

Again, you cannot share what you don't have. He didn't get Jones and then loan him out. He doesn't get Jones at all until the following week. He can't share Wells because he has to give up Wells a week early. That's the deal the Jones owner wanted, and he got what he wanted this time. It's not "unfair" if both sides are helping their own team and getting what they believe is a fair deal. My understanding was there were other players in the deal to make the roster sizes work (but they're not important to the discussion).

Finally, a one-week delay is not the same as your example. The "more extreme" part makes it different. I'm not sure how that trade could be justified if you asked the owners. This one makes sense for both sides. Good for the Jones owner to get a little extra. I guess the Wells owner was desperate. I don't see how that's roster sharing or collusion.

I see why this is unusual and makes people uncomfortable, but to say "I'm going to treat this like it's illegal because it's weird to me" isn't a great precedent, either.

The bolded statement doesn't jive. Giving Wells up a week early is sharing him. Plain and simple. He is giving Wells to another owner for one week with no compensation - that is sharing him for a week. What is the cutoff to make this acceptable? As pointed out earlier, what if the guy said he wanted Wells for four weeks and then he would give up Jones. Would that be OK?

 

[Amused to Death]

If you think this trade is acceptable, then I have 2 questions...

Can another owner step in with a better offer? and...

What if one player goes down for the season this week?

 

[Short Corner]

No future considerations allowed in trades.

 

[Kenny Powers]

they both gain advantage because the Jones owner said the deal would not happen unless he could borrow Wells one extra week. So the Wells owner is gaining a trade that would not be made otherwise.

This is actually the best argument for the trade to be okay (not that I agree with it). It hurts the rest of the league, well really only 1 team, but if the terms of the trade are why it was accepted in the first place, and getting Wells for the agree week is part of the agreement.

 

[Raidersfan18]

If you think this trade is acceptable, then I have 2 questions...Can another owner step in with a better offer? and...What if one player goes down for the season this week?

NoThe trade still goes through. Both players said this in their message to the league.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Again, you cannot share what you don't have. He didn't get Jones and then loan him out. He doesn't get Jones at all until the following week. He can't share Wells because he has to give up Wells a week early. That's the deal the Jones owner wanted, and he got what he wanted this time. It's not "unfair" if both sides are helping their own team and getting what they believe is a fair deal.

My understanding was there were other players in the deal to make the roster sizes work (but they're not important to the discussion).

Finally, a one-week delay is not the same as your example. The "more extreme" part makes it different. I'm not sure how that trade could be justified if you asked the owners. This one makes sense for both sides. Good for the Jones owner to get a little extra. I guess the Wells owner was desperate. I don't see how that's roster sharing or collusion.

I see why this is unusual and makes people uncomfortable, but to say "I'm going to treat this like it's illegal because it's weird to me" isn't a great precedent, either.

The bolded statement doesn't jive. Giving Wells up a week early is sharing him. Plain and simple. He is giving Wells to another owner for one week with no compensation - that is sharing him for a week. What is the cutoff to make this acceptable? As pointed out earlier, what if the guy said he wanted Wells for four weeks and then he would give up Jones. Would that be OK?

You can't share someone you don't have. He's not giving the guy a break because he wants to help out a buddy. He's adhering to a trade. It's not sharing. The guy isn't his to share. And he is getting compensation-- he's getting Jones for nine weeks. He's paying with Wells for 10 weeks. As far as a cutoff, it would be silly to try and apply a hard and fast rule to it. Are trades legal? Depends on the trade, right? Is it smart to draft Boldin? Depends on the round, doesn't it? So I can't tell you what number of weeks would be legal or fair or whatever. I know that "Wells X 10 weeks for Jones X nine weeks" is not collusion or roster sharing. It's an unusual term of a trade, but it's a trade where everyone is trying to improve and paying what they believe is fair.

There's a tendency to react with "Something is wrong because...it isn't right." If I see collusion or sharing I'd be against it, too. I don't see either here. I understand many disagree.

 

[Herm23]

I understand why people have a problem with it, but I'd like to give a different view (I'm not involved in this trade).

This is not two separate trades. It's one trade where the parameters have players going to teams at different times. Let's say the Beanie owner really wants Jones. The Jones owner won't give him up unless he agrees to keep Jones an extra week before trading. The Beanie owner figures one less week of Beanie is worth the rest of the season with Jones, and agrees. I admit it's unusual, but it's not collusion and I'm not sure why it would be illegal.

The Jones owner can justify it (obviously) and the Beanie owner can say it's worth having one week with neither guy to have the guy he really wants for weeks 6-14 (and beyond).

Now, this would have to be seen as one trade. If Jones gets injured and is out for the year after this week, that part of the trade still goes through (part of an already-accepted trade). That's the risk the Beanie owner is taking.

I don't see it as roster sharing as much as the Jones owner playing hardball and "winning" the condition he wants (a week with both guys). If both teams believe they're helping their team and the terms are out in the open, how is it collusion?

But it is roster sharing. A textbook case, in fact. An element of the trade is that the guy dealing away Wells must share Jones with the other owner for the upcoming week.

I understand how you feel, but just saying it's a "textbook case" doesn't make it one. Roster sharing is using both owner's players to help each other out. That's not happening here. In this case, one guy is playing hardball. He's saying "You want Jones? If you give me Beanie for 10 weeks you can have Jones for nine weeks." The other guy thinks it's worth it. You don't think he wants Jones for 10 weeks, too?Roster sharing is using both resources to help each other out. This sounds like one guy taking a hard-line stance and winning. He's not sharing anything. He has what someone else wants and he's using that as leverage.

Again, how is this roster sharing, or collusion?

I already stated why this is roster sharing: the guy dealing away Wells must share Jones with the other owner for the upcoming week. He gives up his guy now (Wells), but doesn't get a player in return (Jones) until the following week -- ergo, he's lending out Jones for one week. (Or he's lending out Wells, if you prefer to look at it that way.)

The guy with Jones can't use an illegal roster move as leverage, even if the other owner is fine with it.

I guess this is where we disagree. Nobody is sharing anything. The Wells owner isn't sharing Jones because he doesn't have Jones. You can't share what you don't have. The trade involved him getting shorted a week...and he thinks it's still worth it.The Jones owner is saying "Not only do I get Wells, but I won't do the deal unless I keep Jones an extra week. Take it or leave it." You might leave it, but the Wells owner took it. He's trying to help his team and he agreed to the terms of the deal. He's not sharing Jones...he doesn't get Jones at all until the following week. I'm sure he'd much rather have Jones and use him this week, but he couldn't make that deal work.

It's not roster sharing because nobody is "helping out" anyone. The deal involves the Jones owner getting a little extra juice to make it work. He had the upper hand in negotiations, I guess. It's not collusion because nobody is trying to undermine competition or let anyone win or not do their best for their own team.

It might be an unusual trade, but I don't see any roster sharing or collusion. You seem to see it differently but I'm not seeing where you pinpoint either.

The one guy is giving something up, and getting nothing back in the first week. Ergo, he's either sharing what he's giving (Wells), or sharing what he's getting later (Jones). You can characterize it either way, but it's definitely one or the other.And there's also no debating the fact that the Jones owner has gained an extra roster spot for one week, which is clearly unfair to the rest of the league and undermines the competitive balance.

Would you permit a trade where I give you, say, Jordy Nelson for the rest of the season, and you give me Calvin Johnson for this week only? I would sure hope not.

This is that same situation, only not as extreme.

Again, you cannot share what you don't have. He didn't get Jones and then loan him out. He doesn't get Jones at all until the following week. He can't share Wells because he has to give up Wells a week early. That's the deal the Jones owner wanted, and he got what he wanted this time. It's not "unfair" if both sides are helping their own team and getting what they believe is a fair deal. My understanding was there were other players in the deal to make the roster sizes work (but they're not important to the discussion).

Finally, a one-week delay is not the same as your example. The "more extreme" part makes it different. I'm not sure how that trade could be justified if you asked the owners. This one makes sense for both sides. Good for the Jones owner to get a little extra. I guess the Wells owner was desperate. I don't see how that's roster sharing or collusion.

I see why this is unusual and makes people uncomfortable, but to say "I'm going to treat this like it's illegal because it's weird to me" isn't a great precedent, either.

The bolded statement doesn't jive. Giving Wells up a week early is sharing him. Plain and simple. He is giving Wells to another owner for one week with no compensation - that is sharing him for a week. What is the cutoff to make this acceptable? As pointed out earlier, what if the guy said he wanted Wells for four weeks and then he would give up Jones. Would that be OK?

The bolded is the most important part of this argument and indicates why this deal is not fair. What if the Jones owner had stated "I will do the deal, but only if I get to hang onto Jones until the playoffs start" as part of the deal? Would this still be fair? It is conceivable that the Beanie owner could still do this trade if he wanted Jones for the playoff run and didn't care what it cost, right?If someone is going to say that the original trade is acceptable, then based on using the same logic, you would have to say that the above scenario is also acceptable. Since nobody in their right mind would say that my above scenario was fair, I can't see how you can continue to say the original trade was fair. The length of time that the unfair advantage is gained for is irrelevant and does not matter. All that matters is that at unfair advantage is gained in the first place, regardless of how short, and that makes it an illegal trade in my mind.

 

[Road Warriors]

No future considerations allowed in trades.

This. They can argue it's one deal, but every league mgmt site I recall would execute this in two txns. I'd tell them no deal unless the prinipals move in the same txn