I reversed a trade, what do you say? (1 Viewer)

[BigTex]

Week 4: Owner A calls me and ask if he could trade a player(s) one week and later have that player(s) traded back. I said no it violated league rules and is unethical. Rent-a-Players is not allowed in our league.

Week 4: Owner A has both defenses on bye week and trades one of them to cover for that bye week.

Fastfoward

Week 10: Owner A and Owner B trade back those same two defenses.

It seem to me that this was a Rent-a-Player trade, so I reversed the trade after one of the Vice-commishes brought it to my attention.

Was I wrong in doing this?

What saith the Shark Pool?

 

[Wu-banger]

seems to be collusion.... especially if you already stated it would be a negative for the league.

 

[BigTex]

seems to be collusion.... especially if you already stated it would be a negative for the league.

Thanks Wu, Owner B has been in the league for 7yrs now, Owner A has been with the league 2yrs and I told him that it is not allowed.

 

[Bankerguy]

2 simple questions:

Is that a rule in your constitution?

Can you prove collusion?

If the answer is no to both...you have to let the trade stand.

Perhaps adopting an official rule will help you for next year.

 

[Gaddis]

Five weeks is a long rental, but if no duration is explicit in the league rules, then you were within your rights to call them on it.

 

[gianmarco]

2 simple questions:Is that a rule in your constitution?Can you prove collusion?If the answer is no to both...you have to let the trade stand.Perhaps adopting an official rule will help you for next year.

You can't always have a rule for everything clearly spelled out (although this is one that should be there). Nevertheless, it was already explained this wasn't allowed and all they did was try to wait a little longer and slip it by. Reverse the trade, fix the rules in the offseason. Now, if it's just one of those players involved in a larger trade, I don't think it's an issue. But if it's the exact same players, then yes, it needs to be reversed.

 

[smcindoe]

That seems like a pretty long time to wait out a rental of two defenses. Do you believe these guys were thinking six weeks ahead when they made the original deal? Does the deal make sens for both teams today, or is one team obviously getting hosed but seems like they have to go along with it?

For whatever it's worth, the league I commish has a rule that any player traded away can not be reacquired for four weeks.

 

[BigTex]

2 simple questions:Is that a rule in your constitution?Can you prove collusion?If the answer is no to both...you have to let the trade stand.Perhaps adopting an official rule will help you for next year.

Hello Mr. BG, Yes it's in our constitution. Every time there's a change to the constitution I'll give them out during our draft.To answer the second, it sure looks like collusion. If a trade is made because you need a bye week fill in (clearly he didn't won't to drop his defenses eventhough there's 11 on the waiver wire) and a trade is made again reversing the original trade then it sure smells like collusion. I went back to look at how many times he played that defense and he only played them to cover that one week. He never used them again and now they are trading back those same two teams.Looks like collusion...................................no?

 

[BigTex]

Five weeks is a long rental, but if no duration is explicit in the league rules, then you were within your rights to call them on it.

There's no duration.

 

[Bankerguy]

2 simple questions:Is that a rule in your constitution?Can you prove collusion?If the answer is no to both...you have to let the trade stand.Perhaps adopting an official rule will help you for next year.

Hello Mr. BG, Yes it's in our constitution. Every time there's a change to the constitution I'll give them out during our draft.To answer the second, it sure looks like collusion. If a trade is made because you need a bye week fill in (clearly he didn't won't to drop his defenses eventhough there's 11 on the waiver wire) and a trade is made again reversing the original trade then it sure smells like collusion. I went back to look at how many times he played that defense and he only played them to cover that one week. He never used them again and now they are trading back those same two teams.Looks like collusion...................................no?

Hey Tex,Long time no see GB.Big week this week against the Skins coming.Based on your rule.....you are golden.Problem solved, this is the beauty of taking time to have a well worded set of rules.Otherwise I would have said the trade should stand.

 

[BigTex]

That seems like a pretty long time to wait out a rental of two defenses. Do you believe these guys were thinking six weeks ahead when they made the original deal? Does the deal make sens for both teams today, or is one team obviously getting hosed but seems like they have to go along with it?For whatever it's worth, the league I commish has a rule that any player traded away can not be reacquired for four weeks.

Honestly, I'm not sure what they were thinking. As we speak the Jags are ranked 20th with 19.6 per game and NE are ranked 18th with 20.3 per game.I just want to make sure I'm doing the right thing. Violation of this rule can be harsh because its an ethical rule.

 

[Warhogs]

Based on what we have for information right now I am not in favor of the trade reversal. I am assuming your league does not have any specific rule addressing this? I think that because so many weeks have passed I would not consider this a borrowing of players.

 

[BigTex]

2 simple questions:Is that a rule in your constitution?Can you prove collusion?If the answer is no to both...you have to let the trade stand.Perhaps adopting an official rule will help you for next year.

Hello Mr. BG, Yes it's in our constitution. Every time there's a change to the constitution I'll give them out during our draft.To answer the second, it sure looks like collusion. If a trade is made because you need a bye week fill in (clearly he didn't won't to drop his defenses eventhough there's 11 on the waiver wire) and a trade is made again reversing the original trade then it sure smells like collusion. I went back to look at how many times he played that defense and he only played them to cover that one week. He never used them again and now they are trading back those same two teams.Looks like collusion...................................no?

Hey Tex,Long time no see GB.Big week this week against the Skins coming.Based on your rule.....you are golden.Problem solved, this is the beauty of taking time to have a well worded set of rules.Otherwise I would have said the trade should stand.

Hello Friend, hope you're doing well. Yes, the hated skinz can't wait. After reading and re-reading the rules in appears they are in violation. It's good to post here to get an unbiased opinion.Thanks BG and Go Cowboys

 

[BigTex]

Based on what we have for information right now I am not in favor of the trade reversal. I am assuming your league does not have any specific rule addressing this? I think that because so many weeks have passed I would not consider this a borrowing of players.

Thanks War for the reply. The duration seems at first a sticky point, but after going over the league bylaws again its pretty clear at this point they are in violation. Keeping the integrity in place is important. Judging this trade is one thing now the penalty phase is a totally different monster.

 

[Pictus Cat]

That will put a taint on 'em!

 

[Chaka]

Looks like collusion...................................no?

No.

 

[ChromeWeasel]

Week 4: Owner A calls me and ask if he could trade a player(s) one week and later have that player(s) traded back. I said no it violated league rules and is unethical. Rent-a-Players is not allowed in our league.Week 4: Owner A has both defenses on bye week and trades one of them to cover for that bye week.FastfowardWeek 10: Owner A and Owner B trade back those same two defenses.It seem to me that this was a Rent-a-Player trade, so I reversed the trade after one of the Vice-commishes brought it to my attention.Was I wrong in doing this?What saith the Shark Pool?

I would call that collusion. We have no-collusion specified in our league rules, and a reminder about renting players: "Any time a player is traded from one team to another and back again is a red flag for collusion."You don't NEED that line to know that collusion is happening. It just helps to arbitrate later, if necessary.

 

[BigTex]

Looks like collusion...................................no?

No.

Hello Chaka, please explain.

 

[BigTex]

Week 4: Owner A calls me and ask if he could trade a player(s) one week and later have that player(s) traded back. I said no it violated league rules and is unethical. Rent-a-Players is not allowed in our league.Week 4: Owner A has both defenses on bye week and trades one of them to cover for that bye week.FastfowardWeek 10: Owner A and Owner B trade back those same two defenses.It seem to me that this was a Rent-a-Player trade, so I reversed the trade after one of the Vice-commishes brought it to my attention.Was I wrong in doing this?What saith the Shark Pool?

I would call that collusion. We have no-collusion specified in our league rules, and a reminder about renting players: "Any time a player is traded from one team to another and back again is a red flag for collusion."You don't NEED that line to know that collusion is happening. It just helps to arbitrate later, if necessary.

Thanks

 

[PoolShark]

2 simple questions:Is that a rule in your constitution?Can you prove collusion?If the answer is no to both...you have to let the trade stand.Perhaps adopting an official rule will help you for next year.

Hello Mr. BG, Yes it's in our constitution. Every time there's a change to the constitution I'll give them out during our draft.To answer the second, it sure looks like collusion. If a trade is made because you need a bye week fill in (clearly he didn't won't to drop his defenses eventhough there's 11 on the waiver wire) and a trade is made again reversing the original trade then it sure smells like collusion. I went back to look at how many times he played that defense and he only played them to cover that one week. He never used them again and now they are trading back those same two teams.Looks like collusion...................................no?

I'm not sure what there is to question here. Unless I'm missing something...1-The league rules say you can't trade back players. Since no time frame is given, it can't be done at all.2-The rules were reitterated to the owner before the initial trade was even made. 3-The owner traded back a player, which is against league rules.4-An illegal trade was made & it should be reversed. The whole "is this collusion" bit is irrelevant. A written rule was broken. Case closed.

 

[Black]

I think it is. Although, with 6 weeks between trades, it's hard to really prove intention.

I have seen league rules that say you cannot trade back a player to the original team for 4 weeks or 6 weeks.

Probably best to put something in writing.

 

[da_budman]

this is pretty clear they have coluded, albeit a long term colusion. It would have been sticky situation had the guy needing the 1 week rental actually PLAYED that defense in subsequent weeks. If he had been a position player instead of D he surely would have gotten another start or 2 in that time frame and the level of proof for colusion would have diminished in my view. Hopefully there wont be too big of a stink raised over the reversal. Defenses can be pretty erratic scoring wise so NOT trading back may end up helping both teams in the end.

this post has made me think there probably SHOULD be a time frame involved in trade backs situations though.... T he harshest one being no tradeback at all....and a minimum of 4 weeks before a player can get back on your lineup. Funny thing is, had the owners not informed you of their intent to colude in the first place, I doubt anyone would have caught that they were trading back the same exact players 6 weeks later.

 

[FFdork]

Unless I'm misunderstanding, the only reason they waited so long was to make it look like it wasn't collusion, correct? That is, they originally wanted to trade back the very next week, but when Big Tex said no they waited a while.

 

[BigTex]

this is pretty clear they have coluded, albeit a long term colusion. It would have been sticky situation had the guy needing the 1 week rental actually PLAYED that defense in subsequent weeks. If he had been a position player instead of D he surely would have gotten another start or 2 in that time frame and the level of proof for colusion would have diminished in my view. Hopefully there wont be too big of a stink raised over the reversal. Defenses can be pretty erratic scoring wise so NOT trading back may end up helping both teams in the end.

this post has made me think there probably SHOULD be a time frame involved in trade backs situations though.... T he harshest one being no tradeback at all....and a minimum of 4 weeks before a player can get back on your lineup. Funny thing is, had the owners not informed you of their intent to colude in the first place, I doubt anyone would have caught that they were trading back the same exact players 6 weeks later.

Thanks budman, and to everyone else who responded in this thread. To my knowledge the owner only informed me, I shared the conversation with no one as I didn't feel the need to do so. I made it understandably clear that the Rent-a-Player trade is unacceptable and I believed it was over and done with. It was a vice-commish that recognized the trade and what had taken place. He did not know about my previous conversation with the other owner.

 

[BigTex]

I think it is. Although, with 6 weeks between trades, it's hard to really prove intention.I have seen league rules that say you cannot trade back a player to the original team for 4 weeks or 6 weeks. Probably best to put something in writing.

The previous conversation trumps the time frame. But agreed, a definate time frame will be put in place. It was agreed upon and voted in by all the owners the Rent-a-Player will not be allowed. Like others have said, they just waited a little longer to trade back so it would look too obvious, just in time for the playoff race to shake out.

 

[BigTex]

2 simple questions:Is that a rule in your constitution?Can you prove collusion?If the answer is no to both...you have to let the trade stand.Perhaps adopting an official rule will help you for next year.

Hello Mr. BG, Yes it's in our constitution. Every time there's a change to the constitution I'll give them out during our draft.To answer the second, it sure looks like collusion. If a trade is made because you need a bye week fill in (clearly he didn't won't to drop his defenses eventhough there's 11 on the waiver wire) and a trade is made again reversing the original trade then it sure smells like collusion. I went back to look at how many times he played that defense and he only played them to cover that one week. He never used them again and now they are trading back those same two teams.Looks like collusion...................................no?

I'm not sure what there is to question here. Unless I'm missing something...1-The league rules say you can't trade back players. Since no time frame is given, it can't be done at all.2-The rules were reitterated to the owner before the initial trade was even made. 3-The owner traded back a player, which is against league rules.4-An illegal trade was made & it should be reversed. The whole "is this collusion" bit is irrelevant. A written rule was broken. Case closed.

You said it.

 

[BigTex]

Unless I'm misunderstanding, the only reason they waited so long was to make it look like it wasn't collusion, correct? That is, they originally wanted to trade back the very next week, but when Big Tex said no they waited a while.

You Sir are Correct.Again, Thanks to all. This is a critical and important issue. Our league has never had anything of this magnitude happen and I know other owners are watching to see what happens. Many of you have shown me things that I didn't think of and brought new light to this sitituation. Greatful,Tex