Impartial Opinion Needed (1 Viewer)

[Mr. Know-It-All]

Team A has only one kicker, bye week 9 (Kaeding).

Team B has two kickers, bye weeks 8 (Longwell) and 10 (Folk).

Prior to week 9, Team A trades for the bye week 10 kicker from Team B (Kaeding for Folk)

Prior to Week 10 , Team B offers Team A the bye week 8 kicker for the bye week 10 kicker he originally traded prior to Week 9 (Longwell for Folk).

The essence of the trade is that Team A doesn't have to take a zero at kicker in Week 9 or Week 10...however, the end result is the better kickers wind up on Team B.

The first trade was allowed to occur. The second trade was shot down by the (overzealous?) commish saying it was collusion.

Not a trade back, but is it shady?

 

[TheAssassin]

We're talking about Kickers? Sorry, even if it is collusion, it doesn't matter.

 

[Modog814]

I think it's shady, but I don't see how u can prove collusion.

 

[shredhead]

We're talking about Kickers? Sorry, even if it is collusion, it doesn't matter.

Also, these 3 kickers rank kaeding, Longwell, then Folk, so team B didn't end up with the 2 best kickers.

 

[mmarsian]

They're kickers.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

Point taken. Team A wound up taking a zero from kicker this week and lost to the commish by five points. I was Team B, and if Kaeding and Longwell are better than Folk I guess I am glad the second trade didn't occur...except it is a bit BS. It wasn't as if anyone was conspiring to "get" anyone else.

 

[PosterNutBag]

As commish, the thing I don't like most about this is that a tradeback like this circumvents the roster limit. I would assume your league has a roster limit. I know we are talking kickers here, but what if was WRs (as commish, all positions/players should be treated equally when analyzing something like this). What a tradeback does is prevent the other owners in the league from acquiring the players traded, while using another team's roster as an extension of your roster and to basically exceed the roster limit by 1 player for the 3 week period (weeks 8-10 here).

Another thing I don't like about these trades is that the owners didn't have to pay the fee to add a player (in some leagues.... my leagues allow trades for free, but charge to add a player from waivers or free agency).

The one thing I would consider in allowing a tradeback is if the situation of the team getting the player back has changed since the original trade. If we were talking about RBs here and Team A had a RB injury since the original trade, then a tradeback would be acceptable IMO.

I should note that I would normally allow all trades to go through as commish....tradebacks fall under scrutiny, though, for reasons already mentioned and the fact that they never happen in real life in professional leagues.

 

[rick6668]

These 2 trades enabled team A to roster only 1 kicker for the whole season and never have to deal with a bye. He was able to keep another player on his roster and not drop them. This is an unfair advantage.

 

[PosterNutBag]

Point taken. Team A wound up taking a zero from kicker this week and lost to the commish by five points. I was Team B, and if Kaeding and Longwell are better than Folk I guess I am glad the second trade didn't occur...except it is a bit BS. It wasn't as if anyone was conspiring to "get" anyone else.

Why did Team A take a zero? Did he not have any means to pick up a kicker as a free agent add? Was he too cheap? This makes no sense to me (seem like you are leaving out some relevant info).Based on what you have told us, it sounds like Team A was too cheap to cut Folk and add a kicker not on a bye.

 

[Captain Hook]

Team A has only one kicker, bye week 9 (Kaeding).Team B has two kickers, bye weeks 8 (Longwell) and 10 (Folk).Prior to week 9, Team A trades for the bye week 10 kicker from Team B (Kaeding for Folk)Prior to Week 10 , Team B offers Team A the bye week 8 kicker for the bye week 10 kicker he originally traded prior to Week 9 (Longwell for Folk).The essence of the trade is that Team A doesn't have to take a zero at kicker in Week 9 or Week 10...however, the end result is the better kickers wind up on Team B.The first trade was allowed to occur. The second trade was shot down by the (overzealous?) commish saying it was collusion.Not a trade back, but is it shady?

The ONLY thing that would make this a "tradeback" was an agreement when making the first trade that they "might" or "would" make a future trade. If that did not occur it is just another trade and it should have been allowed.

 

[Liquid Tension]

Team A has only one kicker, bye week 9 (Kaeding).Team B has two kickers, bye weeks 8 (Longwell) and 10 (Folk).Prior to week 9, Team A trades for the bye week 10 kicker from Team B (Kaeding for Folk)Prior to Week 10 , Team B offers Team A the bye week 8 kicker for the bye week 10 kicker he originally traded prior to Week 9 (Longwell for Folk).The essence of the trade is that Team A doesn't have to take a zero at kicker in Week 9 or Week 10...however, the end result is the better kickers wind up on Team B.The first trade was allowed to occur. The second trade was shot down by the (overzealous?) commish saying it was collusion.Not a trade back, but is it shady?

The rules should state that no team can trade the same player received via trade back to the original team until 4 games have been played. Issue solved.

 

[PosterNutBag]

The ONLY thing that would make this a "tradeback" was an agreement when making the first trade that they "might" or "would" make a future trade. If that did not occur it is just another trade and it should have been allowed.

I disagree. As commish, there is no way you would ever be privy to that information so you have to use common sense judgement. You just have to look at the facts and made a fair decision with all league owners in mind. Such a move (a tradeback in general) clearly circumvents the roster limits of the league without giving the other owners access to the players involved (like they would had a drop/add occurred as normal). I have no problem with teams trading players to cover bye weeks, but when the same players are traded back a few weeks later it shows me that at least one team is abusing the system and extending their roster limit for a limited time.

 

[Black]

As commish, the thing I don't like most about this is that a tradeback like this circumvents the roster limit. I would assume your league has a roster limit. I know we are talking kickers here, but what if was WRs (as commish, all positions/players should be treated equally when analyzing something like this). What a tradeback does is prevent the other owners in the league from acquiring the players traded, while using another team's roster as an extension of your roster and to basically exceed the roster limit by 1 player for the 3 week period (weeks 8-10 here).Another thing I don't like about these trades is that the owners didn't have to pay the fee to add a player (in some leagues.... my leagues allow trades for free, but charge to add a player from waivers or free agency).The one thing I would consider in allowing a tradeback is if the situation of the team getting the player back has changed since the original trade. If we were talking about RBs here and Team A had a RB injury since the original trade, then a tradeback would be acceptable IMO.I should note that I would normally allow all trades to go through as commish....tradebacks fall under scrutiny, though, for reasons already mentioned and the fact that they never happen in real life in professional leagues.

Agree with all this...make people use the traditional add/drop and not allow what appears to be player-swap.NOONE TRADES KICKERS.....COME ON!

 

[T.A.]

Once a player is traded away, you may not receieve that player back in a trade until the following year.

Even then it will be scrutinized.

Or something like that. So, "no-go on tradebacks".

 

[heckmanm]

The ONLY thing that would make this a "tradeback" was an agreement when making the first trade that they "might" or "would" make a future trade. If that did not occur it is just another trade and it should have been allowed.

I disagree. As commish, there is no way you would ever be privy to that information so you have to use common sense judgement. You just have to look at the facts and made a fair decision with all league owners in mind. Such a move (a tradeback in general) clearly circumvents the roster limits of the league without giving the other owners access to the players involved (like they would had a drop/add occurred as normal). I have no problem with teams trading players to cover bye weeks, but when the same players are traded back a few weeks later it shows me that at least one team is abusing the system and extending their roster limit for a limited time.

Our league does not allow a traded player to return to a team unless (a) he has been released to the waiver wire; (b) he has been traded to a third team; or © the season ends (keeper league).

 

[Cixelsyd]

What does your league rules state?

We have a provision that you cannot trade a player back to it's former team for 4 weeks. So the second trade would not have been allowed in our league... when it was denied the owner should have dropped his kicker and picked up a new one... it's a kicker, it's not like someone was going to swoop up and grab him.

His bad for being stupid.

If your rules have no tradeback clause then shame on the league for claiming collusion...

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

Point taken. Team A wound up taking a zero from kicker this week and lost to the commish by five points. I was Team B, and if Kaeding and Longwell are better than Folk I guess I am glad the second trade didn't occur...except it is a bit BS. It wasn't as if anyone was conspiring to "get" anyone else.

Why did Team A take a zero? Did he not have any means to pick up a kicker as a free agent add? Was he too cheap? This makes no sense to me (seem like you are leaving out some relevant info).Based on what you have told us, it sounds like Team A was too cheap to cut Folk and add a kicker not on a bye.

Only allowed four waiver sper year, he was out of waivers so his only recourse was trade for a K or take a zero.

 

[Nate]

Not a trade back, but is it shady?

Not a trade back? Unless I'm reading it wrong, doesn't Folk go from Team B to Team A, then back to Team B to cover bye weeks? Isn't that the definition of player renting?Commish can't call it collusion unless the rules state that player renting is collusion (which they should). Yeah, it's only kickers and nobody should really care but in my league I veto that every time and tell both owners to quit screwing around.

 

[PosterNutBag]

Point taken. Team A wound up taking a zero from kicker this week and lost to the commish by five points. I was Team B, and if Kaeding and Longwell are better than Folk I guess I am glad the second trade didn't occur...except it is a bit BS. It wasn't as if anyone was conspiring to "get" anyone else.

Why did Team A take a zero? Did he not have any means to pick up a kicker as a free agent add? Was he too cheap? This makes no sense to me (seem like you are leaving out some relevant info).Based on what you have told us, it sounds like Team A was too cheap to cut Folk and add a kicker not on a bye.

Only allowed four waivers per year, he was out of waivers so his only recourse was trade for a K or take a zero.

You should have mentioned this rule in your first post.Well, if that is the case then it changes my opinion just in the specific case of your league. I find only allowing 4 waivers is extremely limiting. I still don't think tradebacks are a good thing or should be allowed in general, but if a league only limits you to 4 pickups a season I would have to be a little lax on tradebacks involving kickers to cover bye weeks. If the league is truly against it, then your league should be very explicit in its rules section given that it seems only obvious that owners are forced to be extra creative when they are so limited in the number of pickups for the entire season. What is the point to only limiting teams to 4 adds? It seems a little excessive. I guess it basically forces you to carry 2 kickers or defenses at some point during the season.

 

[Topes]

I know it when I see it.

It's a duck.

 

[Nate]

Only allowed four waiver sper year, he was out of waivers so his only recourse was trade for a K or take a zero.

Wow. I'm not sure you can even have a tradeback rule if you only allow 4 waivers per year...

 

[Topes]

Wait, it's pornography.

 

[Topes]

No, no. On third thought, it's collusion.

I'm not a big collusion-caller. But this is clearly roster-pooling. Roster-pooling is collusion. The trades seem to have been deliberately orchestrated to bypass the wording of your collusion rule (anti-tradeback).

 

[Topes]

Only allowed four waivers per year, he was out of waivers so his only recourse was trade for a K or take a zero.

Where is your league? Russia?Seriously, FOUR WAIVERS PER SEASON?I'll cease my ingress herewith.

 

[Topes]

Can't... Stop... Ingress...

FOUR WAIVERS PER SEASON?

FOUR WAIVERS PER SEASON?

Your rules forced these parties into actions that seem collusive.

Your rules seem designed to invite and ignite controversy.

 

[Wrigley]

Only allowed four waiver sper year, he was out of waivers so his only recourse was trade for a K or take a zero.

Wow. I'm not sure you can even have a tradeback rule if you only allow 4 waivers per year...

Yes you canWho the hell only drafts one kicker, in a league that only allows 4 waiver moves a year?Guy got caught with his pants down.

 

[DoGdr]

What is the point of 4 waivers moves per year...do you want to minimize particpation.

In our league we are begging people to make ww moves and trades.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

Point taken. Team A wound up taking a zero from kicker this week and lost to the commish by five points. I was Team B, and if Kaeding and Longwell are better than Folk I guess I am glad the second trade didn't occur...except it is a bit BS. It wasn't as if anyone was conspiring to "get" anyone else.

Why did Team A take a zero? Did he not have any means to pick up a kicker as a free agent add? Was he too cheap? This makes no sense to me (seem like you are leaving out some relevant info).Based on what you have told us, it sounds like Team A was too cheap to cut Folk and add a kicker not on a bye.

Only allowed four waivers per year, he was out of waivers so his only recourse was trade for a K or take a zero.

You should have mentioned this rule in your first post.Well, if that is the case then it changes my opinion just in the specific case of your league. I find only allowing 4 waivers is extremely limiting. I still don't think tradebacks are a good thing or should be allowed in general, but if a league only limits you to 4 pickups a season I would have to be a little lax on tradebacks involving kickers to cover bye weeks. If the league is truly against it, then your league should be very explicit in its rules section given that it seems only obvious that owners are forced to be extra creative when they are so limited in the number of pickups for the entire season. What is the point to only limiting teams to 4 adds? It seems a little excessive. I guess it basically forces you to carry 2 kickers or defenses at some point during the season.

4 waivers per year in a 12 team league. 24 man rosters, start 14 players (1 qb, 2 rb, 3 wr, 1 k, 2 dl, 2 lb, 2 db, and 1 flex idp). However, if a player is put on NFL IR you can replace him and it doesn't cost you a waiver move. I totally agree that 4 waiver sis bs...but this is a league composed of friends going way back and its not a big money deal. After reading the other posts I see the point about roster pooling.

 

[Warhogs]

I read some of the posts and then decided to drop down and just give my input. I believe that this transaction is walking a bit in that gray area and should probably have a clear ruling for the future. With that being said I ask myself what is more wrong?

-Allowing a trade like this to happen with no clear rule covering this.

-Forcing a team to take a zero because they had planned to be able to do this and are now being told this is an illegal move.

I personally would have to side with allowing the trade and if most owners have an issue with this I would clarify the rule for next year.

 

[Jersey35]

While I agree with those posters *aghast* at the 4 waiver limit (wtf?), and also agree that the rules itself seems to limit, not encourage, participation, it's this fact that makes this 100% undeniably collusion.

The owner was out of waivers, so attempted to circumvent that fact using this kicker-merry-go-round. He should have drafted two kickers - or saved a waiver... he knew it was coming.

To make it plain why this is collusion (or cheating - whatever), here's another way to look at it:

Imagine he and another owner each had no waivers left. Imagine also that they are tied for 1st place and are playing each other. Can you see it? They also both have one QB and that QB is on bye. Owner B is forced to trade a starter to obtain a solid play for the week to avoid the zero. This owner makes this play. Can you see why this circumvents the rules and takes advantage? Now imagine that she's a kicker.