"Loaning" players (1 Viewer)

[habsfan]

At first blush, this is a trade with secret conditions but in terms of logistics, it's not really even a proper "trade". One team is just going to give another team one of their players now (as if the rest of the league will be cool with that) and then in January the other team is just going to give the first team a different player back. How would that even work?

It sounds more like a hostage exchange than a trade.

Bigger picture, might need to sharpen your rules / bylaws a little so you don't need to worry about having to explain exactly why this is wrong.

 

[BassNBrew]

At first blush, this is a trade with secret conditions but in terms of logistics, it's not really even a proper "trade". One team is just going to give another team one of their players now (as if the rest of the league will be cool with that) and then in January the other team is just going to give the first team a different player back. How would that even work?

It sounds more like a hostage exchange than a trade.

Bigger picture, might need to sharpen your rules / bylaws a little so you don't need to worry about having to explain exactly why this is wrong.

It work work like trading a player for the rights to a draft pick that hasn’t been determined or made yet.

 

[habsfan]

At first blush, this is a trade with secret conditions but in terms of logistics, it's not really even a proper "trade". One team is just going to give another team one of their players now (as if the rest of the league will be cool with that) and then in January the other team is just going to give the first team a different player back. How would that even work?

It sounds more like a hostage exchange than a trade.

Bigger picture, might need to sharpen your rules / bylaws a little so you don't need to worry about having to explain exactly why this is wrong.

It work work like trading a player for the rights to a draft pick that hasn’t been determined or made yet.

So "future considerations"? Except in this case it's not a draft pick and what's coming back (and when) has already been agreed to.

I'm glad I don't play in any leagues complex enough where I need to consider these variables.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

It work like trading a player for the rights to a draft pick that hasn’t been determined or made yet.

No it doesn't. When you trade for a pick you're not trading for the "rights to a draft pick". You're actually getting the draft pick and that's an asset that gets transferred immediately. That pick can then be used in another trade and the owner that traded it away no longer has use of it during the current season - the asset has been transferred.

 

[BassNBrew]

It work like trading a player for the rights to a draft pick that hasn’t been determined or made yet.

No it doesn't. When you trade for a pick you're not trading for the "rights to a draft pick". You're actually getting the draft pick and that's an asset that gets transferred immediately. That pick can then be used in another trade and the owner that traded it away no longer has use of it during the current season - the asset has been transferred.

Can that pick be traded for a player like maybe Jefferson ?

 

[BassNBrew]

FYI..,I don’t like this situation, but think you need rules against it beyond a catch all collusion statement

 

[Dr. Octopus]

It work like trading a player for the rights to a draft pick that hasn’t been determined or made yet.

No it doesn't. When you trade for a pick you're not trading for the "rights to a draft pick". You're actually getting the draft pick and that's an asset that gets transferred immediately. That pick can then be used in another trade and the owner that traded it away no longer has use of it during the current season - the asset has been transferred.

Can that pick be traded for a player like maybe Jefferson ?

Yes - in fact, THAT'S THE POINT.

 

[Crippler]

It all depends on the league rules. Personally I am fine with the concept. "You get something that helps you now, I get something that helps me later". No different than offering up Kamara for Javonte Williams or from trading Hopkins for a 2023 1st round pick.

The problem isn't with the trades, it's because owners aren't creative and don't think about it in those terms. 3-4 owners will get all cranky because all they see is one guy becoming a playoff powerhouse and one gets stacked up for next year but the reality is tons of trades already do just that. No one has an issue with those because they have perspective on them.

I've found that when discussed in advance and worded correctly in the rules layout it's fine with most owners.

Perfect. As long as things stated. Just did not creative enough is all. But it is why owners trade assets for future picks and why you see owners with 5 or 6 future 1st as they tank.

what if the deal was outlined like this

i will trade you Hill
if you win championship, I will receive Jefferson, 2, 3 on Jan 20, 2023
if you win regular season or League Title, I get Jefferson, 3
if neither happens I get Jefferson.

love the outside the box thinking as long as clear, concise and fully disclosed to the league. He obviously really wants Jefferson but not willing to pay Hill, 1st plus next off season. Doing what is best for his team in the future. Competitive balance in leagues is done all the time. I have seen quite a few trades this year and the past that unbalance league.

 

[BassNBrew]

It work like trading a player for the rights to a draft pick that hasn’t been determined or made yet.

No it doesn't. When you trade for a pick you're not trading for the "rights to a draft pick". You're actually getting the draft pick and that's an asset that gets transferred immediately. That pick can then be used in another trade and the owner that traded it away no longer has use of it during the current season - the asset has been transferred.

Can that pick be traded for a player like maybe Jefferson ?

Yes - in fact, THAT'S THE POINT.

Yup

Today: Trade Hill for a 2023 1st
Feb 1: Trade 2023 1st for Jefferson

Everyone is happy

 

[Amused to Death]

Yup

Today: Trade Hill for a 2023 1st
Feb 1: Trade 2023 1st for Jefferson

Everyone is happy

Its roster sharing.

 

[habsfan]

It all depends on the league rules. Personally I am fine with the concept. "You get something that helps you now, I get something that helps me later". No different than offering up Kamara for Javonte Williams or from trading Hopkins for a 2023 1st round pick.

The problem isn't with the trades, it's because owners aren't creative and don't think about it in those terms. 3-4 owners will get all cranky because all they see is one guy becoming a playoff powerhouse and one gets stacked up for next year but the reality is tons of trades already do just that. No one has an issue with those because they have perspective on them.

I've found that when discussed in advance and worded correctly in the rules layout it's fine with most owners.

Perfect. As long as things stated. Just did not creative enough is all. But it is why owners trade assets for future picks and why you see owners with 5 or 6 future 1st as they tank.

what if the deal was outlined like this

i will trade you Hill
if you win championship, I will receive Jefferson, 2, 3 on Jan 20, 2023
if you win regular season or League Title, I get Jefferson, 3
if neither happens I get Jefferson.

love the outside the box thinking as long as clear, concise and fully disclosed to the league. He obviously really wants Jefferson but not willing to pay Hill, 1st plus next off season. Doing what is best for his team in the future. Competitive balance in leagues is done all the time. I have seen quite a few trades this year and the past that unbalance league.

It's going to be an interesting league when every team starts doing this and you have multiple "time release" deals in play at the same time. There's a fine line between "sophisticated" and "chaos" if you ask me.

 

[Sasgaard]

I don't like it and I agree with people in general here. To play de devil's advocate thought, it's a thin line between this and trading future draft picks for example. Trading future picks is ok but trading a player in the future is not. Thin line in my opinion.

 

[Gally]

It work work like trading a player for the rights to a draft pick that hasn’t been determined or made yet.

It may work like that in the structure of the deal but the difference is you are making one team out of two teams with respect to actual players currently playing and then giving those players back. It is the definition of collusion.

Draft picks don't have in season, in game value. That is the difference. You aren't making one team out of two for that season which is collusion. That is the difference.

I had two owners try and do this in one my leagues many years ago. They asked if it was allowed and the Commish office told them it was collusion and isn't allowed. So they came up with two trades to circumvent the rules, It involved mostly players and each trade was ok (but borderline) by itself so they were allowed but soon after both of those owners ended up quitting because their morals didn't match up with the overall league constitution. I had a hard time having owners that purposely circumvented the intent of rules that were in place. We didn't stop them from doing it in the moment because techically what they did, did not break any rules. However, the idea of purposely trying to go around a rule in place was a sticking point. If you know the intent of the rule, don't go about trying to find a way to circumvent that rule legally. Abide by the intent. It just made for a very confrontational/tense league.

 

[Gally]

Also, putting future provisions or upgrades to a trade based on a players performance is also different than this situation. You aren't loaning a player to another team. You are just setting milestones to increase/decrease the draft picks included in a trade. It is not affecting the current season by one team combining with another team for the purposes of the current season. It is getting a deeper valuation of the players involved in the deal and adjusting the total compensation based on actual game play.

 

[da_budman]

So had you accepted you get Hill for half a season and in return he gets the rest of Justin Jefferson's career?

I would get to keep Hill. He specifically wanted to not get Jefferson until next year for the purpose of tanking.

If that's the case, why not just trade for Jefferson and then keep him on his bench?

(Don't get me wrong; Hill for Jefferson would still be an unbalanced dynasty trade. It just seems to me the loan element of this trade is unnecessary.)

Well then that would be throwing games and /that's/ clearly cheating.

Tanking in a dynasty league for future growth is a normal part of a dynasty league. Loaning players is the problem here.

 

[da_budman]

It all depends on the league rules. Personally I am fine with the concept. "You get something that helps you now, I get something that helps me later". No different than offering up Kamara for Javonte Williams or from trading Hopkins for a 2023 1st round pick.

The problem isn't with the trades, it's because owners aren't creative and don't think about it in those terms. 3-4 owners will get all cranky because all they see is one guy becoming a playoff powerhouse and one gets stacked up for next year but the reality is tons of trades already do just that. No one has an issue with those because they have perspective on them.

I've found that when discussed in advance and worded correctly in the rules layout it's fine with most owners.

To you, and somebody else who thought this would be an interesting wrinkle in a dynasty league. Allow this and what would prevent 2 teams from "sharing players" (and I am talking about 4 or 5 of their best players....stacking 1 of the 2 teams depending on who is doing the best at the midway point of the season. EVERY YEAR? So what you then have is one of these 2 colluding teams having a signifficant advantage over the other 10 teams EVERY YEAR....all because 2 teams, by rule, get to share 2 rosters. I am fine with help me now help you later trades and trades for draft picks in dynasty. What is being disgussed here is CONSIDERABLY different than trading a younger player who is injured for an older player who is performing well because the trade is final and the 2 teams arent sharing 2 rosters. A rule like this WOULD ( not could but would) devolve into chaos ending the league....2 teams coluding here? fine...I take me and 2 of my best pals and we combine 3 rosters instead of 2 to stack the deck. I am all for creativity but this should never be tolerated and CERTAINLY should not be a rule.

 

[da_budman]

It work work like trading a player for the rights to a draft pick that hasn’t been determined or made yet.

It may work like that in the structure of the deal but the difference is you are making one team out of two teams with respect to actual players currently playing and then giving those players back. It is the definition of collusion.

Draft picks don't have in season, in game value. That is the difference. You aren't making one team out of two for that season which is collusion. That is the difference.

I had two owners try and do this in one my leagues many years ago. They asked if it was allowed and the Commish office told them it was collusion and isn't allowed. So they came up with two trades to circumvent the rules, It involved mostly players and each trade was ok (but borderline) by itself so they were allowed but soon after both of those owners ended up quitting because their morals didn't match up with the overall league constitution. I had a hard time having owners that purposely circumvented the intent of rules that were in place. We didn't stop them from doing it in the moment because techically what they did, did not break any rules. However, the idea of purposely trying to go around a rule in place was a sticking point. If you know the intent of the rule, don't go about trying to find a way to circumvent that rule legally. Abide by the intent. It just made for a very confrontational/tense league.

Stuff like this is aLEAGUE KILLER. If players dont think that everybody has to play by the rules as intended why would they want to put their money in a league like that when they could go next door and spend their money there where they dont have to deal with such shenanigans?

 

[I Am the Stig]

I don’t really have a problem with the trade, I’m not a dynasty player, but the actual mechanics of it happening are what gives me a problem.

It is a gentleman’s agreement that certainly falls outside of the game software to actually execute and therefore requires extra communication and manipulation to achieve.

I’d be comfortable just telling him that if the current platform can’t support a one and done transaction then don’t ever offer it in the first place.

 

[sushinsky4tsar]

I have one for group discussion that I'm hoping will be deemed more innocent, or at least more of a gray area than the original scenario. I've developed a pretty good rapport with an owner in my dynasty league. I've never met the guy in real life, know nothing about his family, job, etc, but we will freely go back and forth about various happenings in the league. We've gotten a number of trades done in the past.

He made an early decision that this wasn't his year to compete, even though I think we would have had a fighting chance at the last playoff spot. Regardless, he's all in on the tank. I don't love it, but the precedent in this league is that you do what's best for your team. In other words, there's precedent for sitting star players and plugging in inferior bench options. I wish the commish was more ambitious in combatting this, but that's a lot easier said than done, and there are enough positives about this league that I'm willing to tolerate some ugly non-competitive matchups on the schedule.

Regardless, that's his situation. I'm locked and loaded to win this year. If I was missing anything, it was a backup QB and a stronger RB3 as insurance. I traded a 2nd to him for Elliott and Rodgers. During the negotiation I mentioned something to the effect of, "if it's August 2023 and you decide that Elliott or Rodgers is what you need to fortify your young lineup to compete, you know that we will be able to hammer out a reasonable trade."

To be clear, there is no obligation on my part to trade them back. Nor do I think it's likely that they're the kind of players that he will be looking for. I also don't think that my statement had an impact on his decision to make the trade. He has a young team and they're close, or in the process of falling off of a cliff. If it was August and he wanted both back, I would probably either limit it to one or make it a much larger package deal. I wouldn't have the gall to make a twin trade of the original, sending both back for a pick in August, even an inferior one. It would be a really bad look.

So my questions...

1) Should I not float such generalities in the future to try to close on a trade? Hopefully I'm not resigning from the league in disgrace, but perhaps I should?

2) Should there be specific rules that one team isn't allowed to trade back for a player that they traded away for a specified amount of time? It probably solves the OP's scenario, even though the person making the offer would probably try to bring in an intermediary to launder a trade if there's not a specified blackout period for re-acquisition.

The downside on this is that I've had a couple of perfectly legitimate trades where I have re-acquired players that I previously sent away. The fact is that if they were already on my team, I probably liked something about them. The fact that I traded them doesn't necessarily mean that I didn't like them, more than the reality of having to give something to get something.

Where does the Shark Pool stand on reacquisitions?

 

[eighsse2]

1) Should I not float such generalities in the future to try to close on a trade? Hopefully I'm not resigning from the league in disgrace, but perhaps I should?

2) Should there be specific rules that one team isn't allowed to trade back for a player that they traded away for a specified amount of time? It probably solves the OP's scenario, even though the person making the offer would probably try to bring in an intermediary to launder a trade if there's not a specified blackout period for re-acquisition.

1) Saying such things shouldn't be against the rules, but on a man-to-man level, I feel like it's not good style. What if, by chance, you can't hammer out a deal that you both find reasonable? I know it sounds like you are both sensible and friendly, and he's unlikely to say "Hey! You said we would be able to make a deal if I wanted, and now you're not taking my terrible offer to get my guys back! Jerk!". But who knows? IMO, even simply adding the word "probably" to your statement would make it sound less like any kind of contractual obligation.

2) No. 0%. Granted, any rule is fine, if that's what the people want, and it's not an "unfair" rule or anything. But in my opinion, it would be needlessly restrictive. You can do plenty of shady business without trading the same player back and forth.

 

[sushinsky4tsar]

1) Should I not float such generalities in the future to try to close on a trade? Hopefully I'm not resigning from the league in disgrace, but perhaps I should?

2) Should there be specific rules that one team isn't allowed to trade back for a player that they traded away for a specified amount of time? It probably solves the OP's scenario, even though the person making the offer would probably try to bring in an intermediary to launder a trade if there's not a specified blackout period for re-acquisition.

1) Saying such things shouldn't be against the rules, but on a man-to-man level, I feel like it's not good style. What if, by chance, you can't hammer out a deal that you both find reasonable? I know it sounds like you are both sensible and friendly, and he's unlikely to say "Hey! You said we would be able to make a deal if I wanted, and now you're not taking my terrible offer to get my guys back! Jerk!". But who knows? IMO, even simply adding the word "probably" to your statement would make it sound less like any kind of contractual obligation.

The thing with the #1, and probably why I casually slipped it in to the conversation, is how much is the stock of Elliott and Rodgers going to RISE that would make me sink my claws into them if he came to me in August with a reasonable offer? Let's say Elliott still has a decent split somewhere if not in Dallas. Rodgers doesn't retire and gets some offensive pieces to offer a little hope. I gave up an early 2nd to get them (might have been a bit rich the way it's going). If he came at me with a late 2nd, I'm probably not saying no from a value standpoint, basically counting the downgraded 2nd as my rental price for some depth in my run this season. Now if they both play well in the back half of the season, secure their roles for '23 and he comes at me with a late 3rd or 4th, I'm telling him to fly a kite and keeping them guilt free

However, I might say no to the above strictly from the perspective of not wanting to cheese off the league or have it perceived as player sharing.

If I'm getting back an inferior draft pick from the one I originally paid, would that be satisfactory even if I'm trading both players back? I essentially paid draft capital to bolster my team in '22, much like paying a draft pick for a player in any other trade. Or is the return trip of the same players enough reason for the whole thing to be shady?

What if I sent back my same players and was given the same draft pick I paid? Now that definitely reads like a loaned player, right? I gained the rentals without ultimately paying anything. Is it still a no go even if there isn't any actual obligation or set agreement to trade back? Or would this only be an issue if I traded my players to him for his playoff run down the road, where I then trade his pick back to him to get my players back.


All rhetorical. The whole things seems like a bit of a slippery slope. Just trying to identify if there's one specific line in the sand where something okay becomes not okay. I think for most it's probably putting future trade obligations in writing or as a gentleman's agreement. However, I can see where the threshold might be something less than that for some.

 

[Enzo....the Baker]

Collusion, double dipping....it's a Wimpy offer
"I will pay you Tuesday for a Hamburger today."

No one likes Wimpy

 

[TVT 0 N S T A]

This is why I allow my league to downvote trades - there is no reason to even allow the trade as I am sure it looks like a Tyreek Hill for Jalen Tolbert. The leaguemates get a hold of the trade and rip both of them to shreds for allowing this BS trade to get to a league vote and then it never happens again.

As the commissioner, I don't think it is my authority to single-handedly downvote trades but I do bring attention to the trade being offered in a group text; fearful, any trade I offer where I am getting the strong hand and not willing to reject it being perceived as collusion. It is difficult in a league you participate in to be the judge, journey and executioner of teams trying to get better. Let the masses handle it and they almost always sort themselves out, especially in Dynasty Leagues - where every move is looked at under a microscope.

 

[habsfan]

This is why I allow my league to downvote trades - there is no reason to even allow the trade as I am sure it looks like a Tyreek Hill for Jalen Tolbert. The leaguemates get a hold of the trade and rip both of them to shreds for allowing this BS trade to get to a league vote and then it never happens again.

As the commissioner, I don't think it is my authority to single-handedly downvote trades but I do bring attention to the trade being offered in a group text; fearful, any trade I offer where I am getting the strong hand and not willing to reject it being perceived as collusion. It is difficult in a league you participate in to be the judge, journey and executioner of teams trying to get better. Let the masses handle it and they almost always sort themselves out, especially in Dynasty Leagues - where every move is looked at under a microscope.

I don't enjoy being judge, jury and executioner (more like light QC) but voting on trades is more like Lord of the flies.

 

[Hankmoody]

It all depends on the league rules. Personally I am fine with the concept. "You get something that helps you now, I get something that helps me later". No different than offering up Kamara for Javonte Williams or from trading Hopkins for a 2023 1st round pick.

The problem isn't with the trades, it's because owners aren't creative and don't think about it in those terms. 3-4 owners will get all cranky because all they see is one guy becoming a playoff powerhouse and one gets stacked up for next year but the reality is tons of trades already do just that. No one has an issue with those because they have perspective on them.

I've found that when discussed in advance and worded correctly in the rules layout it's fine with most owners.

To you, and somebody else who thought this would be an interesting wrinkle in a dynasty league.

Which is why I said discuss it in advance. Then it's not just me and one other, then the entire league knows what the options are and can make their own informed decisions.

Not going to quote or address the rest of your assumptive and incorrect opinion.

 

[eighsse2]

1) Should I not float such generalities in the future to try to close on a trade? Hopefully I'm not resigning from the league in disgrace, but perhaps I should?

2) Should there be specific rules that one team isn't allowed to trade back for a player that they traded away for a specified amount of time? It probably solves the OP's scenario, even though the person making the offer would probably try to bring in an intermediary to launder a trade if there's not a specified blackout period for re-acquisition.

1) Saying such things shouldn't be against the rules, but on a man-to-man level, I feel like it's not good style. What if, by chance, you can't hammer out a deal that you both find reasonable? I know it sounds like you are both sensible and friendly, and he's unlikely to say "Hey! You said we would be able to make a deal if I wanted, and now you're not taking my terrible offer to get my guys back! Jerk!". But who knows? IMO, even simply adding the word "probably" to your statement would make it sound less like any kind of contractual obligation.

The thing with the #1, and probably why I casually slipped it in to the conversation, is how much is the stock of Elliott and Rodgers going to RISE that would make me sink my claws into them if he came to me in August with a reasonable offer? Let's say Elliott still has a decent split somewhere if not in Dallas. Rodgers doesn't retire and gets some offensive pieces to offer a little hope. I gave up an early 2nd to get them (might have been a bit rich the way it's going). If he came at me with a late 2nd, I'm probably not saying no from a value standpoint, basically counting the downgraded 2nd as my rental price for some depth in my run this season. Now if they both play well in the back half of the season, secure their roles for '23 and he comes at me with a late 3rd or 4th, I'm telling him to fly a kite and keeping them guilt free

However, I might say no to the above strictly from the perspective of not wanting to cheese off the league or have it perceived as player sharing.

If I'm getting back an inferior draft pick from the one I originally paid, would that be satisfactory even if I'm trading both players back? I essentially paid draft capital to bolster my team in '22, much like paying a draft pick for a player in any other trade. Or is the return trip of the same players enough reason for the whole thing to be shady?

What if I sent back my same players and was given the same draft pick I paid? Now that definitely reads like a loaned player, right? I gained the rentals without ultimately paying anything. Is it still a no go even if there isn't any actual obligation or set agreement to trade back? Or would this only be an issue if I traded my players to him for his playoff run down the road, where I then trade his pick back to him to get my players back.


All rhetorical. The whole things seems like a bit of a slippery slope. Just trying to identify if there's one specific line in the sand where something okay becomes not okay. I think for most it's probably putting future trade obligations in writing or as a gentleman's agreement. However, I can see where the threshold might be something less than that for some.

I see zero problem, at face value, with making a trade and later making the exact inverse trade.

At any given time, for each 2-owner pair, there is a massive theoretical list of all possible trades the two could make (2 to the power of the total number of assets the two teams own, minus a few). Each owner has a theoretical list of "yes/no" ("yes I'd do that trade", or "no I wouldn't do that trade") answers to each of those possible trades. Any trade that both owners have down as a "yes", should happen. But obviously, no one has time to think about, let alone actually offer, all the "yes" combinations. So, many trades that should happen, never do. But, if both sides have a given trade in the "yes" column (without any stipulations "paperclipped" to the trade) nothing should prevent the trade from happening. My opinion. So unless you can provide solid evidence that collision is going on behind the scenes, I don't care what happens.

 

[Hankmoody]

1) Should I not float such generalities in the future to try to close on a trade? Hopefully I'm not resigning from the league in disgrace, but perhaps I should?

2) Should there be specific rules that one team isn't allowed to trade back for a player that they traded away for a specified amount of time? It probably solves the OP's scenario, even though the person making the offer would probably try to bring in an intermediary to launder a trade if there's not a specified blackout period for re-acquisition.

The downside on this is that I've had a couple of perfectly legitimate trades where I have re-acquired players that I previously sent away. The fact is that if they were already on my team, I probably liked something about them. The fact that I traded them doesn't necessarily mean that I didn't like them, more than the reality of having to give something to get something.

Where does the Shark Pool stand on reacquisitions?

You're not making any committments or promises there's nothing to see here. Common sense would indicate that of course those guys would be available in future trades for proper market prices at that time.

What there should and shouldn't be rules against is entirely up to the league to discuss and decide. If you're operating within the framework of said rules then there's never an issue.

 

[Hankmoody]

I see zero problem, at face value, with making a trade and later making the exact inverse trade.

At any given time, for each 2-owner pair, there is a massive theoretical list of all possible trades the two could make (2 to the power of the total number of assets the two teams own, minus a few). Each owner has a theoretical list of "yes/no" ("yes I'd do that trade", or "no I wouldn't do that trade") answers to each of those possible trades. Any trade that both owners have down as a "yes", should happen. But obviously, no one has time to think about, let alone actually offer, all the "yes" combinations. So, many trades that should happen, never do. But, if both sides have a given trade in the "yes" column (without any stipulations "paperclipped" to the trade) nothing should prevent the trade from happening. My opinion. So unless you can provide solid evidence that collision is going on behind the scenes, I don't care what happens.

Personally I don't either but take caution with most leagues and owners when this isn't specifically called out. As long as everyone's on board it's all good but owners will squawk like hell if not (just read this thread for proof).

 

[ratbast]

Im very lucky. My friend and family leagues are generally so strong that we police ourselves. The Commish in both literally never gets involved anymore with trades. It’s 100% peer pressure. You pull off a trade that’s way too lopsided and both parties will be ridiculed for months or years even.

 

[Gally]

As the commissioner, I don't think it is my authority to single-handedly downvote trades

Actually that is your authority as a commissioner if you believe the trade is not in line with the rules/bylaws/intent/etc of your league. That is your job. It should not be up to other's in the league because typically they will vote based on how the trade affects them specifically at that moment. That is a bad look too.

ETA: As a Commish you shouldn't veto any trade unless it is collusion. The OP is collusion and should not be allowed.

 

[Gally]

2) Should there be specific rules that one team isn't allowed to trade back for a player that they traded away for a specified amount of time? It probably solves the OP's scenario, even though the person making the offer would probably try to bring in an intermediary to launder a trade if there's not a specified blackout period for re-acquisition.

We have a rule that a player cannot be traded back to a team for a minimum of 3 weeks in season. In the off season it doesn't matter. This is typically a bye week situation and there really isn't anything prohibiting the teams to wait 4 weeks. Essentially the clause was put in to highlight that loaning players for a week or two is frowned upon and shouldn't be done.

 

[Gally]

Where does the Shark Pool stand on reacquisitions?

Things change over time. Nothing inherently wrong with getting a player back if the intent was not to loan the guy out for a couple weeks. The intent is where you get into issues. The act itself is not an issue.

 

[da_budman]

As the commissioner, I don't think it is my authority to single-handedly downvote trades

Actually that is your authority as a commissioner if you believe the trade is not in line with the rules/bylaws/intent/etc of your league. That is your job. It should not be up to other's in the league because typically they will vote based on how the trade affects them specifically at that moment. That is a bad look too.

ETA: As a Commish you shouldn't veto any trade unless it is collusion. The OP is collusion and should not be allowed.

Allowing leaguewide votes on trades on surface seems the fairest way to go BUT every league I have ever been in that allows trade voting on trades has ended when too many trades got voted down. Turns out human nature what it is people tend to vote their interest when money is involved and nobody wants other teams getting better if they can keep that from happening.

 

[da_budman]

As the commissioner, I don't think it is my authority to single-handedly downvote trades

Actually that is your authority as a commissioner if you believe the trade is not in line with the rules/bylaws/intent/etc of your league. That is your job. It should not be up to other's in the league because typically they will vote based on how the trade affects them specifically at that moment. That is a bad look too.

ETA: As a Commish you shouldn't veto any trade unless it is collusion. The OP is collusion and should not be allowed.

Allowing leaguewide votes on trades on surface seems the fairest way to go BUT every league I have ever been in that allows trade voting on trades has ended when too many trades got voted down. Turns out human nature what it is people tend to vote their interest when money is involved and nobody wants other teams getting better if they can keep that from happening.

It all depends on the league rules. Personally I am fine with the concept. "You get something that helps you now, I get something that helps me later". No different than offering up Kamara for Javonte Williams or from trading Hopkins for a 2023 1st round pick.

The problem isn't with the trades, it's because owners aren't creative and don't think about it in those terms. 3-4 owners will get all cranky because all they see is one guy becoming a playoff powerhouse and one gets stacked up for next year but the reality is tons of trades already do just that. No one has an issue with those because they have perspective on them.

I've found that when discussed in advance and worded correctly in the rules layout it's fine with most owners.

To you, and somebody else who thought this would be an interesting wrinkle in a dynasty league.

Which is why I said discuss it in advance. Then it's not just me and one other, then the entire league knows what the options are and can make their own informed decisions.

Not going to quote or address the rest of your assumptive and incorrect opinion.

It is the what ifs that can happen, the assumptives if you will, that need to be hashed out before making an outside the box rule like this. As to my incorrect opinion by definition opinions are neither correct nor incorrect, they are opinions.

 

[Hankmoody]

It is the what ifs that can happen, the assumptives if you will, that need to be hashed out before making an outside the box rule like this.

Which is why I said discuss it in advance. Not sure why you keep quoting me but ignoring that.

 

[da_budman]

It is the what ifs that can happen, the assumptives if you will, that need to be hashed out before making an outside the box rule like this.

Which is why I said discuss it in advance. Not sure why you keep quoting me but ignoring that.

"Not going to quote or address the rest of your assumptive and incorrect opinion."
"It is the what ifs that can happen, the assumptives if you will, that need to be hashed out before making an outside the box rule like this."

Who was ignoring that? Not sure why you cant understand I agree with you it has to be discussed in advance. Its not particularly controversial to say ALL proposed rule changes should be discussed in advance. The assumptives you dont seem to like (along with my opinion) are me giving my opinion on the worst case scenario of a rule like this. Pointing out worse case scenarios and working backwards is the very best way to avoid unintended consequences of a rule change In my opinion.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Wanted to get the board's opinion on an offer I was given from a team that's tanking this season that really rubbed me the wrong way. The other owner wanted to send me his Tyreek Hill for the end of the season and then next year I would send him Justin Jefferson from my roster - basically an end of year loan as the price difference between the two. I rejected the idea. It bothers me though that someone else in my league might accept a similar framework of a one year roster improvement for a long term dynasty upgrade without giving up anything in the moment. Personally I think it's close to collusion and ruins the competitive balance of the league.

What do you guys feel about it? Is this something I should nip in the bud rules wise before it becomes a problem or am I over reacting?

Collusion.

Cut & dry.

The only time I’ve seen assets go back and forth without incident is draft picks. Rental players should never be allowed.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

It would be a fine and potentially banishment from our league. That doesn’t fly with us

100% same.

 

[Gally]

Pointing out worse case scenarios and working backwards is the very best way to avoid unintended consequences of a rule change In my opinion.

This is the hardest part about creating rules and bylaws for a fantasy league.........especially if it is a complicated league. You can come up with rules and wording but since you are developing it sometimes you can't see the loopholes or issues that someone trying to circumvent the rules will come up with. There are many times that something would happen that would be against the intent of a rule or something just not though of that as a commish you have to make a ruling for the betterment of the league. Then you amend the bylaws to close that loophole (if necessary).

This is why it is nice to have a co-commish so you can bounce some ideas back and forth and hopefully cover 90% of the loopholes.