What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Player loans? (1 Viewer)

B

baronson

Footballguy
for example:

Team A has say, Chad Johnson on a bye this week, and really needs a win. Team B trades TO to team A for Chad Johnson and Todd Heap this week, with the understanding that next week, Team A will trade TO to Team B for Chad straight up, thus netting Team B Todd Heap for loaning TO to Team A for a week.

is this legal?

 
baronson said:
for example:Team A has say, Chad Johnson on a bye this week, and really needs a win. Team B trades TO to team A for Chad Johnson and Todd Heap this week, with the understanding that next week, Team A will trade TO to Team B for Chad straight up, thus netting Team B Todd Heap for loaning TO to Team A for a week.is this legal?
Click to expand...
hell no
 
baronson said:
for example:Team A has say, Chad Johnson on a bye this week, and really needs a win. Team B trades TO to team A for Chad Johnson and Todd Heap this week, with the understanding that next week, Team A will trade TO to Team B for Chad straight up, thus netting Team B Todd Heap for loaning TO to Team A for a week.is this legal?
Click to expand...
Depends on league rules, but IMO should NOT be legal. Pretty much textbook collusion.
 
baronson said:
for example:Team A has say, Chad Johnson on a bye this week, and really needs a win. Team B trades TO to team A for Chad Johnson and Todd Heap this week, with the understanding that next week, Team A will trade TO to Team B for Chad straight up, thus netting Team B Todd Heap for loaning TO to Team A for a week.is this legal?
Click to expand...
Whether it's legal depends on your league rules. I think it's weak and should not be allowed.
 
A new league I joined is even worse. They have official "loan trades" where I agree to trade you LaMont Jordan for Eli Manning if I need a RB to cover a bye and you need a QB.

The thing that kills me is, in this scenario, if LaMont Jordan tears his ACL and is out for the year, I'm STILL expected to trade you Manning back for Jordan. Total bush league. It's a league with friends, and I don't want to be a ####, but it really is a joke.

Mr. D

 
I am in a league that has 5 two team owners and 2 one team owners (I am one of the one team owners). For the longest time this was going on in this league. the owners with two teams would trade back and forth from one team to another to suit each others needs. When we blocked trades in between teams, the owners just found a mutual trading partner and used them each week to trade between their teams (middle man theory). When the dust finally settled we have instituted a rule that has cut down on any of these types of trades. Simply, if a player is traded and then plays in a game he must remain on that team for three weeks from the initial trade. If he does not play he may be traded at any time. Collusion is so hard to prove that it really is a waste of time, and often leads to hard feelings, so I have liked this rule because it is black and white.

 
humphrp said:
I am in a league that has 5 two team owners and 2 one team owners (I am one of the one team owners). For the longest time this was going on in this league. the owners with two teams would trade back and forth from one team to another to suit each others needs. When we blocked trades in between teams, the owners just found a mutual trading partner and used them each week to trade between their teams (middle man theory). When the dust finally settled we have instituted a rule that has cut down on any of these types of trades. Simply, if a player is traded and then plays in a game he must remain on that team for three weeks from the initial trade. If he does not play he may be traded at any time. Collusion is so hard to prove that it really is a waste of time, and often leads to hard feelings, so I have liked this rule because it is black and white.
Click to expand...
Agreed. That's the type of rule I instituted in the league I commish. As an aside, a league where most owners have more than one team? :confused: Mr. D
 
Mr. Deltoid said:
humphrp said:
I am in a league that has 5 two team owners and 2 one team owners (I am one of the one team owners). For the longest time this was going on in this league. the owners with two teams would trade back and forth from one team to another to suit each others needs. When we blocked trades in between teams, the owners just found a mutual trading partner and used them each week to trade between their teams (middle man theory). When the dust finally settled we have instituted a rule that has cut down on any of these types of trades. Simply, if a player is traded and then plays in a game he must remain on that team for three weeks from the initial trade. If he does not play he may be traded at any time. Collusion is so hard to prove that it really is a waste of time, and often leads to hard feelings, so I have liked this rule because it is black and white.
Click to expand...
Agreed. That's the type of rule I instituted in the league I commish. As an aside, a league where most owners have more than one team? :confused: Mr. D
Click to expand...
It's like pulling teeth to get them to pass a rule takes away an advantage that two team owners enjoy. History is that it is a family league where we all had two teams but then the family grew, and instead of not including someone I gave up a team. Since I have been a real proponant of expansion by two teams, but change is hard and not really sure how a 14 team league is going to work. It changes a lot of old division rivalries.Check out the site if you want. My brother is the web master. If there are any leagues that would like a website set up he is looking for clients. www.hfflsports.com
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'll stir the pot a little...

Definately something that will frustrate other owners, but is it cheating?

From a value perspective, the guy nets Todd Heap. Not a bad trade for him. So, it's not like he was colluding to cheat. It was not a wash trade. He got real value from the deal. The grey part is obviously that what he gave up was simply a player loan, which has value but is not something people like to see traded.

When I think of collusion or cheating, I think of unfair trades where two teams are basically looking to cram their rosters together, play as one team, and split the winnings. Not the case here.

I definately do not like stuff like this, but the best way to prevent it is have a rule disallowing player renting.

 
You need to add an addendum to the rules.

"Any player who is traded, cannot be traded back to

the original team for 30 (or 60) days."

This will solve the problem.

 
Ron_Mexico said:
You need to add an addendum to the rules."Any player who is traded, cannot be traded back tothe original team for 30 (or 60) days."This will solve the problem.
Click to expand...
We can't the same players back and forth for one month. I still almost did that kind of trade. If you don't like it change the rules.
 
TME said:
I'll stir the pot a little...Definately something that will frustrate other owners, but is it cheating?From a value perspective, the guy nets Todd Heap. Not a bad trade for him. So, it's not like he was colluding to cheat. It was not a wash trade. He got real value from the deal. The grey part is obviously that what he gave up was simply a player loan, which has value but is not something people like to see traded.When I think of collusion or cheating, I think of unfair trades where two teams are basically looking to cram their rosters together, play as one team, and split the winnings. Not the case here.I definately do not like stuff like this, but the best way to prevent it is have a rule disallowing player renting.
Click to expand...
thats kind of the way i'm looking at it. i hatched this plan a couple years ago, only my impetus was to aid the other team in beating one of my rivals, rather than to net the extra player (at the time, McCardell). i was told by the commish that it'd be ok to do it once, but that there would be a rule disallowing it written shortly thereafter. obviously, i opted not to do it. this was in a keeper league. and is closer to the situation i noted in the original post.now, someone is proposing that i trade him Chad Johnson for Julius Jones straight up, but since Chad is on bye this week, he wants me to give him someone like Doug Gabriel for this week to cover him, and he'll send him back to me this week. so in essence, we're eliminating the bye week deficiency. is THIS kosher, or is this also a latent form of collusion? my initial reaction is to say this is ok, but i'd rather not see this become the norm in an otherwise stand-up league among friends.peanut gallery?
 
Collusion

Our league rules specifically address issues like this. Here is how we word it in our 12-team league consitution:

The commissioner will be commissioned to act at all times in the best interests of the league and is vested with the following authorities:

· Interpret the rules as he or she sees just and fit, either to the letter or to the spirit.

· Settle all owner and league disputes.

· Distribute free agents through the free agent process.

· Approve all trades and transactions.

· Update and maintain the league website.

· Inform owners of important dates and events.

· Maintain the league treasury, which includes collecting fees and distributing payouts.

· Implement a voting process for proposed rule changes.

· Find new team ownership.

· Ensure the integrity and fairness of the league is maintained.

An owner may appeal a commissioner’s decision. When, and if, an owner notifies the commissioner that a decision is being appealed, the league will be notified, the positions will be stated, and a vote of the owners will be taken. At least 8 owners must submit a vote, and it will take a majority of votes to overturn a commissioner’s decision.

For those that are unfamiliar with the term, collusion is defined as "a secret agreement between two or more parties for a fraudulent, illegal, or deceitful purpose." Collusion will not be tolerated on this league. Some examples might include player swapping (ie trading a player to a another team so that you can cover a bye week, with the express agreement that the player will be traded back to you at a later date), selling players for cash outside the league, purposely submitting illegal rosters or purposely losing to a team during your weekly matchup, or a host of other scenarios.

In the past, I have seen instances where a team reaches the conclusion that they will not make the playoffs, so they think they will have a fire sale on their roster, selling off their star players to other teams for the best offer. I have also seen people purposely lose to another team so that the winning team will receive a higher playoff seed. In return, the losing team strikes a deal to get a percentage of the winning team’s playoff take. All of these types of actions reek of deceit, and are unworthy of our league. As commissioner, I expect everyone to conduct themselves and their teams with integrity, honesty, and the mutual respect that friends deserve. If collusion is suspected, it will likely be put to a league vote.
Click to expand...
The bolded part was agreed upon by the league and gives me the latitude to take care of matters that may fall into any gray areas without having to have a league vote.

 
baronson said:
now, someone is proposing that i trade him Chad Johnson for Julius Jones straight up, but since Chad is on bye this week, he wants me to give him someone like Doug Gabriel for this week to cover him, and he'll send him back to me this week. so in essence, we're eliminating the bye week deficiency. is THIS kosher, or is this also a latent form of collusion? my initial reaction is to say this is ok, but i'd rather not see this become the norm in an otherwise stand-up league among friends.
Click to expand...
Still 100% BS. It constitutes the two of you combining your rosters.
 
CalBear said:
baronson said:
now, someone is proposing that i trade him Chad Johnson for Julius Jones straight up, but since Chad is on bye this week, he wants me to give him someone like Doug Gabriel for this week to cover him, and he'll send him back to me this week. so in essence, we're eliminating the bye week deficiency. is THIS kosher, or is this also a latent form of collusion? my initial reaction is to say this is ok, but i'd rather not see this become the norm in an otherwise stand-up league among friends.
Click to expand...
Still 100% BS. It constitutes the two of you combining your rosters.
Click to expand...
fair enough. that's why i'm bringing it up here.
 
Straight-up collusion.

If your league allows it, you're playing in a hack league and you need to find a new one.

 
baronson said:
someone is proposing that i trade him Chad Johnson for Julius Jones straight up, but since Chad is on bye this week, he wants me to give him someone like Doug Gabriel for this week to cover him, and he'll send him back to me this week. so in essence, we're eliminating the bye week deficiency. is THIS kosher, or is this also a latent form of collusion? my initial reaction is to say this is ok, but i'd rather not see this become the norm in an otherwise stand-up league among friends.

peanut gallery?
Click to expand...
You can phrase that any way you want, but it is collusion and is cheating.
 
"Collusion" is by definition "a secret agreement, esp. for fraudulent or treacherous purposes; conspiracy". In this case, if the rules allow it and the full terms are disclosed, it is not collusion and is perfectly legal. Therefore, simply replying that this transaction is "collusion" or is "cheating" is obviously wrong. If the rules allow it and full disclosure is made, it is clearly neither collusive nor illegal.

The real question, as posed in the thread title, is whether it "should" be legal. I've never been in a league that allows this type of trade and can't really comment on all the ramifications, but I am, generally speaking, a fan of free markets, free trade and entrepreneurship. Therefore, unless someone can articulate a good reason why it would harm the league, I see no problem with it. Trades are a fun part of fantasy football and the more creative you can get, within reason, the more fun the league becomes.

 
CletiusMaximus said:
"Collusion" is by definition "a secret agreement, esp. for fraudulent or treacherous purposes; conspiracy". In this case, if the rules allow it and the full terms are disclosed, it is not collusion and is perfectly legal. Therefore, simply replying that this transaction is "collusion" or is "cheating" is obviously wrong. If the rules allow it and full disclosure is made, it is clearly neither collusive nor illegal.The real question, as posed in the thread title, is whether it "should" be legal. I've never been in a league that allows this type of trade and can't really comment on all the ramifications, but I am, generally speaking, a fan of free markets, free trade and entrepreneurship. Therefore, unless someone can articulate a good reason why it would harm the league, I see no problem with it. Trades are a fun part of fantasy football and the more creative you can get, within reason, the more fun the league becomes.
Click to expand...
:goodposting: As long as you tell people and there's no rule against it then it's legit. It will upset owners but I hope none of you manage your team based on what will make others smile.
 
No it should not be allowed. We have a rule that says players cannot be traded back to the team they were previously traded from. Period. No time window.

 
baronson said:
for example:Team A has say, Chad Johnson on a bye this week, and really needs a win. Team B trades TO to team A for Chad Johnson and Todd Heap this week, with the understanding that next week, Team A will trade TO to Team B for Chad straight up, thus netting Team B Todd Heap for loaning TO to Team A for a week.is this legal?
Click to expand...
Good grief. Please tell me this is some sort of fishing thread.....If you want to rent players, play with one of those salary cap gamesin the FFL mags. Do they even have those? :confused: I only get my info from FBG :thumbup:
 
CletiusMaximus said:
"Collusion" is by definition "a secret agreement, esp. for fraudulent or treacherous purposes; conspiracy". In this case, if the rules allow it and the full terms are disclosed, it is not collusion and is perfectly legal. Therefore, simply replying that this transaction is "collusion" or is "cheating" is obviously wrong. If the rules allow it and full disclosure is made, it is clearly neither collusive nor illegal.The real question, as posed in the thread title, is whether it "should" be legal. I've never been in a league that allows this type of trade and can't really comment on all the ramifications, but I am, generally speaking, a fan of free markets, free trade and entrepreneurship. Therefore, unless someone can articulate a good reason why it would harm the league, I see no problem with it. Trades are a fun part of fantasy football and the more creative you can get, within reason, the more fun the league becomes.
Click to expand...
To follow this up, I was in a league years ago where this very thing happenned. First sentence above, exactly what I remember the email reply being; that it wasn't secretive but instead sent to every owner. IIRC (it went that far) some site's definition of trade is an "exchange of goods". My advice-define the word trade as it pertains to the league: A trade may be a player, draft pick, contract $, etc for a draft pick, another player, contract $ etc....spell it out.I was fortunate enough that my commish at the time was a banker. The debate raged on into what a loan was vs what a trade was. Once it reached that point the original people were foolish enough to characterize it as a loan and not a trade, IE making it two different things. At that point, commish said (something like)there's no league rule allowing loans nor does the software allow for it so it's NG. The only way to create this circumstance is to manipulate the trade function of the website to make it work as a loan.Above Cletius correctly states there's probably no rule against loans but also there is likely no rule saying you can do loans. Got a waiver section? trade section? draft section? see those are ways of acquiring players, loans is not in there so it's not allowed.So my recommendation to you is to get them to characterize it as a loan then pounce on that as different than a trade.One more thing that is too funny that I remember was the commish carried on talking about interest on a player and what if the collateral(player mentioned) wasn't returned and really carried on. He's right there's no rules for that and those are the principles of a loan.
 
Can you trade a player to another owner on the condition he can't trade him away without letting you make a counter?

Can you put any conditions at all on trades?

 
The league that was mentioned above that specifically qualifies and allows loan trades has actually done a good job of specifiying what their rules are and should get a :thumbup:

Whether or not one likes with the rules is another matter. At elast the rule is clear.

 
2 or 3 years ago when McNabb started out real slow... i traded Favre for him w/ another owner (after week 2 i think) a few weeks later (say, after week 5) i had found a QB who was performing better then McNabb and i ended up trading McNabb back to this same team for D. Davis (i think i threw in Barlow and got Favre back too)

there was no collusion what so ever... but we still sort of traded players for only a couple weeks... but that wasn't the plan... just how it worked out that year

 
It's not collusion so long as something of value is being exchanged. Whether or not it is cheap is another matter.

In my league I've been "experimenting" with something similar. Let's say you've got Barber, and the other guy wants him. He has Alexander, you want Alexander, but Alexander > Barber (for the purposes of this discussion anyhow), and so it won't work. You've got to add value. So how do you do this? Usually, you'd just tack on more players and hope that works.

But why not, instead, screw with the timing? SA for Barber right now is unfair? What about Barber right now for SA in two weeks? Three weeks? Someone already mentioned entrepreneurship, and I agree with that line of thinking. Such a trade, in my eyes, is exactly like how a credit card operates; they give you a certain amount now, and in exchange you give them said amount + interest later (Barber now, for Barber + Interest=Alexander later). I've been hesitant to try it, but the ####### in me wants to because it's a chance to gain a huge competitive advantage in my league. Clearly you'd need the commissioner to police it, but after that what's the issue?

 
CletiusMaximus said:
"Collusion" is by definition "a secret agreement, esp. for fraudulent or treacherous purposes; conspiracy". In this case, if the rules allow it and the full terms are disclosed, it is not collusion and is perfectly legal. Therefore, simply replying that this transaction is "collusion" or is "cheating" is obviously wrong. If the rules allow it and full disclosure is made, it is clearly neither collusive nor illegal.The real question, as posed in the thread title, is whether it "should" be legal. I've never been in a league that allows this type of trade and can't really comment on all the ramifications, but I am, generally speaking, a fan of free markets, free trade and entrepreneurship. Therefore, unless someone can articulate a good reason why it would harm the league, I see no problem with it. Trades are a fun part of fantasy football and the more creative you can get, within reason, the more fun the league becomes.
Click to expand...
I agree that it is not really collusion since it is openly done. It is however unethical.
 
CletiusMaximus said:
"Collusion" is by definition "a secret agreement, esp. for fraudulent or treacherous purposes; conspiracy". In this case, if the rules allow it and the full terms are disclosed, it is not collusion and is perfectly legal. Therefore, simply replying that this transaction is "collusion" or is "cheating" is obviously wrong. If the rules allow it and full disclosure is made, it is clearly neither collusive nor illegal.The real question, as posed in the thread title, is whether it "should" be legal. I've never been in a league that allows this type of trade and can't really comment on all the ramifications, but I am, generally speaking, a fan of free markets, free trade and entrepreneurship. Therefore, unless someone can articulate a good reason why it would harm the league, I see no problem with it. Trades are a fun part of fantasy football and the more creative you can get, within reason, the more fun the league becomes.
Click to expand...
Happens on rare occasion in one of my leagues with friends. Since it has always been two good players who mutually fill someone's void (ie, Eli Manning for Marvin Harrison when one needs a QB and the other needs a WR) it hasn't been contested. If it got to the point where someone was like "take TO for my backup defense for the week so you can beat that guy", it would become a problem quickly. In any other league I might be upset it with it, but it seems to work OK for us.
 
AnonymousBob said:
babyeater said:
No it should not be allowed. We have a rule that says players cannot be traded back to the team they were previously traded from. Period. No time window.
Click to expand...
Well that's your league. If there isn't a rule against it why should it not be allowed?
Click to expand...
True, it's just my league, but the question was "is this legal?" without knowing his league rules, perhaps I should have responded "No it should not be allowed in my opinion, this should not be legal. By the way, my league has addressed this ... We have a rule that says players cannot be traded back to the team they were previously traded from. Period. No time window."Why it should not be allowed: Bye weeks are a part of the game that need to be considered when planning your bench - not by a last-minute "hey, help beat this guy this week and I'll give your guy right back to you." If you can't win on your own by making smart and ethical moves to better your team, you shouldn't win. And, if it isn't explicitly covered in their league rules, hopefully they have a commish that will shoot it down. A league that operates with a "well, there's no rule against it" attitude is a doomed league. Allowing moves like this makes it nearly unnecessary to pay attention to bye weeks - beyond, of course, finding a team that has a guy you can rent to cover your one-week need. It is possible to be competitive, strive to win every week, and protect the integrity of the league at the same time. Again, my opinion, for what it's worth.

 
AnonymousBob said:
babyeater said:
No it should not be allowed. We have a rule that says players cannot be traded back to the team they were previously traded from. Period. No time window.
Click to expand...
Well that's your league. If there isn't a rule against it why should it not be allowed?
Click to expand...
There's no rule against ####ing on your friend's living room carpet so that should be allowed? Common sense here and respect for the league. Plain and simple cheating as way you look at it.
 
baronson said:
TME said:
I'll stir the pot a little...Definately something that will frustrate other owners, but is it cheating?From a value perspective, the guy nets Todd Heap. Not a bad trade for him. So, it's not like he was colluding to cheat. It was not a wash trade. He got real value from the deal. The grey part is obviously that what he gave up was simply a player loan, which has value but is not something people like to see traded.When I think of collusion or cheating, I think of unfair trades where two teams are basically looking to cram their rosters together, play as one team, and split the winnings. Not the case here.I definately do not like stuff like this, but the best way to prevent it is have a rule disallowing player renting.
Click to expand...
thats kind of the way i'm looking at it. i hatched this plan a couple years ago, only my impetus was to aid the other team in beating one of my rivals, rather than to net the extra player (at the time, McCardell). i was told by the commish that it'd be ok to do it once, but that there would be a rule disallowing it written shortly thereafter. obviously, i opted not to do it. this was in a keeper league. and is closer to the situation i noted in the original post.now, someone is proposing that i trade him Chad Johnson for Julius Jones straight up, but since Chad is on bye this week, he wants me to give him someone like Doug Gabriel for this week to cover him, and he'll send him back to me this week. so in essence, we're eliminating the bye week deficiency. is THIS kosher, or is this also a latent form of collusion? my initial reaction is to say this is ok, but i'd rather not see this become the norm in an otherwise stand-up league among friends.peanut gallery?
Click to expand...
My feelings on the matter are that no trade should be allowed to include "future considerations". Basically, the second a trade is administered, it should be considered complete. It shouldn't hinge on future transactions or roster moves.The two big problems concerning trades involving future considerations are enforcement and competitive advantage. Let's say that I trade you Santana Moss in exchange for Kevin Jones with the understanding that we'll trade back after this weekend. Let's say that Santana Moss breaks his ankle and Kevin Jones goes off for 250 total yards and 3 scores. What's to prevent me, after this weekend, from refusing to trade back? There's really no way to enforce that trade. If you tell the commissioner that I went back on my end of the trade, what's to prevent me from telling the commissioner that you're just trying to back out of a trade after it's clear that you got hosed? And what if we DIDN'T make the trade with future considerations? What's to prevent the guy who gave up Jones from telling the commissioner that it WAS a player-renting situation and now the other owner isn't trading back? Future considerations create a big problem in terms of enforcement if one party or the other decides to change his or her mind.As far as competitive advantage goes, player renting hurts owners who are unpopular or good. If someone goes 16-0 every season, then you can bet your butt that everyone in the league is going to start "renting out" their best bench players to whoever that owner's opponent is every week. That's just human nature... you want to help David take out Goliath. Which is really unfair to Goliath, whose only sin was being good. Player renting *PUNISHES* owners for good roster construction, solid drafting, and canny free-agency moves. That seems like the LAST thing fantasy leagues would want to punish.In the end, I wouldn't classify it as "collusion", and if it's not outlawed, then it's not "cheating"... but I'd go and rectify that oversight ASAP. Trades with future considerations should be strongly discouraged.A note: future draft picks are not "future considerations". They're tradeable commodities, just like players.
 
cstu said:
AnonymousBob said:
babyeater said:
No it should not be allowed. We have a rule that says players cannot be traded back to the team they were previously traded from. Period. No time window.
Click to expand...
Well that's your league. If there isn't a rule against it why should it not be allowed?
Click to expand...
There's no rule against ####ing on your friend's living room carpet so that should be allowed? Common sense here and respect for the league. Plain and simple cheating as way you look at it.
Click to expand...
:goodposting: :lmao: I was thinking the same thing...IMHO, this league is doomed if your commissioner does not put a stop to this, and if he doesn't he is not worth the title.All this talk about the "definition" of collusion and "there is no rule against it" is ludicrous. I agree with one of the above posts that this is a hack league and the ability to win the league by colluision with another team whetehr it be for personal or monetary gain is possible. Time to find a new league.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
  • Poll Poll
Multi-season trade
Replies
8
Views
309
Hankmoody
Hankmoody
satch
Aiden O’Connell- Week 14 Savior
Replies
9
Views
347
satch
satch
BobbyLayne
**SNF Vikings at Lions** (-3, 56) 8:20
19 20 21
Replies
1K
Views
11K
Alex P Keaton
A

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top