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!

Should teams be allowed to trade this week and trade back next week? (1 Viewer)

kylechoffman

kylechoffman

Footballguy
Im an owner on the sidelines and a trade rang up today:

Team A gives C Cooley and M Furrey for Team B R Mcmichael and D Mason

10 team league, start 1qb, 2rb, 3wr, 1te

Team A Roster:

TE - Cooley, Dallas Clark

WR - D Branch, Burress, Furrey, S Holmes, V Jax, D Bennett

Team B Roster:

TE - Gates (bye), McMichael

WR - Chad J, K Curtis, D Mason, Crayton, Jennings, Evans, Chambers

From a pt perspective, Cooley is outscoring McDaddyo by about 7 pts a week, Mason outscoring furrey by 6 so kind of a wash there.

In my opinion, Team A had the upper hand and could have gotten more.

But should they be allowed to trade back next week? They publicly stated this was there plan.

I edited to say that this isnt a trade advice thread of request for help from the assistant coach, this is more league rules and what not so if this was plugged into the wrong forum, apologies in advance.

Thanks for the input

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have always thought that trading back was a form of collusion. I could be wrong on this one. But, I look at it as sharing rosters which is unfair to the other owners.

 
Our league just implemented a new rule this season where there is no tradebacks for a minimum of 6 weeks after a trade is made and I think thats a fair rule and it stops from any collusive type deals like the one that happened in your league.

 
Call it want it is -- a loan. I know of no reasonable leagues that allow teams to loan players to others. Such action is a negative to the group.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I know NO ONE cares. But, in a basketball keeper league, guys did a trade where someone gave up alot, and got back a little, but at the end of the season, he got jermaine o'neal and gilbert arenas. So, he loaned players for a helluva reward later.

 
when 2 teams trade aren't they always each trying to benefit?

if a trade benefits both teams is that collusion?

what if we assign numerical values to 3 players: a, b, and c.

each player is equal to a value of 5 points.

if week 1 a is traded for b, then week 2 b back for a, would it be different if c was substituted in there in week 2 for a or b?

also, what if it was more of a player renting than a loan?

instead of trading b back for a in week 2, he has to trade b + 2 points?

the other guy reaps a 2 point profit -- isn't that what all trades are about?

 
This should absolutely NOT be allowed, but there should be something in the rules that states this.

Its like borrowing each others' players.

 
It is effectively expanding the bench by 2 or 3 players for each team and are making roster decision jointly. the tradeback is collusion.

 
That trade is collusion.

Every league I am in or have been in has a rule against these types of trades.

Kind of curious what the Commish and the other owners in your league think. If they are OK with it, you need a new league ASAP! I would also get my money back if it's a cash league!

 
There is nothing wrong with reacquiring players, but when it is done to simply make it past a bye week I think that the commish needs to step in.

 
By definition it's most certainly not collusion.

That doesn't mean I support the concept. I think it's a bit outside the spirit of the game. If it were a league where it was common place, I wouldn't have a problem with it, though. It's just a game, afterall, and if everyone was doing it to cover byes/injuries it's really not that much different than a team that trades every week for different players to cover injuries/byes.

 
If each individual trade makes sense for both teams, it's fine. But there should be no prior agreement on a trade back. Favors, cash, or "future considerations" should not be part of fantasy football.

 
Jeff Tefertiller said:
I have always thought that trading back was a form of collusion. I could be wrong on this one. But, I look at it as sharing rosters which is unfair to the other owners.
Click to expand...
what he saidCollusion is the one reason I figure the commish can make a rule on the fly and that rule must be super super super extremely obvious so as to not upset the masses but so that they understand it's a "stop the bleeding" rule. It also should involve an "I probably will never do this again but I have to...." note to the league as well.I would tell the commish to tell both owners and give them a chance to undo that trade.Then explain to the league and insitute the rule.I can tell you from unfortunate experience that this starts as just trading 2 players and ends as trading 5 or 6 and gets ugly. Stop it now! is my adviceGregR here is phenomenal at writing rules. I'd PM him asking to make ya one ASAP then paypal him 5 bucks so you can buy him a beer tonight if he goes out.
 
kylechoffman said:
Im an owner on the sidelines and a trade rang up today:

Team A gives C Cooley and M Furrey for Team B R Mcmichael and D Mason

10 team league, start 1qb, 2rb, 3wr, 1te

Team A Roster:

TE - Cooley, Dallas Clark

WR - D Branch, Burress, Furrey, S Holmes, V Jax, D Bennett

Team B Roster:

TE - Gates (bye), McMichael

WR - Chad J, K Curtis, D Mason, Crayton, Jennings, Evans, Chambers

From a pt perspective, Cooley is outscoring McDaddyo by about 7 pts a week, Mason outscoring furrey by 6 so kind of a wash there.

In my opinion, Team A had the upper hand and could have gotten more.

But should they be allowed to trade back next week? They publicly stated this was there plan.

I edited to say that this isnt a trade advice thread of request for help from the assistant coach, this is more league rules and what not so if this was plugged into the wrong forum, apologies in advance.

Thanks for the input
Click to expand...
in my league, we have a 3-week rule: anyone you trade, can't be traded back to you, until 3 NFL weekends pass by..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The simple answer to the question is "NO." It shouldn't be allowed.

However, if you have no rule in place that forbids it, you really have no grounds to prevent it, especially if the actual players being traded are all of relative equal value at the time of both trades.

The following list has been posted here may times, and is part of the trade rules in the league I commish:

The following trades will be disallowed:

1. Any trade in which either party does not intend to improve his own team. If your trade is questioned, be prepared to explain why you think your team is improved.

2. Any trade involving cash or other considerations beyond the players named in the trade.

3. Any trade involving a pre-arranged agreement to trade additional players in the future.

4. Any trade involving the “trade-back” of a player from Team B to Team A after he had previously been traded from Team A to Team B.

I do agree with some of the previous posts that suggested placing a time limit on rule #4, rather than simply not allowing trade-backs at all. There are times when team situations change over the span of a few weeks and reacquiring a player is a sound idea. As long as it's not something that was preplanned when the player was traded away, I don't see a reason that it shouldn't be allowed under those circumstances.

 
We ran into this "trade then trade back" to cover a bye week situation a few years back. As commish, I allowed it because we had no rules against. But I advocated a change and we voted it through the next year - we have a three NFL week period during which a trader cannot reacquire a traded player. Seemed a good compromise.

Without such a rule, two buddies can effectively share rosters to the detriment of the other 10 owners.

 
eom said:
when 2 teams trade aren't they always each trying to benefit?if a trade benefits both teams is that collusion?what if we assign numerical values to 3 players: a, b, and c.each player is equal to a value of 5 points.if week 1 a is traded for b, then week 2 b back for a, would it be different if c was substituted in there in week 2 for a or b?also, what if it was more of a player renting than a loan?instead of trading b back for a in week 2, he has to trade b + 2 points?the other guy reaps a 2 point profit -- isn't that what all trades are about?
Click to expand...
If you gave every player a base value of 11, added in the remainder of the year they were drafted divided by 6, then add 1 for NFC team or 3 for AFC, then squared that number, then multiplied by zero - then, and only then, would you have a way to compare trades. Most, if not all, come out even. I have no idea what you're talking about... but two teams swapping players back and forth essentially expands their roster and is the definition of collusion.
 
First off, thanks to those of you in the pool for your feedback. Secondly, We dont have a rule in place so to be fair, I think this situation will need to be voted in by the whole league either immediately or next season. We had a rule last year that all trades are subject to a 48 hour veto by the owners so it could get overruled so if they try to trade back, everyone can overule them.

 
DropKick said:
eom said:
when 2 teams trade aren't they always each trying to benefit?if a trade benefits both teams is that collusion?what if we assign numerical values to 3 players: a, b, and c.each player is equal to a value of 5 points.if week 1 a is traded for b, then week 2 b back for a, would it be different if c was substituted in there in week 2 for a or b?also, what if it was more of a player renting than a loan?instead of trading b back for a in week 2, he has to trade b + 2 points?the other guy reaps a 2 point profit -- isn't that what all trades are about?
Click to expand...
If you gave every player a base value of 11, added in the remainder of the year they were drafted divided by 6, then add 1 for NFC team or 3 for AFC, then squared that number, then multiplied by zero - then, and only then, would you have a way to compare trades. Most, if not all, come out even. I have no idea what you're talking about...
Click to expand...
well, I'd simplify it further for you, but I don't think that's even possible.
 
this one's easy to fix

"you cannot trade for a player from an owner you previously traded said player to until 365 days have passed"

stops the colluding rentals

 
coolnerd said:
Grigs Allmoon said:
Bri said:
Grigs Allmoon said:
By definition it's most certainly not collusion.
Click to expand...
can you explain that?
Click to expand...
Collusion
Click to expand...
Applying a dictionary or legal definition to a fantasy football league is totally missing the point.
Click to expand...
You are just opening the door for two teams to combine rosters for a entire season. The two owners might not be intending to collude in this instance, but it just sets a bad precedent for your league. As a commish you should be doing what is best for the league, this is certainly not good for your league.
 
When it comes to a "loan" of this nature, I think the test is whether both teams benefit. I don't have a problem with the idea of a loan when the loan benefits both teams to the detriment of the rest of the league. I think that's proper just like a trade is proper.

I think a loan is proper in essentially two different scenarios:

1) Team A needs a WR due to byes while Team B needs a QB due to byes during the same week. As luck would have it, Team A has a surplus at QB while team B has a surplus at WR. If the players are equivalent, both teams are free to cancel the second trade at will, and it's clear both benefit, it's proper.

2) Team A needs a WR. Team B has one. Team A trades two future picks for the WR (say a 3rd and a 7th). Team B trades the 3rd rounder back for the WR. Again, as long as this appears to be in the realm of market value, both teams are free to cancel the second trade at will, and it's clear both benefit, it's proper.

What you should be looking for in every trade is a benefit to each team. You also need to make clear as commissioner that you will not enforce agreements to make future trades. If they enter into this sort of thing and one of the teams likes the deal they got, the other team is stuck with what it asked for in trade.

 
On top of what I said before, this is one of those things where I think your league rules must govern. If you are going to ban this, it needs to be specifically banned in the rules. If you haven't done that, I think you are stuck with whatever your rules say about trades. If each individual trade is proper on its own, you're stuck with allowing it and need to take changes to the league rules through the normal process.

 
Lash said:
this one's easy to fix"you cannot trade for a player from an owner you previously traded said player to until 365 days have passed"stops the colluding rentals
Click to expand...
I think that's a bit harsh. There was a time in the earlier part of this decade when another owner and I seemed to trade Owens (and something) for Harrison (and something) every single year. It was really fun for me because I always seemed to end up with Owens on his up years. I can see why you'd want to stop some certain sorts of rentals, but I think you cut out legitimate trades by making this period too long. I'd at minimum shorten it to 300 days to allow for legitimate preseason 1 to preseason 2 trades.
 
"Collusion shall be defined as a pre-meditated conspiracy by an owner or owners to gain an unfair advantage, which undermines the competitive quality of the league."

In our league...what you are talking about is called a "ricochet trade" and is forbidden...

Teams that have traded away a player can re-acquire that same player ONLY after a period of four weeks and ONLY after that same player has passed through the hands of at least one more team. That is...that player cannot come straight back to the original team after being traded away until AFTER he has been traded to a THIRD team first.

In 9 years...a player has never returned to the original team....the rule seems to work.

On the subject of collusion...here is an interesting article that appeared in FBG's years ago...

COLLUSION

 
Last edited by a moderator:
These loan trades are the only time that I agree with revoking trades. It is collusion but not to the degree that it requires expulsion from the league. I believe that owners that collude should usually be removed.

 
I think the fact that there are several intervening events (known as football games) render the talk of any trade back noncollusive in nature. As long as the teams are free to not trade back and there is therefore a risk borne by each team, it's not collusion. In the event two owners talk about this situation, make trade 1, and one of them backs out of trade 2, there also better not be any bellyaching about it.

 
Grigs Allmoon said:
coolnerd said:
Grigs Allmoon said:
Bri said:
Grigs Allmoon said:
By definition it's most certainly not collusion.
Click to expand...
can you explain that?
Click to expand...
Collusion
Click to expand...
Applying a dictionary or legal definition to a fantasy football league is totally missing the point.
Click to expand...
:thumbup: Are you serious?

Are you supposed to just make up new definitions for words in FF?
Click to expand...
How is agreeing to a tradeback not "a secret agreement" (which is the definition of collusion)? Unless the tradeback clause was stated publicly as part of the trade when the trade was made , it was a secret agreement.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am in the minority. It doesn't feel like collusion to me.

To me, the prototype for collusion is: Team A trades all its players to Team B for nothing, and then the owners of Team A and Team B split B's winnings at the end of the year. Both owners benefit, but it's at the expense of one team. And that throws the league out of kilter. With the trade-back case, if done right, that's not what happens, because both teams benefit. That's what makes it different. So I guess I'm with eom. Trades are designed to benefit both teams. This does that.

Some people, I can think of a particular guy in my league, who would LOVE to play in a league where this is standard MO. Don't like that two other teams are benefiting from a trade-back deal? Then quit crying about it and get in there and offer one of them a better deal. Announce it on the league message board: "I need a TE for week 7, will trade Ahman Green for the week." Want to re-nege on a tradeback deal? Go ahead, but then know that no one will ever deal with you again. I don't see anything morally wrong with any of this.

On the other hand, I'd prefer that my leagues NOT have this kind of culture. I'm just not hard core enough with the wheeling and dealing to find it all that interesting, so I'd prefer that all teams deal with byes without making a weekly stock market out of it. I ain't got time for that.

So, to me, this falls into the category of issues where the league just needs to decide what kind of league it wants to be. But IMO there is absolutely positively nothing wrong with either decision.

 
Doug Drinen said:
I am in the minority. It doesn't feel like collusion to me.

To me, the prototype for collusion is: Team A trades all its players to Team B for nothing, and then the owners of Team A and Team B split B's winnings at the end of the year. Both owners benefit, but it's at the expense of one team. And that throws the league out of kilter. With the trade-back case, if done right, that's not what happens, because both teams benefit. That's what makes it different. So I guess I'm with eom. Trades are designed to benefit both teams. This does that.

Some people, I can think of a particular guy in my league, who would LOVE to play in a league where this is standard MO. Don't like that two other teams are benefiting from a trade-back deal? Then quit crying about it and get in there and offer one of them a better deal. Announce it on the league message board: "I need a TE for week 7, will trade Ahman Green for the week." Want to re-nege on a tradeback deal? Go ahead, but then know that no one will ever deal with you again. I don't see anything morally wrong with any of this.

On the other hand, I'd prefer that my leagues NOT have this kind of culture. I'm just not hard core enough with the wheeling and dealing to find it all that interesting, so I'd prefer that all teams deal with byes without making a weekly stock market out of it. I ain't got time for that.

So, to me, this falls into the category of issues where the league just needs to decide what kind of league it wants to be. But IMO there is absolutely positively nothing wrong with either decision.
Click to expand...
:excited:
 
Grigs Allmoon said:
Doug Drinen said:
I am in the minority. It doesn't feel like collusion to me.

To me, the prototype for collusion is: Team A trades all its players to Team B for nothing, and then the owners of Team A and Team B split B's winnings at the end of the year. Both owners benefit, but it's at the expense of one team. And that throws the league out of kilter. With the trade-back case, if done right, that's not what happens, because both teams benefit. That's what makes it different. So I guess I'm with eom. Trades are designed to benefit both teams. This does that.

Some people, I can think of a particular guy in my league, who would LOVE to play in a league where this is standard MO. Don't like that two other teams are benefiting from a trade-back deal? Then quit crying about it and get in there and offer one of them a better deal. Announce it on the league message board: "I need a TE for week 7, will trade Ahman Green for the week." Want to re-nege on a tradeback deal? Go ahead, but then know that no one will ever deal with you again. I don't see anything morally wrong with any of this.

On the other hand, I'd prefer that my leagues NOT have this kind of culture. I'm just not hard core enough with the wheeling and dealing to find it all that interesting, so I'd prefer that all teams deal with byes without making a weekly stock market out of it. I ain't got time for that.

So, to me, this falls into the category of issues where the league just needs to decide what kind of league it wants to be. But IMO there is absolutely positively nothing wrong with either decision.
Click to expand...
:confused:
Click to expand...
Yeah..sure...this happens ALL the time in the NFL..."Hey...Denver...You guys aren't using Simeone Rice this week and we need him to help out until Javon feels better. How 'bout we trade for a week? What could it hurt? We're in a different division and you DO want us to beat KC...don't you? Don't sweat it....We'll trade back right after this game....bueno?

Happens all the time....

 
eom said:
when 2 teams trade aren't they always each trying to benefit?if a trade benefits both teams is that collusion?
Click to expand...
Because when 2 teams pull off a trade and agree to trade back later...it isn't always in the best interest of BOTH teams.Just who will decide that the trade benefits BOTH teams when in reality, it is nothing more than a trade to benefit a buddy who needs to fill a hole during a bye week? Why open that can of worms?Ricochet trades are collusion....no doubt.
 
Roster sharing is collusion, no matter how much gray area people try to establish. It's bull#### and can ruin a league.

 
As a commish in 2 $$ leagues one is 300, one is 100, this is an easy question. The 1st trade is allowed. The trade back is not, since this is collusion (sharing of rosters). In the leagues I run, you cannot obtain a player you have traded away until 4 weeks have passed.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Ministry of Pain
Matchups to Love - Week 6
Replies
10
Views
1K
Ministry of Pain
Ministry of Pain
Ministry of Pain
It felt good on Draft Night but now you have to actually start'em...Who Should I Start Thread "OFFICIALLY UNOFFICIAL"
3 4 5
Replies
206
Views
8K
Hot Sauce Guy
Hot Sauce Guy
Ministry of Pain
NFL Standings End of Week 18, Crystal Ball/Tea Leaves
Replies
5
Views
904
Ministry of Pain
Ministry of Pain

Users who are viewing this thread

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