Trade backs (1 Viewer)

[JimOtto#2]

I am in a friends league where I am not the commish. Teams A and B trade S. Jackson and Larry Donnell. Then 2 weeks later Larry Donnell is traded back to his original team for Heath Miller.

In this example, which is what actually happened it may seem like no big deal.

However, IN PRINCIPAL, it seems like a bad idea for teams to "share" players. As it is something, that could be exploited to get around bye week issues and whatnot.

What say ye?

 

[discountdoublecheck]

Somebody has to own the player during the bye week. So not much advantage can be gained.

 

[Tool]

should be disallowed. our league does not allow any type of trade backs during the season. maybe there's a technical argument for allowing but not in the spirit of the game IMO.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

Well, I am not against trade backs because you may trade a player early in the season and then want him back later based on performance. I guess I am against tradebacks that are agreed to before the original trade because that smacks of collusion - but is there any difference if I trade a player to one team, that team trades him to another team, and I trade with that other team to get him back? End result he is back on my team, just as if I had done a trade back with the original team. All you are asking for is to create a broader net of collusion.

 

[Godsbrother]

In our league you must wait 4 weeks before you can reacquire a player by trade

 

[bostonfred]

That trade should be illegal, because it amounts to "I will give you heath Miller for Steven Jackson and the right to start Donnell during my bye". That's roster sharing, and it is illegal because it allows two teams to hold a smaller number of players to cover their collective bye weeks than two teams that did not have such an agreement.

However, I generally oppose rules that prevent trade backs altogether. I would be fine with a team that had traded Donnell away reacquiring him later, in a multiplayer deal, and not just after a bye week. I don't like zero tolerance policies that restrict trading, because trading is one of the very few fun things in the game (drafting, waivers and lineup setting) and one of the very few ways that a skilled owner can exert their advantage.

That's just my preference, though. A lot of commissioners will prefer the strict no trade backs rule because it's easier to enforce. Regardless, the trade you posted should be illegal.

 

[habsfan]

should be disallowed. our league does not allow any type of trade backs during the season. maybe there's a technical argument for allowing but not in the spirit of the game IMO.

This seems kinda arbitrary to me, as though your rule would rather throw the baby out with the bath water than actually assess potential collusion. Player value can change significantly, sometimes week to week as can overall circumstances.

A scenario where two teams are trading to juggle byes and/or "renting space" on someone else's roster should be pretty blatant. Aside from those situations, what's at issue is not that a player might be re-acquired but whether or not the second trade was constructed independently of the first.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

In our league you must wait 4 weeks before you can reacquire a player by trade

1 year.

 

[Leonidas]

Too much babysitting of other people's rosters/moves (completely disallowing "trade backs", auto-loss for an empty spot or a player on bye, veto'ing 'unfair' trades, etc) in this hobby

 

[Warhogs]

In our league you must wait 4 weeks before you can reacquire a player by trade

I like this. We used to have a 2 week rule to prevent sharing of players but this seems like an appropriate amount of time. I would say a rule similar to this would be the way to go. Your league may want to adjust how many weeks as they see fit.

 

[FUBAR]

Evaluate each trade on its own merits.

If you have one of the rules mentioned above prohibiting reacquiring a player within a timeframe, is the commish able to be vigilant? If not, you're running the risk of people violating the rule (even if accidentally) without getting caught while enforcing against others.

Just as an example, I'm in a league where you can't reacquire the same player you had earlier in the year. I had taken Avery Williamson as a flier earlier but dropped him in week 2 (IIRC), picked him back off waivers in week 6, didn't even realize I had him before (I'm in a lot of leagues) and an owner caught it a few days later, presumably when he wanted to pick up Williamson but noticed I had him. Not a problem to drop him, but that was an accidental violation which would not have been caught without another team seeing it. I have no idea how many other times this rule has been violated, and frankly I don't care.

 

[Jack White]

In our league you must wait 4 weeks before you can reacquire a player by trade

Each to his own, but that's a bad rule.

A month is an eternity in a dynamic sport that changes weekly, even daily.

 

[Pipes]

In our league you must wait 4 weeks before you can reacquire a player by trade

Each to his own, but that's a bad rule.

A month is an eternity in a dynamic sport that changes weekly, even daily.

Disagree...seems like a reasonable time period. Anything else it seems team A is just loaning team B for a game or 2 which should not be allowed.

 

[FUBAR]

In our league you must wait 4 weeks before you can reacquire a player by trade

Each to his own, but that's a bad rule.

A month is an eternity in a dynamic sport that changes weekly, even daily.

Disagree...seems like a reasonable time period. Anything else it seems team A is just loaning team B for a game or 2 which should not be allowed.

trade only or waivers too?

if trade only, I'd be more accepting of the rule

 

[Jack White]

In our league you must wait 4 weeks before you can reacquire a player by trade

Each to his own, but that's a bad rule.

A month is an eternity in a dynamic sport that changes weekly, even daily.

Disagree...seems like a reasonable time period. Anything else it seems team A is just loaning team B for a game or 2 which should not be allowed.

If you're that concerned that two owners are going collude on a shady trade that takes a month to execute, find another league.

 

[ImTheScientist]

simple solution to your problems would be to not allow trades.

 

[Adam Harstad]

In our league you must wait 4 weeks before you can reacquire a player by trade

I like this. We used to have a 2 week rule to prevent sharing of players but this seems like an appropriate amount of time. I would say a rule similar to this would be the way to go. Your league may want to adjust how many weeks as they see fit.

I think rules like this are more likely to hurt than to help.

I'm reminded of a preschool that had a problem with parents always showing up late to pick up their kids. Their solution was to charge a $5 fine every time a parent was late. You know what happened? The number of parents who were late picking up their kids *INCREASED DRAMATICALLY*.

It seems crazy, but it's a repeatable result. The problem is when you create an explicit rule, you are explicitly condoning anything that falls outside of that particular rule. So, for instance, when there was no fine for showing up late, parents thought "I'm not supposed to show up late". And once a fine was instituted, parents thought "showing up late is 100% acceptable as long as you pay $5". In the first instance, a parent might think "man, I really want to show up late... but I'm not supposed to". In the second instance, a parent might think "man, I really want to show up late, and I don't care about $5 so I'll just pay it."

If you put in a "no trade-backs within 2 weeks" rule, you are explicitly saying "trade-backs are 100% completely and perfectly acceptable after 3 weeks". This explicitly condones player renting over long enough timelines. You see it a lot in leagues with very long, detailed, explicit rulebooks, too- if everything is explicitly disallowed, then anything that is not explicitly disallowed is implicitly allowed. On the other hand, I like to use a broad catch-all "sportsmanship" rule. It doesn't explicitly disallow as much, but it also doesn't encourage the rules lawyers looking to work the system.

I think it'd be better to have a vague "no trades involving future considerations" rule. In other words, a condition of a current trade cannot be "I will give you something else at a later date". It doesn't explicitly address player renting, but player renting gets caught up in the things it disallows.

On the other hand, "innocent trade-backs", where a guy just changes his mind on a player, are still allowed. Which is good, because owners should be allowed to change their minds.

 

[Adam Harstad]

On the topic of "trade-backs"... I have a dynasty league where three owners are far more active in trading than everyone else. We swap players back and forth a lot. I drafted Demaryius Thomas, then traded him to Jeff, who traded him to Randall, who traded him back to me, and then I traded him back to Jeff again. I traded Miles Austin to Randall before his breakout, then bought him back afterwards. I believe Brandon Marshall has made a couple of there-and-backs over the years. Typically these trade-backs aren't very close together (the Demaryius trades were over the course of four years), but if they had been, it wouldn't have been any different. People change their minds, and that's fine. There's nothing nefarious about it.

Player renting should be discouraged, but there are better ways to go about it.

 

[Godsbrother]

In our league you must wait 4 weeks before you can reacquire a player by trade

Each to his own, but that's a bad rule.

A month is an eternity in a dynamic sport that changes weekly, even daily.

Disagree...seems like a reasonable time period. Anything else it seems team A is just loaning team B for a game or 2 which should not be allowed.

trade only or waivers too?

if trade only, I'd be more accepting of the rule

Trade only. You can add/drop guys on the WW at will.

The purpose of the rule is to prevent teams from loaning players to another team. It does that pretty well.

 

[thriftyrocker]

In our league you must wait 4 weeks before you can reacquire a player by trade

I like this. We used to have a 2 week rule to prevent sharing of players but this seems like an appropriate amount of time. I would say a rule similar to this would be the way to go. Your league may want to adjust how many weeks as they see fit.

I think rules like this are more likely to hurt than to help.

I'm reminded of a preschool that had a problem with parents always showing up late to pick up their kids. Their solution was to charge a $5 fine every time a parent was late. You know what happened? The number of parents who were late picking up their kids *INCREASED DRAMATICALLY*.

It seems crazy, but it's a repeatable result. The problem is when you create an explicit rule, you are explicitly condoning anything that falls outside of that particular rule. So, for instance, when there was no fine for showing up late, parents thought "I'm not supposed to show up late". And once a fine was instituted, parents thought "showing up late is 100% acceptable as long as you pay $5". In the first instance, a parent might think "man, I really want to show up late... but I'm not supposed to". In the second instance, a parent might think "man, I really want to show up late, and I don't care about $5 so I'll just pay it."

If you put in a "no trade-backs within 2 weeks" rule, you are explicitly saying "trade-backs are 100% completely and perfectly acceptable after 3 weeks". This explicitly condones player renting over long enough timelines. You see it a lot in leagues with very long, detailed, explicit rulebooks, too- if everything is explicitly disallowed, then anything that is not explicitly disallowed is implicitly allowed. On the other hand, I like to use a broad catch-all "sportsmanship" rule. It doesn't explicitly disallow as much, but it also doesn't encourage the rules lawyers looking to work the system.

I think it'd be better to have a vague "no trades involving future considerations" rule. In other words, a condition of a current trade cannot be "I will give you something else at a later date". It doesn't explicitly address player renting, but player renting gets caught up in the things it disallows.

On the other hand, "innocent trade-backs", where a guy just changes his mind on a player, are still allowed. Which is good, because owners should be allowed to change their minds.

More like $5/min. We're talking 1-900 line rates. I am gonna snow plow cars out of the way before I risk getting charged $50 for 10 min.

 

[cliffhuxtible]

I've actually been a part of trades like this before, and have seen a few others go down over the years, but I only play in keeper leagues. I could theoretically see issues with these deals in redraft, but in keeper leagues, I don't really see the problem. To be clear, the trade-back portion of the trade is never binding. So if two teams make a gentleman's agreement to trade back at a future date, they can do that, but it's not a part of the official trade. In turn, there is no recourse for an owner who changes their mind and opts not to honor the trade-back.

 

[th3f00l]

I had a similar situation that I vetoed as a commish where Andy Dalton was traded for James Jones. The trade seemed legit, both teams needed a player to cover bye weeks. The very next week they tried to trade the players back and I had to veto. This was a clear example of roster-sharing, which is a form of collusion. Both owners were upset. I eventually allowed the trade back after a grace period of a few weeks. If the two players tried something like that again I would not allow the trade back at all and not invite them back to the league. In your example it doesn't seem too suspect, because different players are involved and Donnell stayed on his team for multiple weeks. Unless you get an owner to admit that they were loaning Donnell to the other team it is hard to claim collusion.

 

[Nugget]

Tough call. I traded for Kaep for Rodgers bye week. Other owner had Foles and RG3 as well. Now he has no one this week and i was trying to move Kaep for a TE. Didn't think of it as a trade back, situation just changed for him due to injury.

 

[Avery]

It depends on your league.

Some leagues need every situation accounted for with hard and fast rules while some leagues are more comfortable working on a cse by case basis.

If the "trade back" was agreed to before the first trade happened, that in my book is collusion. If each trade was made individually and agreed to simple on its own merits, its fine.

As some have said, it's easier to outlaw by rule such trades with a period time a player must be kept before trading back, because intent is hard to prove.

 

[Hu-Tang Clan]

Evaluate each trade on its own merits.

If you have one of the rules mentioned above prohibiting reacquiring a player within a timeframe, is the commish able to be vigilant? If not, you're running the risk of people violating the rule (even if accidentally) without getting caught while enforcing against others.

Just as an example, I'm in a league where you can't reacquire the same player you had earlier in the year. I had taken Avery Williamson as a flier earlier but dropped him in week 2 (IIRC), picked him back off waivers in week 6, didn't even realize I had him before (I'm in a lot of leagues) and an owner caught it a few days later, presumably when he wanted to pick up Williamson but noticed I had him. Not a problem to drop him, but that was an accidental violation which would not have been caught without another team seeing it. I have no idea how many other times this rule has been violated, and frankly I don't care.

Why is there a rule where you can't acquire a player through free agency? I'm not saying it's wrong of course, but what's the reasoning?

 

[JohnnyU]

simple solution to your problems would be to not allow trades.

I rank that right up there with having to eat my spinach.

 

[blake]

Evaluate each trade on its own merits.

If you have one of the rules mentioned above prohibiting reacquiring a player within a timeframe, is the commish able to be vigilant? If not, you're running the risk of people violating the rule (even if accidentally) without getting caught while enforcing against others.

Just as an example, I'm in a league where you can't reacquire the same player you had earlier in the year. I had taken Avery Williamson as a flier earlier but dropped him in week 2 (IIRC), picked him back off waivers in week 6, didn't even realize I had him before (I'm in a lot of leagues) and an owner caught it a few days later, presumably when he wanted to pick up Williamson but noticed I had him. Not a problem to drop him, but that was an accidental violation which would not have been caught without another team seeing it. I have no idea how many other times this rule has been violated, and frankly I don't care.

Why is there a rule where you can't acquire a player through free agency? I'm not saying it's wrong of course, but what's the reasoning?

I'm curious about this too as I'm always curious about how other leagues handle all sorts of rules.

 

[FUBAR]

Evaluate each trade on its own merits.

If you have one of the rules mentioned above prohibiting reacquiring a player within a timeframe, is the commish able to be vigilant? If not, you're running the risk of people violating the rule (even if accidentally) without getting caught while enforcing against others.

Just as an example, I'm in a league where you can't reacquire the same player you had earlier in the year. I had taken Avery Williamson as a flier earlier but dropped him in week 2 (IIRC), picked him back off waivers in week 6, didn't even realize I had him before (I'm in a lot of leagues) and an owner caught it a few days later, presumably when he wanted to pick up Williamson but noticed I had him. Not a problem to drop him, but that was an accidental violation which would not have been caught without another team seeing it. I have no idea how many other times this rule has been violated, and frankly I don't care.

Why is there a rule where you can't acquire a player through free agency? I'm not saying it's wrong of course, but what's the reasoning?

I'm curious about this too as I'm always curious about how other leagues handle all sorts of rules.

new league, commish had the rule in place and I either didn't think anything of it or missed it when joining.

The rule is #1 on my list of things to try to change this off-season.

 

[FUBAR]

In our league you must wait 4 weeks before you can reacquire a player by trade

I like this. We used to have a 2 week rule to prevent sharing of players but this seems like an appropriate amount of time. I would say a rule similar to this would be the way to go. Your league may want to adjust how many weeks as they see fit.

I think rules like this are more likely to hurt than to help.

I'm reminded of a preschool that had a problem with parents always showing up late to pick up their kids. Their solution was to charge a $5 fine every time a parent was late. You know what happened? The number of parents who were late picking up their kids *INCREASED DRAMATICALLY*.

It seems crazy, but it's a repeatable result. The problem is when you create an explicit rule, you are explicitly condoning anything that falls outside of that particular rule. So, for instance, when there was no fine for showing up late, parents thought "I'm not supposed to show up late". And once a fine was instituted, parents thought "showing up late is 100% acceptable as long as you pay $5". In the first instance, a parent might think "man, I really want to show up late... but I'm not supposed to". In the second instance, a parent might think "man, I really want to show up late, and I don't care about $5 so I'll just pay it."

If you put in a "no trade-backs within 2 weeks" rule, you are explicitly saying "trade-backs are 100% completely and perfectly acceptable after 3 weeks". This explicitly condones player renting over long enough timelines. You see it a lot in leagues with very long, detailed, explicit rulebooks, too- if everything is explicitly disallowed, then anything that is not explicitly disallowed is implicitly allowed. On the other hand, I like to use a broad catch-all "sportsmanship" rule. It doesn't explicitly disallow as much, but it also doesn't encourage the rules lawyers looking to work the system.

I think it'd be better to have a vague "no trades involving future considerations" rule. In other words, a condition of a current trade cannot be "I will give you something else at a later date". It doesn't explicitly address player renting, but player renting gets caught up in the things it disallows.

On the other hand, "innocent trade-backs", where a guy just changes his mind on a player, are still allowed. Which is good, because owners should be allowed to change their minds.

Hi Malcolm.

 

[belljr]

In our league you must wait 4 weeks before you can reacquire a player by trade

this

 

[Adam Harstad]

Hi Malcolm.

Levitt, actually.

 

[solorca]

should be disallowed. our league does not allow any type of trade backs during the season. maybe there's a technical argument for allowing but not in the spirit of the game IMO.

That completely arbitrary and a terrible rule.

Earlier in the season, I traded for Greg Olsen because I needed TE help and my trade partner had Kelce/Clay as well, which he was happy with. Kelce started to slow down a bit and my opponent wanted someone who was a bit more reliable, so we worked out a deal where I gave Olsen back, since I was happy with what I was getting from Dwayne Allen.

This was a "trade back", but it made completely perfect sense. Based on your rule, it wouldn't be allowed, even though it was a benefit to both of us.

 

[Pipes]

In our league you must wait 4 weeks before you can reacquire a player by trade

Each to his own, but that's a bad rule.

A month is an eternity in a dynamic sport that changes weekly, even daily.

Disagree...seems like a reasonable time period. Anything else it seems team A is just loaning team B for a game or 2 which should not be allowed.

If you're that concerned that two owners are going collude on a shady trade that takes a month to execute, find another league.

It doesn't take a month to execute that's the point of a waiting period. I'm not saying 4 weeks is the proper time but I believe it needs to be something otherwise loans between teams can easily happen. It's never been an issue for the leagues I'm in but so many people are in online leagues with people they don't know very well so I think some sort of waiting period to reacquire a player is a good idea.

 

[Tool]

should be disallowed. our league does not allow any type of trade backs during the season. maybe there's a technical argument for allowing but not in the spirit of the game IMO.

That completely arbitrary and a terrible rule.

Earlier in the season, I traded for Greg Olsen because I needed TE help and my trade partner had Kelce/Clay as well, which he was happy with. Kelce started to slow down a bit and my opponent wanted someone who was a bit more reliable, so we worked out a deal where I gave Olsen back, since I was happy with what I was getting from Dwayne Allen.

This was a "trade back", but it made completely perfect sense. Based on your rule, it wouldn't be allowed, even though it was a benefit to both of us.

Easier to just set the rule rather than deal w/ hearing arguments on a case by case basis. Don't have the time for that.

 

[Ilov80s]

A few years ago we had 2 guys try the loan thing. We let it go since we had no rules against it. However, for next year. We ruled that once you trade away a player, you can't trade for him back from the same team.

 

[Jack White]

should be disallowed. our league does not allow any type of trade backs during the season. maybe there's a technical argument for allowing but not in the spirit of the game IMO.

That completely arbitrary and a terrible rule.

Earlier in the season, I traded for Greg Olsen because I needed TE help and my trade partner had Kelce/Clay as well, which he was happy with. Kelce started to slow down a bit and my opponent wanted someone who was a bit more reliable, so we worked out a deal where I gave Olsen back, since I was happy with what I was getting from Dwayne Allen.

This was a "trade back", but it made completely perfect sense. Based on your rule, it wouldn't be allowed, even though it was a benefit to both of us.

Exactly. Circumstances can change quickly in this game. I can see not allowing guys to reverse a trade the following week. But anything beyond that is fine.

 

[LawFitz]

Borrow trading is lame.

Perma-bans on trade backs are even more lame.

The best solution in my experience is a 3-4 week window after the first trade, in which trade backs aren't allowed. Eliminates the vast majority of true borrow trades, yet also doesn't restrict the vast majority of honest, non-borrow trade backs.

 

[Jack White]

A few years ago we had 2 guys try the loan thing. We let it go since we had no rules against it. However, for next year. We ruled that once you trade away a player, you can't trade for him back from the same team.

Bad rule. See the Greg Olsen example in this thread for why.

For crying out loud let guys manage their rosters as they see fit.

If you don't trust guys in your league to do so with honor and integrity, kick them out or leave the league yourself.

 

[Ilov80s]

A few years ago we had 2 guys try the loan thing. We let it go since we had no rules against it. However, for next year. We ruled that once you trade away a player, you can't trade for him back from the same team.

Bad rule. See the Greg Olsen example in this thread for why.

For crying out loud let guys manage their rosters as they see fit.

If you don't trust guys in your league to do so with honor and integrity, kick them out or leave the league yourself.

We are letting the league manage the league. It was voted in by the significant majority of owners as a rule. You traded away Olson, now you wish you had him back. Too bad. It's fair to all teams and isn't all that restrictive.

 

[Jack White]

A few years ago we had 2 guys try the loan thing. We let it go since we had no rules against it. However, for next year. We ruled that once you trade away a player, you can't trade for him back from the same team.

Bad rule. See the Greg Olsen example in this thread for why.

For crying out loud let guys manage their rosters as they see fit.

If you don't trust guys in your league to do so with honor and integrity, kick them out or leave the league yourself.

We are letting the league manage the league. It was voted in by the significant majority of owners as a rule. You traded away Olson, now you wish you had him back. Too bad. It's fair to all teams and isn't all that restrictive.

If it's a rule that was voted on and passed, that's fine.

My point is that such a rule shouldn't be necessary, nor is it positive in nature.

I can come up with any number of scenarios where a single player could be traded back to his original team in under a month, and it wouldn't be the result of collusion. It could be the result of bye weeks, injuries, etc. Hence, having a such a rule is dumb.

 

[eric rymer]

In our league you must wait 4 weeks before you can reacquire a player by trade

We do pretty much the same thing but it is 3 weeks.

I've done it in the past. Friend had 3 good RB's with a good one coming off our IR. I took one of the RB's while he figured out what he had. I needed a RB anyway so it helped me. When we did the trade back I got a mid round pick in return. I agree that sharing players to help someone beat another team is not good for the league. I think it's case by case though.

 

[weebs]

Idk if this helps but when i use to trade pokemon cards in elementary I always made sure to say no trade backs.

 

[Dizzy]

should be disallowed. our league does not allow any type of trade backs during the season. maybe there's a technical argument for allowing but not in the spirit of the game IMO.

We do the same (FWIW). Once you trade a player away, he cannot under any circumstances return to your roster.

Trade-backs invite collusion. Easy way to snip that is to simply disallow them.

 

[FUBAR]

Idk if this helps but when i use to trade pokemon cards in elementary I always made sure to say no trade backs.

Garbage pail kids for us.

 

[MIMN]

should be disallowed. our league does not allow any type of trade backs during the season. maybe there's a technical argument for allowing but not in the spirit of the game IMO.

We do the same (FWIW). Once you trade a player away, he cannot under any circumstances return to your roster.

Trade-backs invite collusion. Easy way to snip that is to simply disallow them.

Interesting. If you drop the player can you reaquire later? This seems like a pretty dramatic rule and, to me, says that there has been issues with collusion in the past and that owners are not trust-worthy. I don't think I would want to be in a league that I don't trust. Of course, I play in leagues where the owner know each other and not public leagues for money. This kind of rule might make sense in a public $ league.

 

[Jack White]

should be disallowed. our league does not allow any type of trade backs during the season. maybe there's a technical argument for allowing but not in the spirit of the game IMO.

We do the same (FWIW). Once you trade a player away, he cannot under any circumstances return to your roster.

Trade-backs invite collusion. Easy way to snip that is to simply disallow them.

I'm sorry, but that is ludicrous.

If you're that worried about collusion, play in a different league.

 

[Godsbrother]

In our league you must wait 4 weeks before you can reacquire a player by trade

I like this. We used to have a 2 week rule to prevent sharing of players but this seems like an appropriate amount of time. I would say a rule similar to this would be the way to go. Your league may want to adjust how many weeks as they see fit.

I think rules like this are more likely to hurt than to help.

I'm reminded of a preschool that had a problem with parents always showing up late to pick up their kids. Their solution was to charge a $5 fine every time a parent was late. You know what happened? The number of parents who were late picking up their kids *INCREASED DRAMATICALLY*.

It seems crazy, but it's a repeatable result. The problem is when you create an explicit rule, you are explicitly condoning anything that falls outside of that particular rule. So, for instance, when there was no fine for showing up late, parents thought "I'm not supposed to show up late". And once a fine was instituted, parents thought "showing up late is 100% acceptable as long as you pay $5". In the first instance, a parent might think "man, I really want to show up late... but I'm not supposed to". In the second instance, a parent might think "man, I really want to show up late, and I don't care about $5 so I'll just pay it."

If you put in a "no trade-backs within 2 weeks" rule, you are explicitly saying "trade-backs are 100% completely and perfectly acceptable after 3 weeks". This explicitly condones player renting over long enough timelines. You see it a lot in leagues with very long, detailed, explicit rulebooks, too- if everything is explicitly disallowed, then anything that is not explicitly disallowed is implicitly allowed. On the other hand, I like to use a broad catch-all "sportsmanship" rule. It doesn't explicitly disallow as much, but it also doesn't encourage the rules lawyers looking to work the system.

I think it'd be better to have a vague "no trades involving future considerations" rule. In other words, a condition of a current trade cannot be "I will give you something else at a later date". It doesn't explicitly address player renting, but player renting gets caught up in the things it disallows.

On the other hand, "innocent trade-backs", where a guy just changes his mind on a player, are still allowed. Which is good, because owners should be allowed to change their minds.

If a team trades a player and then gets them back more than a month later then I really don't consider that a big deal cause a hell of a lot can happen and situations change.

In our league's 19 year history I think we had one occasion where this even happened. The only reason we have the rule is to prevent teams from lending players for a week or two and this rule does that.

 

[Dizzy]

should be disallowed. our league does not allow any type of trade backs during the season. maybe there's a technical argument for allowing but not in the spirit of the game IMO.

We do the same (FWIW). Once you trade a player away, he cannot under any circumstances return to your roster.

Trade-backs invite collusion. Easy way to snip that is to simply disallow them.

I'm sorry, but that is ludicrous.

If you're that worried about collusion, play in a different league.

Not worried at all about collusion. Never worried about it. Same guys playing under it for 22 season now. In fact nobody has ever really questioned it.

No trade-backs. It's not that dramatic, not ludicrous... just a rule. That's that.

MIMN, to answer your question: No, once you trade a player away, you cannot even scoop him off the waiver wire.

 

[Ilov80s]

A few years ago we had 2 guys try the loan thing. We let it go since we had no rules against it. However, for next year. We ruled that once you trade away a player, you can't trade for him back from the same team.

Bad rule. See the Greg Olsen example in this thread for why.

For crying out loud let guys manage their rosters as they see fit.

If you don't trust guys in your league to do so with honor and integrity, kick them out or leave the league yourself.

We are letting the league manage the league. It was voted in by the significant majority of owners as a rule. You traded away Olson, now you wish you had him back. Too bad. It's fair to all teams and isn't all that restrictive.

If it's a rule that was voted on and passed, that's fine.

My point is that such a rule shouldn't be necessary, nor is it positive in nature.

I can come up with any number of scenarios where a single player could be traded back to his original team in under a month, and it wouldn't be the result of collusion. It could be the result of bye weeks, injuries, etc. Hence, having a such a rule is dumb.

I get that. At the same time, when you trade away a player, it comes with a potential downside. It's just something you need to factor before trading a player. We are very much in favor of giving owners the ability to freely manage their teams. We have no veto process. All trades instantly go through. We didn't view this as restrictive so much as increasing the difficulty and increasing the value of player ownership. I understand your point though.

 

[GregR]

I think it'd be better to have a vague "no trades involving future considerations" rule. In other words, a condition of a current trade cannot be "I will give you something else at a later date". It doesn't explicitly address player renting, but player renting gets caught up in the things it disallows.

This is what we have. Other than conditional draft picks, trades have to be executed in a single transaction. Conditional draft picks the condition has to be specified fully at the time of the trade.