alexgaddis Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 Read these notes from a trade offer... This is a gift considering I am only going to use him one week, and you get a 5th round pick out of the deal. If you want next week I will switch the trade and you will get ballard back and I will get Rudolph and you throw in a 6th round pick, so in short you are renting me ballard one week to move up one round in the draft next year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddahj Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 I'm pretty sure "trade backs" are a . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 Yes, that is collusion if the other owner accepts the trade on the trade back contingency. If he doesn't, I'd be sure to admonish the offering owner and explain how it is collusion, in case it really is a case of ignorance on his part as to why "renting" players is unfair. Seen it before by newer owners were there is no real ill intent meant, and once explained they are good with it and understand the reasoning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 I guess I understand why it is frowned upon.... but really, how is it different than in baseball when a team trades a player mid-summer for a draft pick or a player-to-be-named-later with an understanding that they'll re-sign the player after the season is over? isn't that essentially renting a player, too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexgaddis Posted November 8, 2011 Author Share Posted November 8, 2011 I guess I understand why it is frowned upon.... but really, how is it different than in baseball when a team trades a player mid-summer for a draft pick or a player-to-be-named-later with an understanding that they'll re-sign the player after the season is over? isn't that essentially renting a player, too? really? How is it different? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 (edited) I guess I understand why it is frowned upon.... but really, how is it different than in baseball when a team trades a player mid-summer for a draft pick or a player-to-be-named-later with an understanding that they'll re-sign the player after the season is over? isn't that essentially renting a player, too? Ummm, I'd say that an "understanding" that you MIGHT be able to to reacquire a player later is far different than a stated agreement that you'll trade the player back... It's basically a form of roster-sharing, as you are both pooling both rosters temporarily. That's collusion, when you have an understanding that you'll allow the other team to utilize that player you need later. Like BC said, I can see how someone might not realize that it's collusion, so I wouldn't go calling for their heads, but the trade shouldn't stand with it stated that the player is only being rented, not traded. Edited November 8, 2011 by delusions of granduer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flemingd Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 It's pretty borderline. It's the kind of thing you should probably define on its own in league rules. Some see it as strategic team management, others as conniving and against the spirit of the rules. Spell it out and avoid the problem. Bring it up to the league now and see what they say. My local has a 3 week minimum tradeback rule defined, but really it's not a big deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 really? How is it different? well, the finite specifics are different , but the underlying principal is the same: letting another team use a player for a period of time with the "understanding" that he'll be either traded back or re-acquired at later date, while giving the team that is giving up the player some value in the interim. Happens all the time. Like I said, on the surface, it does sound shady and would not want it to happen in a league in which I participate....and would likely try to structure rules against it....but in lieu of anything written that forbids it, and especially as its a league in which trading future draft picks can add value later for value now...I think your league is going to have a hard time convincing these two parties they did something wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 I guess I understand why it is frowned upon.... but really, how is it different than in baseball when a team trades a player mid-summer for a draft pick or a player-to-be-named-later with an understanding that they'll re-sign the player after the season is over? isn't that essentially renting a player, too? Have you ever saw a team "rent" a player for a big series and then trade said player back to the original team that season? fwiw, I have "rented" players before...but like baseball...either knowing I wouldn't be able to retain them next season or knowing I would be able to make a strong bid to re-sign them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 One thing that a lot of people seem to lose in discussions surrounding fantasy rules (not just collusion, but lineup, scoring, and just about everything else) is that we are dealing with a game where one of the goals should be a fair, level playing field for all owners, not simply tryingto mimic every possible move that is allowed by a professional sports team. To me, renting players falls under that category, as does lineups - i'm all for more flexibility when looking at lineup rules, whereas you have some that will say that you can;t start two QBs in the NFL or you don;t see 3 RBs on the field, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 Have you ever saw a team "rent" a player for a big series and then trade said player back to the original team that season? fwiw, I have "rented" players before...but like baseball...either knowing I wouldn't be able to retain them next season or knowing I would be able to make a strong bid to re-sign them. But IMO, what you are referring to as "renting" here is very different than what the OP is talking about. What you are talking about is more for keeper/dynasty leagues with contracts/salaries or other factors to limit one;s ability to keep all players indefinitely. Basically, at least if I am understanding you correctly, you are talking about trading for a guy in the last year of his contract, meaning you are acquiring his services for only a portion of the current season and then fighting for him in the offseason FA period, or a player who you know you are unlikely to keep at their current salary long term but would give you a boost in the current season. It is a common strategy - high ranked teams offering picks/cash/prospects to a low ranked team for a veteran performer that they are unlikely to be able to keep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUMbotron Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 Are they married? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 Have you ever saw a team "rent" a player for a big series and then trade said player back to the original team that season? That's a good point...never seen it for that short an interval...just curious if there is actually an MLB (of NFL) official rule against it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 But IMO, what you are referring to as "renting" here is very different than what the OP is talking about. What you are talking about is more for keeper/dynasty leagues with contracts/salaries or other factors to limit one;s ability to keep all players indefinitely. Basically, at least if I am understanding you correctly, you are talking about trading for a guy in the last year of his contract, meaning you are acquiring his services for only a portion of the current season and then fighting for him in the offseason FA period, or a player who you know you are unlikely to keep at their current salary long term but would give you a boost in the current season. It is a common strategy - high ranked teams offering picks/cash/prospects to a low ranked team for a veteran performer that they are unlikely to be able to keep. you are correct, i was more speaking to what swammi was talking about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmarin189 Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 Shady... Next topic! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 That's a good point...never seen it for that short an interval...just curious if there is actually an MLB (of NFL) official rule against it. I know the NBA has rules in place (well, had given current situation) the players could not be traded within a certain timeframe (ie you couldn't deal a player within a week of acquiring them, something like that). Came up with Rasheed Wallace a few years ago, IIRC. Went from Portland to another team (I want to say Atlanta off the top of my head, but pretty sure that isn't right) who then sent him to Detroit within a short time frame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delfamdelfam Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 I know the NBA has rules in place (well, had given current situation) the players could not be traded within a certain timeframe (ie you couldn't deal a player within a week of acquiring them, something like that). Came up with Rasheed Wallace a few years ago, IIRC. Went from Portland to another team (I want to say Atlanta off the top of my head, but pretty sure that isn't right) who then sent him to Detroit within a short time frame. it was Atlanta Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 huh, I don't really see a major problem with it. first of all, it's not collusion -- both owners are ostensibly trying to better their teams. it's a borderline "renting" scenario, which is usually frowned upon (rightly so). but really he's just expressing his desire to use this player for one week, and his openness toward trading the same players again if that would make it easier for the other guy to bite off on. I think the intent is more or less fine, but it would look bad if two trades transpired that way. another way of thinking about it....say one of the players went off with a hugh game this week, and/or the other one revealed a season-threatening injury. is the "agreement" such that the teams would be obliged to follow through with the re-trade? if so, then I think the first trade is illegal. if they're not in any way obliged to follow through with the re-trade, then the trade really isn't an issue. if I was on the receiving end of that offer, I would evaluate it completely on its own merits, and if you're inclined to accept, tell the guy you're not going to trade the players back because it would look bad to the rest of the league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lkirc Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 The big question is whether it is against your league rules to do a trade back. If it is not, then move on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 (edited) another way of thinking about it....say one of the players went off with a hugh game this week, and/or the other one revealed a season-threatening injury. is the "agreement" such that the teams would be obliged to follow through with the re-trade? if so, then I think the first trade is illegal. if they're not in any way obliged to follow through with the re-trade, then the trade really isn't an issue. Well of course no one is "obligated" unless it's in the rules to follow through on the trade-back, but I don't think it makes it any less collusive if you tack on backing out of the trade-back agreement on top of it... Collusion doesn't have to benefit both owners, but when you have two teams seeking to get something outside of just the players offered in the deal, then that's the worst kind of collusion IMO, to restrict open competition by pooling players to recieve a kickback later (whether that be cash or players in this case)... I mean, when you agree to allow both teams to use the same player at different times in the future, then that is most certainly roster-sharing and thus collusion, no matter whether you're sheisty enough to back out on the unofficial agreement later... By bringing up that it's unenforceable, then you're pretty much highlighting why it is not within the rules to do so. Agian, collusion doesn't even necessarily have to benefit both teams to fall under that umbrella (roster dumping due to apathy has the same effect), but there's little doubt that when you're getting something outside of the trade that is currently being accepted, then you are colluding by seeking to obtain something on top of the players you recieve in the trade. You're essentially saying in this case, I'll give you this deal if I get a kickback later... I don't see how that's in the spirit of the game, unless you specifically have a rule that allows this... Edited November 8, 2011 by delusions of granduer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 (edited) The big question is whether it is against your league rules to do a trade back. If it is not, then move on. Disagree. I think only if it's allowed by your league rules, or is public knowledge, enforceable by the commish, and accepted by the entire league as a legitimate practice that it should stand... Otherwise I think this is exactly why you have commishes, to say no, that is collusion to have an agreement that is private, unenforceable, and allows both teams to pool players to use at a later date.... I vehemently disagree that anything goes just because you can't possibly write out rules for every single shady contingency. Edited November 8, 2011 by delusions of granduer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
untateve Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 Read these notes from a trade offer... This is a gift considering I am only going to use him one week, and you get a 5th round pick out of the deal. If you want next week I will switch the trade and you will get ballard back and I will get Rudolph and you throw in a 6th round pick, so in short you are renting me ballard one week to move up one round in the draft next year. Ummm, I'd say that an "understanding" that you MIGHT be able to to reacquire a player later is far different than a stated agreement that you'll trade the player back... It's basically a form of roster-sharing, as you are both pooling both rosters temporarily. That's collusion, when you have an understanding that you'll allow the other team to utilize that player you need later. Like BC said, I can see how someone might not realize that it's collusion, so I wouldn't go calling for their heads, but the trade shouldn't stand with it stated that the player is only being rented, not traded. I agree that this appears to be potentially a pooling of rosters and to me, does not pass the smell test. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 well, the finite specifics are different , but the underlying principal is the same: letting another team use a player for a period of time with the "understanding" that he'll be either traded back or re-acquired at later date, while giving the team that is giving up the player some value in the interim. Happens all the time. Like I said, on the surface, it does sound shady and would not want it to happen in a league in which I participate....and would likely try to structure rules against it....but in lieu of anything written that forbids it, and especially as its a league in which trading future draft picks can add value later for value now...I think your league is going to have a hard time convincing these two parties they did something wrong. +1 Happens ALL the time. Even in BoTH leagues. Does it make it right? IMO no...this owner just so happened to include the rental agreement in the trade offer instead of doing it via email or IM. I would LOVE to know who these 2 owners were if they were in my league. Makes deciding on future league mates that much easier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh 0ne Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 I can't wait for the threads about intentionally losing a regular season game to get the right playoff matchup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faceplant Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 I don't think it's officially collusion, as collusion requires more than two teams, I think. However, just because it's not collusion doesn't mean it isn't wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.