Collusion?

[tazinib1]

I can't wait for the threads about intentionally losing a regular season game to get the right playoff matchup.

 

 

3 weeks

[delusions of grandeur]

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.

 

Nearly every single example of collusion only involves two parties, and the most clear cut cases like this are where one team says "hey, I'll give you X (could be a portion of the winnings, or in this case the player back, but includes anything outside of just the players offered in the trade), if you'll do this to help me make a run".

 

If you're giving anything else besides the players offered, then that is giving a kick-back to help them out, which is the most obvious and egregious form of collusion.

Edited November 8, 2011 by delusions of granduer

[Azazello1313]

collusion is when two owners conspire to make one team stronger by subverting the rules. this guy is offering a trade straight up. it is not a collusive trade. he is expressing an openness to trading the guy back in the future if the other guy wants him. any "agreement" made there would be totally non-binding on either party, and thus meaningless. I just don't see much wrong here.

[Azazello1313]

If you're giving anything else besides the players offered, then that is giving a kick-back to help them out, which is the most obvious and egregious form of collusion.

 

by that logic, including a draft pick, or cap space, or free agent money, would also be "the most obvious and egregious form of collusion".

[i_am_the_swammi]

collusion is when two owners conspire to make one team stronger by subverting the rules. this guy is offering a trade straight up. it is not a collusive trade. he is expressing an openness to trading the guy back in the future if the other guy wants him. any "agreement" made there would be totally non-binding on either party, and thus meaningless. I just don't see much wrong here.

 

Not only that, but the team "renting" the player gets a higher draft pick next year as compensation. If he was offering a piece of the winnings, or to pa any fees owed, It would be highly questionable. But this deal is Player A and a pick for Player B, then Player B and better pick for Player A back. Each is receiving value....one gets a player he needs for a week (or two, or three...really doesn't matter)...the other is improving his team in next year's draft.

 

Based on their lack of rules regarding tradebacks...the more I think about it, its a perfectly OK deal.

[Seahawks21]

This is collusion as it is defined.

 

"Hey buddy, my QB is on a bye and you've got two and I have an extra RB and yours is on a bye. Then next week I need a receiver, and you need a TE, and we'll just turn our two teams into one and that way we'll both win." C'mon. That is Floyd Mayweather cheap and kin to robbing the other owners. I don't know what kind of leagues you guys play in, but I can't believe there isn't a rule in place against this if you guys play for money.

 

All my leagues have had rules against trade backs for a dozen years now, since this was tried in high school. I can't think of anything that would be more chump, outside of flat-out buying players.

[delusions of grandeur]

by that logic, including a draft pick, or cap space, or free agent money, would also be "the most obvious and egregious form of collusion".

Obviously that's not what I'm saying... I guess I should have said only the players, picks, etc. at the time of the trade, not an agreement for the future...

 

To me it's not a lot different than saying "you deal me player X to help me win this week, and I'll give you share of my winnings". It's offering incentive outside of the actual pieces involved in the trade, by basically saying, "c'mon, you let me use him this week and I'll give him right back so you can use him too. I'll even kick you a higher draft pick for your troubles, but this way we can both use him when we need him". If stated like that, doesn't that bring kind of a different vibe to what they're actually doing?

 

I'm having trouble stating exactly what I mean in simple terms, but basically the one owner is convincing the other owner that the trade their making, that would otherwise be binding with no guarantee of returning the player, is more attractive because he doesn't actually have to get rid of the player and can have him back at a later date. It's totally using the incentive of "give-back" rather than just the actual pieces involved in the trade to stand on their own merits... Trades are supposed to be about determining whether dealing for a player with no future certainty is worth it, not whether someone can give you an attractive enough deal by essentially selling you on the future certainty that you can have him back.

 

It shouldn't be about getting what you want by offering that same player's value right back to the party with the incentive of "something for nothing" to share their roster with you.

Edited November 8, 2011 by delusions of granduer

[faceplant]

 

Nearly every single example of collusion only involves two parties, and the most clear cut cases like this are where one team says "hey, I'll give you X (could be a portion of the winnings, or in this case the player back, but includes anything outside of just the players offered in the trade), if you'll do this to help me make a run".

 

If you're giving anything else besides the players offered, then that is giving a kick-back to help them out, which is the most obvious and egregious form of collusion.

Oh yeah, you're right. My bad. I knew I should have looked it up before I posted.

[Scooby's Hubby]

The big question is whether it is against your league rules to do a trade back.

 

If it is not, then move on.

you mean if the league states that it is allowed, not disallowed. 99% of fantasy players assume that you cannot rent players. it should be stated from the beginning that renting players is allowed, not the other way around.

[delusions of grandeur]

you mean if the league states that it is allowed, not disallowed. 99% of fantasy players assume that you cannot rent players. it should be stated from the beginning that renting players is allowed, not the other way around.

Exactly, and I'll add one more thing before I let it be... Being that this is a non-binding agreement, it's also a non-sanctioned agreement, and thus shouldn't be allowed to be factor in a trade negotiation...

 

To those who aruge based on it not being a binding agreement but just a suggestion, it doesn't matter if the proposing party actually intended to follow through with the trade-back. He used that "agreement" outside of the players in question to try to influence a trade that might not stand on it's own merits. Maybe collusion was a little harsh, but it's both roster sharing and a trade based on a non-sanctioned understood agreement that he could trade back.

 

I dont think I said what I'd do as commish in this particular case, but I'd say that the trade can stand as long as there's an understanding from the two parties that the agreed-upon trade-back can't be allowed, let them decide if they still want to, and let them know it will necessitate a rule vote for next year... Unless of course no one in your league has a problem with it, but it's clear that the OP sees this as just as shady of a proposition as I do..

Edited November 9, 2011 by delusions of granduer

[stevegrab]

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.

 

And that working the rules (because something isn't specifically prohibited) to get win at all costs.

 

Since we have the possibility of negative scores next year in our league I'm hoping we can address the scenario where a team is leading going into MNF, their opponent is done and they have a player on MNF. So they bench that player for somebody on BYE, or leave the roster spot open to make sure they win. Although we have a weekly high points winner that gets $$, I can see where the owner doesn't have a shot at that, or decides the win is more impotant.

 

I guess some see fantasy football as a fun diversion, others see it as all out war, casualaties be dammed. Even if the stakes are not high.

[stevegrab]

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.

 

 

This too.

[Ramhock]

Tradebacks are just another way that the hobby has evolved to where the draft itself, continues to become less important. Back in the day, there were no waivers & rarely a trade. Drafting was the whole ball of wax and owners needed to test the depth of their bench. Draft day was the absolute best day of the year. It is still very good but if you have a bad day, there are many ways to help your team, later.

 

It is one reason I enjoy HEFFA. Draft & have at it.

[The Holy Roller]

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.

 

I agree with this way of looking at it.

[detlef]

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.

Why is the goal to "level the playing field" for all owners?

 

I've always had an issue with why this sort of trade is thought of as collusion. It's as if the definition of collusion is a trade that only benefits the two owners involved. Well, isn't that the case in every trade? Is there ever a trade where the two owners give a crap about anyone else in the league?

 

If it were up to me, there'd be one kind of trade and one kind only that is not allowed. Basically, any trade where there's implied compensation outside the parameters of the league. In other words, one so lopsided towards one player that the only rational reason could be that they're basically pooling players on one squad with the understanding that the winner will pay the other should he win the league. Something like that. Essentially, where both rosters are absolutely not improved at all.

 

A one week swap helps both rosters, just like one team long on WRs and another long on RBs trade to each other helps both teams.

 

Now, the sticky part happens if one of the "rented" players gets hurt or has his value dramatically increase for some reason, but that's their problem not anyone else's. Either they agree to swap back regardless of what happens or they agree that the swap back only happens if both owners want to do so. But that's their problem, not mine. Were I commish in such a situation, I'd only demand the owners honor an agreement if they let me know before hand that was the deal. If one came to me, after the fact, and complained and the other denied they had a pact in that regard, he'd be out of luck unless I knew about it.

 

None the less, while I've never actually been involved in a trade like this, and can't remember it ever coming up in one of my leagues, I would have no issues with it at all.

[delusions of grandeur]

If it were up to me, there'd be one kind of trade and one kind only that is not allowed. Basically, any trade where there's implied compensation outside the parameters of the league. In other words, one so lopsided towards one player that the only rational reason could be that they're basically pooling players on one squad with the understanding that the winner will pay the other should he win the league. Something like that. Essentially, where both rosters are absolutely not improved at all.

So is your definition of "trades not allowed" ones where compensation is offered outside of the players in the deal, or is it that improves both teams? Okay, I suppose the latter is an okay definition (aside from trades that appear genuine but actually do involve outside compensation), but let's leave that nitpicky part aside. My question is more about the "compensation outside of the players" and "pooling players" parts...

 

Isn't that exactly what's going on here, when a big selling point in the offer is something completely separate from the proposed trade, the "trade back"? The deal is not standing on it's own merits that "I'll give you X for Y", it's using an outside non-sanctioned incentive to try to convince the other owner enough to do the deal he might not otherwise if it was permanent and binding. Thus, the thing being traded here isn't just the player or the player back for a better pick, the things that's really being sold is the other owner's ABILITY to reacquire the player later and be "guaranteed" something for nothing, while the other one gets to return the player after he needs him (and gets the pick back that he lost, just a slightly lower one for the other party's troubles)... In essence, they want to have their cake and eat it too, by getting what they want without being bound to actually give anything up (aside from the small pick upgrade, which is merely a tip for the other parties troubles for allowing him to borrow one of his players for a week; It just sounds wrong typing that)..

 

Also, isn't it kind of unfair to the accepting owner for to say that it's completely kosher if they want to have an outside agreement, but that the other party is in no way bound to follow through on the agreement he used as a selling point? How can you in good conscience allow a non-sanctioned agreement outside of just the players involved to stand, if it's entirely unenforceable and up to the party currently getting what he wants to decide later if he's gonna hold up his part of the bargain?

 

I just don't understand how this isn't sheisty.... Trades are about acquiring with no guarantee that you won't be the one left holding the bag, not because someone can convince you that they'll totally give them back when they're done, so why not? It's using means outside of normal trade parameters to give added compensation (the trade back) as a bigger consideration than the trade itself, and while that may not be collusion, it's roster sharing and not within the spirit of the game...

Edited November 9, 2011 by delusions of granduer

[detlef]

So is your definition of "trades not allowed" ones where compensation is offered outside of the players in the deal, or is it that improves both teams? Okay, I suppose the latter is an okay definition (aside from trades that appear genuine but actually do involve outside compensation), but let's leave that nitpicky part aside. My question is more about the "compensation outside of the players" and "pooling players" parts...

 

Isn't that exactly what's going on here, when a big selling point in the offer is something completely separate from the proposed trade, the "trade back"? The deal is not standing on it's own merits that "I'll give you X for Y", it's using an outside non-sanctioned incentive to try to convince the other owner enough to do the deal he might not otherwise if it was permanent and binding. Thus, the thing being traded here isn't just the player or the player back for a better pick, the things that's really being sold is the other owner's ABILITY to reacquire the player later and be "guaranteed" something for nothing, while the other one gets to return the player after he needs him (and gets the pick back that he lost, just a slightly lower one for the other party's troubles)... In essence, they want to have their cake and eat it too, by getting what they want without being bound to actually give anything up (aside from the small pick upgrade, which is merely a tip for the other parties troubles for allowing him to borrow one of his players for a week; It just sounds wrong typing that)..

 

Also, isn't it kind of unfair to the accepting owner for to say that it's completely kosher if they want to have an outside agreement, but that the other party is in no way bound to follow through on the agreement he used as a selling point? How can you in good conscience allow a non-sanctioned agreement outside of just the players involved to stand, if it's entirely unenforceable and up to the party currently getting what he wants to decide later if he's gonna hold up his part of the bargain?

 

I just don't understand how this isn't sheisty.... Trades are about acquiring with no guarantee that you won't be the one left holding the bag, not because someone can convince you that they'll totally give them back when they're done, so why not? It's using means outside of normal trade parameters to give added compensation (the trade back) as a bigger consideration than the trade itself, and while that may not be collusion, it's roster sharing and not within the spirit of the game...

The deal involves nothing outside the competitive aspect of the league. The net is that he's swapping a 5th for a 6th next year to use Ballard this week. Both teams benefit within the confines of the league. If this is shady, than any trade involving future draft picks is shady.

 

Team 1 is paying team 2 next year for the use of a player this year. He's just paying very little because he's only using him one week.

 

What I am talking about is when one team obviously gives another an unreasonably good offer that absolutely couldn't be explained by any other than shady dealings. 1) Because he's being promised a cut of the other team's take. Or 2) Because he's out of it and has a vendetta against another team in contention for the title. Something that can't be explained by both teams improving themselves in some way.

 

In this case, however, both teams get something out of the deal, so I don't see the issue. Once again, if they make some trade back deal and don't alert the commish to that, then they're on their own if one side backs out of that half. But that's on them.

[i_am_the_swammi]

The deal involves nothing outside the competitive aspect of the league. The net is that he's swapping a 5th for a 6th next year to use Ballard this week. Both teams benefit within the confines of the league. If this is shady, than any trade involving future draft picks is shady.

 

Team 1 is paying team 2 next year for the use of a player this year. He's just paying very little because he's only using him one week.

 

What I am talking about is when one team obviously gives another an unreasonably good offer that absolutely couldn't be explained by any other than shady dealings. 1) Because he's being promised a cut of the other team's take. Or 2) Because he's out of it and has a vendetta against another team in contention for the title. Something that can't be explained by both teams improving themselves in some way.

 

In this case, however, both teams get something out of the deal, so I don't see the issue. Once again, if they make some trade back deal and don't alert the commish to that, then they're on their own if one side backs out of that half. But that's on them.

 

My take as well.

 

And for those that have "3 week" rules in place....how does that differ from "1 week"? the concept is exactly the same.

 

For instance, suppose a team is 9-0 in a league, and has already clinched their division over the 2nd-place 4-5 team. Theoretically, they could trade their top player(s) to another team to use for 4 weeks until the playoffs start, then get them back. Under the "no tradebacks for 3 weeks" clause, this would be totally acceptable, correct?

 

Point is, whether its one week, three weeks, or five weeks...the concept is still the same....as are the risks involved of not getting the players back via your handshake deal. As long as the trade passes the litmus test of being fair in terms of compensation, I don't see a problem with it.

[Seahawks21]

Why don't we just have all twelve owners meet, we'll figure out all of our bye schedules, and we'll plan a series of weekly trades so nobody ever has any bye issue? I'm sorry guys, but "trade-backs". Really? Collusion. Even if you want to say it is "legal", it is beyond ghey, beyond the intent of any rule ever published or unpublished, and is ridiculously chump. You guys are veterans. I expect more. Sad day. Trade-backs?? Come on with this. I'm glad you were able to fool your league mates into accepting some garbage like this, but you're talking to us now. Trade-backs. Ok. I'm just gonna get a buddy and we're gonna do weekly trades every week so we can maximize our lineups and work together and hopefully both of us will be in the playoffs. F'n ridiculous. Take some pride in your ability to manage YOUR team. Not your team combined with your buddy's team. If my commissioner ever allowed anything like a "trade-back" I would throw punches.

Edited November 9, 2011 by Seahawks21

[detlef]

Why don't we just have all twelve owners meet, we'll figure out all of our bye schedules, and we'll plan a series of weekly trades so nobody ever has any bye issue? I'm sorry guys, but "trade-backs". Really? Collusion. Even if you want to say it is "legal", it is beyond ghey, beyond the intent of any rule ever published or unpublished, and is ridiculously chump. You guys are veterans. I expect more. Sad day. Trade-backs?? Come on with this. I'm glad you were able to fool your league mates into accepting some garbage like this, but you're talking to us now. Trade-backs. Ok. I'm just gonna get a buddy and we're gonna do weekly trades every week so we can maximize our lineups and work together and hopefully both of us will be in the playoffs. F'n ridiculous. Take some pride in your ability to manage YOUR team. Not your team combined with your buddy's team. If my commissioner ever allowed anything like a "trade-back" I would throw punches.

Easy there cowboy, I've never done this and said as much. I'm just saying that it's not as cut and dry as you guys would like to make it. Like a normal trade, both teams benefit, and that should be the first litmus test.

[delusions of grandeur]

The deal involves nothing outside the competitive aspect of the league. The net is that he's swapping a 5th for a 6th next year to use Ballard this week. Both teams benefit within the confines of the league. If this is shady, than any trade involving future draft picks is shady.

You guys keep saying it's the same as trading future picks but it's not... In fact, a future pick is part of the initial trade, which includes 3 components:

 

Team 1 gets ballard

Team 2 gets a pick

Team 1 gets the option to trade Ballared back for a slightly better pick

 

So it's not the pick that it's in question, it's the fact that he's using "give-backsies" to influence the owner that neither one is actually giving up anything like a normal trade.

 

What if you were faced with tax issues, and you could somehow get out of it by temporarily "selling" your business to another guy, with a backdoor agreement that once the heat dies down and it's taken care of, you take your business back and give him a small kickback for his troubles.. Regardless of whether he in fact screws you over or goes along with it, you are still abusing the system through a backdoor sheisty deal to get out of your troubles without actually having to give up what you're claiming to give.

 

I think Seahawks example highlights very well why this is circumventing the rules & spirit of the game by figuring out how both you and your buddy can win by pooling your players together without having to lose any strength from either of your teams by actually letting them go... I really fail to see how you guys can say that this is legitimate activity, when it's a clear attempt to circumvent actual ownership of players you need.

[Seahawks21]

Easy there cowboy, I've never done this and said as much. I'm just saying that it's not as cut and dry as you guys would like to make it. Like a normal trade, both teams benefit, and that should be the first litmus test.

Okay, I'll trade you my backup QB in week 4 for your backup TE. You give you RB3 to Bronco Billy in week 5, he gives his WR4 to me, I give you back your TE and my WR4. In week six, shoot, I have a QB bye, so Bronco Billy give me your QB, I'll give Detlef your WR4 for his bye, and Detlef will give you his second defense. Then in week 7.....

 

Doesn't that benefit everybody as well?

 

Then, before you know it, the whole league is renting players from each other to cover their bye weeks. What part of fantasy football strategy is that? It is cheating, plain and simple.

 

"Hey, hey, I've got to play the defending league champ this week, and we need him to lose, and you're playing the worst team in our league this week. GIve me Adrian for Shonn Greene this week so I can take him out and then I'll give him back next week when you have to play him."

 

I don't know where you guys are from, but that crap doesn't fly in my neck of the woods.

Edited November 9, 2011 by Seahawks21

[delusions of grandeur]

"Hey, hey, I've got to play the defending league champ this week, and we need him to lose, and you're playing the worst team in our league this week. GIve me Adrian for Shonn Greene this week so I can take him out and then I'll give him back next week when you have to play him."

As a communications major, I'm completely embarassed you're able to explain this so much more clearly...

 

That highlights exactly what trade-backs are really all about... To figure out how you can beat an opponent without having to actually give up something of value (remember that it's not only the player getting Ballard who gets a trade back; The other owner also benefits by getting to use Ballard for one week and then get close to his pick back; as close to something for nothing as possible for both parties).

 

In principal you guys may have a good argument that there's nothing wrong with 'renting" per the rules, but if you caught wind of one of Seahawk's examples being perpetrated upon you so they can work together and take you out, then you'd be singing a completely different tune, no? So where do you draw the line? I'd say right here before you end up with a situation where pooling/.renting becomes accepted league behavior.

Edited November 9, 2011 by delusions of granduer

[detlef]

Okay, I'll trade you my backup QB in week 4 for your backup TE. You give you RB3 to Bronco Billy in week 5, he gives his WR4 to me, I give you back your TE and my WR4. In week six, shoot, I have a QB bye, so Bronco Billy give me your QB, I'll give Detlef your WR4 for his bye, and Detlef will give you his second defense. Then in week 7.....

 

Doesn't that benefit everybody as well?

 

Then, before you know it, the whole league is renting players from each other to cover their bye weeks. What part of fantasy football strategy is that? It is cheating, plain and simple.

 

"Hey, hey, I've got to play the defending league champ this week, and we need him to lose, and you're playing the worst team in our league this week. GIve me Adrian for Shonn Greene this week so I can take him out and then I'll give him back next week when you have to play him."

 

I don't know where you guys are from, but that crap doesn't fly in my neck of the woods.

I would hope that the basis for disallowing any sort of trade like this is because it is unfair to others in the league. Now, to point out how bad it is, you give an example where everyone in the league is doing it? Great, so the entire league is now cheating the entire league? How does that work?

 

As for your AP for Shonn Greene example. I guess I've always played with honorable people, so were a bye week trade deal go down, it would be rather clear that was the situation, not some mean-spirited attempt to do what you're describing.

 

The way some of you approach this game, you'd think you were involved in a cut-throat game with guys you hate or have no soul. I've found that it's best to simple not play in leagues where I have to worry about that crap. I deal with enough BS at work, I don't need to turn FF into an effing legal battle.

 

In other words, rather than throwing out the baby with the bath water, I'd just as soon as allow owners who have bye week issues to make a trade like this rather than worry about all the effed up ways some d-bag could exploit the rules. Just like when I'm playing touch football, I'm going to assume that the guy covering me isn't going to blast me in the back when I go up for the ball. It's touch football, after all, for a reason, because we're not trying to get each other killed. Because we're friends.

[delusions of grandeur]

I would hope that the basis for disallowing any sort of trade like this is because it is unfair to others in the league. Now, to point out how bad it is, you give an example where everyone in the league is doing it? Great, so the entire league is now cheating the entire league? How does that work?

Obviously that's meant to be an extreme example, and yes, if it's okay with everyone, then go for it... But it's clear in this case that an owner in the league feels slighted by the move..

 

As BC said in the beginning, there doesn't have to be any malicious intent whatsoever, and people can very easily not see why this is wrong... But nevertheless, it does allow for exploitation/circumevention of a normal "fair" trade, and it is not in the spirit of the rules to do "give-backsies" so both teams can use the player at different times in the year and not be bound to a trade... We're bringing up intent to show what this can allow for by opening up the can of worms, not that there necessarily has to be any ill-intent for it to not stand.

 

So your solution is just not to play in leagues where someone would make moves like that? That is obviously not a solution that works when you're in the middle of a season with money on the line.

 

Again, it's not about the intent as much as not allowing owners to untilize eachother's players for the times when they need them most, and give them back for when they need him most for next to nothing... If you have a need to be addressed, then you make a trade and give something of equal value up, and even hope you can flip him later... But you're not going to get me to agree that it's okay to do a multi-pronged deal that enables you both to get what you want for a particular week while ultimately giving up next to nothing (if anything) in the long-run to utilize the player...

 

Seahawks examples showed how this can lead to collusive behavior, but collusion is not needed to see why sharing players is a terribly bad practice that shouldn't be allowed. Plain and simple, a "trade" is a primitive form of acquiring, buying, owning something at it's going rate. "Renting" on the other hand is something completely different than a trade, where the primary thing being sold is not something tangible, but the idea "that you'll get him back for the weeks you need him". That is most definitely not just offering the value of the pieces in the trade, it's selling them on the incentive that they can get them back when they need the player. Completely different and should be treated as such.