Pistolkid Posted August 26, 2013 Share Posted August 26, 2013 Also are your trades instant or do you prefer to keep the 3 day waiting period or so. There's nothing less deflating than me working a trade I'm very happy with and then having to wait a full week for all the players to go through cause the waiting period is so long. This is a different sport but I played in a fantasy hockey league where the trades went to a voting period, and I managed to trade two depth players for a very solid scoring forward. Not only did I miss out on a game the guy I traded for because there are games every night in the NHL, but by the time he finished that game, he separated his shoulder and when the voting period was over, he was done for the season and I essentially traded two average depth players for NOTHING. At least if I got the game out of the guy, I could be like "oh man, well that's just bad luck", but the voting period didn't even give me one game for my dignity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 There's nothing less deflating than me working a trade I'm very happy with and then having to wait a full week for all the players to go through cause the waiting period is so long. This is a different sport but I played in a fantasy hockey league where the trades went to a voting period, and I managed to trade two depth players for a very solid scoring forward. Not only did I miss out on a game the guy I traded for because there are games every night in the NHL, but by the time he finished that game, he separated his shoulder and when the voting period was over, he was done for the season and I essentially traded two average depth players for NOTHING. At least if I got the game out of the guy, I could be like "oh man, well that's just bad luck", but the voting period didn't even give me one game for my dignity. That blows. We have no waiting period but sometimes it does take a day or two to see the pending trade and approve it (comish function). I suppose it is possible that a player is hurt in practice or has something else happen to change their values after owners accept the trade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin3 Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 Please provide an example of this happening in an NFL trade. I have never heard of one team loaning out a player for a portion of the season. Trades can involve current and future draft picks and players in any combination, but I have certainly never heard of a trade where one of the teams agrees to send a player back to the other team after a set period of time. Please show me where in the NFL rulebooks where a player can't be traded back to his original team for x-amount of weeks. And I was saying that "future considerations" are sometimes part of professional sports trades, but thanks for playing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 Please show me where in the NFL rulebooks where a player can't be traded back to his original team for x-amount of weeks. And I was saying that "future considerations" are sometimes part of professional sports trades, but thanks for playing. D - Separation of NFL from fantasy football. As much as we like to think that we are real life NFL GMs, it's a game, and while I am sure there are instances where the "tradeback" in fantasy terms is legit, there are too many people that exploit that sort of thing and would do it for little more than roster sharing. Comes down to an ounce of prevention against cheating being more important than the very small possibility of stopping a legit trade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin3 Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 D - Separation of NFL from fantasy football. As much as we like to think that we are real life NFL GMs, it's a game, and while I am sure there are instances where the "tradeback" in fantasy terms is legit, there are too many people that exploit that sort of thing and would do it for little more than roster sharing. Comes down to an ounce of prevention against cheating being more important than the very small possibility of stopping a legit trade. If it's collusion, it's collusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 If it's collusion, it's collusion. So, in AFL, let's say you had no kicker, none are on waivers, and I have two. 1. Do you think it would fly if I sent you a kicker for "future considerations"? 2. Same scenario as above, but instead you send me a thrid round pick for a kicker. The following week, I send you the pick back for the kicker to cover a bye week. Would that be okay? 3. Same as #2, but instead of sending the third back, I send a 4th, thus I technically moved my 4th to a 3rd so you could have a kicker for the week. Is that okay? 4. If you say that 1-3 are okay, would it change your answer if I was in the thick of the playoff hunt, you were completely out of the hunt but you were playing my chief rival for a playoff spot? Obviously #4 is a very different situation than the typical moves you see in dynasty leagues where teams that are out of it move pieces for future picks/younger players and teams that are pushing for the title will be giving up picks/youth for more firepower in the current season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ts Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 Please provide an example of this happening in an NFL trade. I have never heard of one team loaning out a player for a portion of the season. Trades can involve current and future draft picks and players in any combination, but I have certainly never heard of a trade where one of the teams agrees to send a player back to the other team after a set period of time. Please note, the link below is provided only for the purpose of answering the question above ... I am personally not in favor of rules allowing 'FF trade backs' for a variety of reasons, I don't think FF really must mirror 'real' NFL football in every regard, and I likely will not stop back in to see further posts in this thread, but ... one cannot ignore the famous (infamous?) Jacky Lee 'loan' from the old AFL days. Carry on. http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/10/news/la-was-houston-qb-jacky-lee-leased-to-another-pro-football-team-20120510 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin3 Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 So, in AFL, let's say you had no kicker, none are on waivers, and I have two. 1. Do you think it would fly if I sent you a kicker for "future considerations"? 2. Same scenario as above, but instead you send me a thrid round pick for a kicker. The following week, I send you the pick back for the kicker to cover a bye week. Would that be okay? 3. Same as #2, but instead of sending the third back, I send a 4th, thus I technically moved my 4th to a 3rd so you could have a kicker for the week. Is that okay? 4. If you say that 1-3 are okay, would it change your answer if I was in the thick of the playoff hunt, you were completely out of the hunt but you were playing my chief rival for a playoff spot? Obviously #4 is a very different situation than the typical moves you see in dynasty leagues where teams that are out of it move pieces for future picks/younger players and teams that are pushing for the title will be giving up picks/youth for more firepower in the current season. 1. Would it fly? I suppose it would, since there's nothing in our rules to prohibit it. Is it ethical? Depends on what the future considerations are. I just don't see this ever happening. 2. Not seeing where any team benefitted other than to cover byes, and in that circumstance it would be Bush league. Collusion? I guess purists would say so. 3. I personally think that's OK, but I guess I'm in a small minority. If Team "A" gets a tangible benefit for trading a player and getting him back the next week - and there's nothing in the rules to prohibit it - why can't you do it? I'll use my example again... say you have 3 TEs all of pretty equal value. You're past their bye weeks. You feel most comfortable with Joe Smith, so you trade Bob Jones and Whomper to a team that had crappy TEs. The next week, Joe Smith blows his ACL and is out for the season. Why can't you offer that same team another player or a pick (asssuming dynasty) to get Whomper back? You have to see both sides. 4. Trade deadlines usually mitigate this. --- Bottom line, it should be pretty easy to sniff out collusion. If both teams have tangible benefits, I'm not sure it can be called collusion. If one guy is trading Brees for Alex Smith and a kicker to cover his bye (and a "wink wink nudge nudge I'll pay for half of your buy-in next season if I win it all") then that's obviously a problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BA Baracus Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 Please show me where in the NFL rulebooks where a player can't be traded back to his original team for x-amount of weeks. And I was saying that "future considerations" are sometimes part of professional sports trades, but thanks for playing. I don't have to show you the rule because it doesn't exist because this never happens. TS managed to dig through the vaults of antiquity and find a single example of this happening in 1964, in the AFL (well done TS...). I wonder what would have happened if Jackie Lee had played well and Denver didn't send him back. Did the Oilers actually hold a legally enforceable contract that would have forced his return? Has it happened in the last 20 years or even in the Super Bowl era? I asked for an example and your response was to ask for the rule prohibiting it. Besides trade-backs, what other "future considerations" are you referring to that couldn't be captured in their entirety inside of a single trade? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BA Baracus Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 Bottom line, it should be pretty easy to sniff out collusion. If both teams have tangible benefits, I'm not sure it can be called collusion. If one guy is trading Brees for Alex Smith and a kicker to cover his bye (and a "wink wink nudge nudge I'll pay for half of your buy-in next season if I win it all") then that's obviously a problem. That's only part of the thought. Teams must also give up something or take a risk of some kind. Roster sharing can benefit both teams, but it upsets the competitive balance of the league by allowing two teams to pool their resources. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin3 Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 That's only part of the thought. Teams must also give up something or take a risk of some kind. Roster sharing can benefit both teams, but it upsets the competitive balance of the league by allowing two teams to pool their resources. I guess I focus 99% of my efforts into dynasty leagues where benefits are far more "gray area". And FWIW I never included any example where any team didn't give something up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BA Baracus Posted August 29, 2013 Share Posted August 29, 2013 I hear ya. Dynasty is definitely a different animal. My main point is that loaning out players to cover byes is pretty clear collusion in my book. 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.