League Rules on Trades

[Dazzlemaster]

I know where to turn with tough questions, so here it goes:

 

Situation:

 

In order to manage bye weeks 2 teams have made a deal to trade players for a short term (2 weeks). The players invloved were Celek for Julius Jones. Both teams are starting the traded players (so both teams are helped in the trade). The team who traded Celek would have started him, but has a capable back-up of Olsen to fill in for Celek while he is away. The team who traded Jones would not be starting him, so he is upgradig his TE for a few games by trading away a bench player.

 

Question:

 

Should the Commish not allow the 2 teams to trade the players back?

 

I'm pretty clear that the commish should not enfore any agreement between the 2 teams, but what is the general thought on teams that trade players for the short term (that helps both teams) with the agreement that they will trade them back again after a agreed upon timeframe?

 

I'd appreciate as many responses as possible with any thoughtful reasoning behind your decision.

[paulzale]

I say the trade is not allowed, or if that is their agreement, then they need to hide it better with some other players involved

[wolfer]

there should not be a trade-back option allowed. the trade itself is fine, but trading back is collusion.

 

 

thats why you have waiver wires, right?

[tygerfn]

My league had this same problem years back, when one team traded a kicker for marshall faulk (in his heyday) on a bye week, and then traded him back the next week to the original owner. We called it collusion, and instituted a veto system where if half the owners vetoed a trade, it didn't go through.

[Dazzlemaster]

voting is dumb. The commish should only cancel trades that are collusion. Otherwise, let the owners trade as they see fit.

 

 

Thanks for your reply. So what is your opinion on this trade?

 

Im a little surprised by the responses so far. My thought is that trading is done to make both team better. In this instance, both teams are made better. I could see a case being made if a short term trade was being done, BUT both teams were not starting the players traded. You could then call it collusion and say that one team was helping the other team. But instances where the players traded are of relatively equal value and both team start the players that were traded I am having a hard time to finds grounds for vetoing. In fact, to me that is a perfect trade. Thoughts..........

[AGS]

What if one team only trades with another team in a 10 team league. Would that be considered collusion?

[CarbonThief]

That trade creates an unfair advantage, which only 2 of the franchises benefit from. The trade is illegal in 99.9% of all league. It should be vetoed if you can prove they had a premeditated agreement.

[Chief]

That trade creates an unfair advantage, which only 2 of the franchises benefit from. The trade is illegal in 99.9% of all league. It should be vetoed if you can prove they had a premeditated agreement.

 

 

Agreed, trade back in 2 weeks, no way. Why you draft smart and have waiver wires if needed.

[lekraus]

IN MY LEAGUES YOU CAN TRADE PLAYERS BUT THE TWO TEAMS THAT MADE THE TRADE CANNOT RETRADE THE SAME PLAYERS BACK. THEY WOULD HAVE TO TRADE THOSE PLAYERS TO DIFFERENT TEAMS AND GET THE OTHER TWO TEAMS TO TRADE THEM BACK. AS YOU CAN SEE THIS WOULD NEVER FLY IN MY LEAGUES OR ANY OTHER LEAGUE I WOULD JOIN. GET THE RULES CHANGED A.S.A.P. TO AVOID THIS IN THE FUTURE. IF THE RULES ALLOW IT THIS YEAR THEN THERE IS NOTHING THAT YOU CAN DO TILL THE RULES ARE CHANGED.