Dolphin_Akie Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 What are people's thoughts on this? Basically trading players for one week to help each other out and then trading straight back the week after. Ignoring the risk of one owner making the trade and reneging on the deal to give them back but more in terms of a fairness to the rest of the league. Just to confirm, not related to an actual event thats happened in any of my leagues but more a general wondering as its been discussed before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 This is collusion and I have a rule set in place to avoid such a thing. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REZ Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 Yeah... That's collusion and something that isn't allowed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flemingd Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 Lots of people will think it's shady, but personally I don't mind this. As long as both owners are getting a benefit, it's not collusion. Collusion is when one owner gets something at no cost or risk to himself or gets some out-of-league benefit (like splitting the winning $ or reciprocity in another league). The above example could be perfectly illustrated: Team 1 has an RB on bye, wants to rent Pierre Thomas for one week to cover it, and has Roddy White his bench Team 2 has a WR on bye, Pierre Thomas on bye, and really needs a WR just for a week. Making a one-week trade makes all the sense in the world for these teams. Both teams get something out of it, there isn't anything shady other than covering byes. They aren't working together to bolster one team at the expense of another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BA Baracus Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 The problem is that then you have two teams getting something for nothing. The problem is that there is no risk or cost for either team. It's not fair to whoever has to play those two teams that week as they are just circumventing their byes weeks for zero cost. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 Roster sharing = collusion, doesn't matter how you slice it. Doesn't need to include some offer to split winnings, you're exchanging players for one week at zero cost to both owners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flemingd Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 The problem is that then you have two teams getting something for nothing. The problem is that there is no risk or cost for either team. It's not fair to whoever has to play those two teams that week as they are just circumventing their byes weeks for zero cost. And everyone else can do the same thing. If it's equal ground and all owners have access to it, it's "fair". It's unfair if only two owners are allowed to do it, but that doesn't have to be the case at all. If nothing else it really encourages discussions and trades. It's really a matter of the league's rules and culture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 IMO, it is roster sharing and one of the most blatant forms of collusion. Two owners essentially sharing a pool of two rosters to construct a team. Much like Avernus, leagues that I run have rules in place forbidding this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolphin_Akie Posted October 7, 2014 Author Share Posted October 7, 2014 (edited) Interesting, I never thought of it as obvious collusion like I've heard before (know two people in leagues I dont play in who have a gentleman's agreement to help each other out in a re-draft league if one of them is managing a team that is blatantly not going to make the playoffs). If its open and everyone before the season is aware that its allowed then what's the problem? Nobody is gaining an advantage over somebody else because everyone knows about it and can do the same. I agree its a grey area but wouldn't call it blatant collusion if it's done properly. Edited October 7, 2014 by Dolphin_Akie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 And everyone else can do the same thing. If it's equal ground and all owners have access to it, it's "fair". It's unfair if only two owners are allowed to do it, but that doesn't have to be the case at all. If nothing else it really encourages discussions and trades. It's really a matter of the league's rules and culture. So if my division mate helps out my opponent for the week because he is playing a bottom-dweller, but I can't get anyone to share players with me because I'm the #1 seed then explain how that is fair. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 Borrowing players is collusion and expressly forbidden in all my leagues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flemingd Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 So if my division mate helps out my opponent for the week because he is playing a bottom-dweller, but I can't get anyone to share players with me because I'm the #1 seed then explain how that is fair. Then you have a league of morons. Refusing to trade with someone because they are the #1 seed is like refusing to make a perfectly fair trade with someone because "it helps them too much" - something that is routinely flayed on these forums when presented. That is also not in context with what I suggested. I specifically mentioned helping both teams. Making a trade that doesn't help you just to help someone else doesn't qualify with my standard. Even so, assuming that would qualify with the league rules and culture, you could then just go make a deal that helps his opponent. Fair isn't about execution, it's about opportunity. That you have the opportunity to do it is the point, not whether or not you can actually pull it off any time you want. We'd all like to be able to do whatever we want whenever we want, but unfortunately things need to line up with timing, needs, and activity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finn5033 Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 flemingd, I don't know how you can keep trying to defend this. It has trouble written all over it. Even if its allowed among all players it so obviously can be manipulated to help certain people and completely screw over other people. You're assuming that everyone is a straight shooter and has the best of intentions. Please tell me you're not really that naive. I run a league and would never in a million years allow something like this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flemingd Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 You are perfectly entitled to your opinion. The OP asked for ours, so I gave mine. That's it. I'm not defending anything, it's my opinion about a topic. If a deal helps both teams I see nothing wrong with it. It has nothing to do with being naive, many rules can go sideways if implemented or enforced incorrectly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyBromo Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 Personally I see fantasy football as me against 11 other guys, all of whom I wan't to lose. I don't even have a desire to help anyone even though the guys I play with are all friends of mine. I worry about making my team as good is it can possibly be and that's it. Just the nature of competition Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finn5033 Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 (edited) Personally I see fantasy football as me against 11 other guys, all of whom I wan't to lose. I don't even have a desire to help anyone even though the guys I play with are all friends of mine. I worry about making my team as good is it can possibly be and that's it. Just the nature of competition You are perfectly entitled to your opinion. The OP asked for ours, so I gave mine. That's it. I'm not defending anything, it's my opinion about a topic. If a deal helps both teams I see nothing wrong with it. It has nothing to do with being naive, many rules can go sideways if implemented or enforced incorrectly. Sorry but if you think something like this can be used fairly for all people involved you are being incredibly naive. I'm not trying to attack you and I understand this is all personal opinions and we all have the right to our own. But wow Edited October 7, 2014 by Finn5033 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rileyrott Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 Collusion...plain and simple. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 (edited) When I play an opponent I'd like to think I'm playing that opponent, not that opponent & the person(s) who's best interest is to stack my opponents team for his/their own benefit. Edited October 7, 2014 by rajncajn 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin3 Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 I was blasted for my thoughts on this maybe a year ago. While I agree with the masses that a straight "you give me this guy and I give you that guy and then we trade them back next week" thing is pure collusion, I contend there are loopholes - or at least components of this type of rule. That is, there are SOME leagues that restrict a player being traded back to the same team which I think is overkill. I suppose this is probably more prevalent in larger dynasty leagues, but still... Say you have 3 startable QBs. Joe Schmo is your usual starter, and David Dorey is your main backup. You also have Henry Muto as your 3rd QB. Say another owner is interested in Dorey, so you deal him off for a backup WR and a 7th rounder. The following week, Schmo's on bye. Say Muto blows out his ACL, leaving you with no QB. Who's to say you can't go back to owner you just traded Dorey to in order to get him back? Is this considered roster sharing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finn5033 Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 (edited) I was blasted for my thoughts on this maybe a year ago. While I agree with the masses that a straight "you give me this guy and I give you that guy and then we trade them back next week" thing is pure collusion, I contend there are loopholes - or at least components of this type of rule. That is, there are SOME leagues that restrict a player being traded back to the same team which I think is overkill. I suppose this is probably more prevalent in larger dynasty leagues, but still... Say you have 3 startable QBs. Joe Schmo is your usual starter, and David Dorey is your main backup. You also have Henry Muto as your 3rd QB. Say another owner is interested in Dorey, so you deal him off for a backup WR and a 7th rounder. The following week, Schmo's on bye. Say Muto blows out his ACL, leaving you with no QB. Who's to say you can't go back to owner you just traded Dorey to in order to get him back? Is this considered roster sharing? This is completely different, the circumstance have changed. You need the QB back because your backup is done for the season and your starter is on bye. If you traded to get him back I wouldn't see anything fishing going on there. Edited October 7, 2014 by Finn5033 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 I was blasted for my thoughts on this maybe a year ago. While I agree with the masses that a straight "you give me this guy and I give you that guy and then we trade them back next week" thing is pure collusion, I contend there are loopholes - or at least components of this type of rule. That is, there are SOME leagues that restrict a player being traded back to the same team which I think is overkill. I suppose this is probably more prevalent in larger dynasty leagues, but still... Say you have 3 startable QBs. Joe Schmo is your usual starter, and David Dorey is your main backup. You also have Henry Muto as your 3rd QB. Say another owner is interested in Dorey, so you deal him off for a backup WR and a 7th rounder. The following week, Schmo's on bye. Say Muto blows out his ACL, leaving you with no QB. Who's to say you can't go back to owner you just traded Dorey to in order to get him back? Is this considered roster sharing? Completely different scenario. Those are trades out of necessity. We're talking about two teams trading players just to help one of the teams beat an opponent & then trading the players back. Team A is basically borrowing players from Team B in order to beat Team C. Or Team B needs Team A to beat Team C in order for him to get into the playoffs so he stacks Team A's roster for him for just that week. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flemingd Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 Completely different scenario. Those are trades out of necessity. We're talking about two teams trading players just to help one of the teams beat an opponent & then trading the players back. Team A is basically borrowing players from Team B in order to beat Team C. Or Team B needs Team A to beat Team C in order for him to get into the playoffs so he stacks Team A's roster for him for just that week. That's a leap you made all on your own. Neither the OP nor anyone advocating it have suggested that's acceptable. It's not "just to help one of the teams beat an opponent" - it's about both teams making their lineups better that week. That's the intent of all trades, to make their lineup/roster better. I do agree it's a dirty move if all I'm doing is helping the other guy beat a division rival. Sorry but if you think something like this can be used fairly for all people involved you are being incredibly naive. I'm not trying to attack you and I understand this is all personal opinions and we all have the right to our own. But wow It's actually very simple. There was a big drama thread over at FBG over the AP thing, and one of the great nuggets that came out of that was a rule one poster's league had that said something to the effect of "every transaction must be made with the intent of bettering your team". If you wanted to lawyer-puke that all up you could, but the intent of that rule is very simple. A trade that's just meant to hurt someone else doesn't fit. I do agree the number of leagues this would work in is very small. Most online ones it wouldn't, there's always one donkey that will cover the intent with just enough hay to mask the smell of the manure below, and it's probably not worth the commish effort/drama to enforce it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 (edited) Allowing owners to share players by loaning them back and forth can lead to bad things. If you have a couple of owners that decide from the outset that they want to share players to enhance their changes of winning and splitting the pot they can draft accordingly and pick up free agents accordingly. So at the draft I may be the guy that loads up on WRs while my friend loads up on RBs. Then during the year we can share players back and forth. When free agency runs and I need a RB my buddy can use his higher pick to secure my RB. One guy can draft top TEs and share one with me in my off week. Lots of potential for things to go bad. It is a horrible idea. And unfortunately the easiest way to prevent it is to simply disallow trade backs for some period of time ... whether it be 1 week, 3 weeks, or all season. My league sets a period of 6 weeks which may be a bit extreme. Edited October 7, 2014 by Grits and Shins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finn5033 Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 flemingd, my point is even if 2 guys make this one week trade to help both of their teams they are hurting someone else whether it's their intent or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 flemingd, my point is even if 2 guys make this one week trade to help both of their teams they are hurting someone else whether it's their intent or not. Trades cannot be evaluated on their potential negative impact to another team ... everybody is going to claim their team was negatively impacted. The issue here isn't about the equity of the trade ... but the idea of loaning/sharing players. 1 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.