GobbleDog 997 Posted October 17, 2012 A friend says he's considering a trade offer, but the deal is only for 1 week. Due to bye-weeks one owner needs a TE and the other a RB. I initially thought - what stops either side from saying "screw you, I'm keeping him!?", but in this situation he's the Commish so technically it could be enforced. Regardless, what's the ruling on this? Seems a little fishy to me, but it isn't technically collusion and I usually lean to "mind your own damn business" when it comes to trades. But I've never heard of a one-week trade.?. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Law 241 Posted October 17, 2012 Same as it ever was. Collusion. Cheating. A punchable offense. Your choice. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BarackOdrama 0 Posted October 17, 2012 You should tell your league and see what they say Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SNZ11 5 Posted October 17, 2012 Same as it ever was. Collusion. Cheating. A punchable offense. Your choice. this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bones40 0 Posted October 17, 2012 but it isn't technically collusion... It's actually the very definition of collusion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
p00h 85 Posted October 17, 2012 A friend says he's considering a trade offer, but the deal is only for 1 week. Due to bye-weeks one owner needs a TE and the other a RB. I initially thought - what stops either side from saying "screw you, I'm keeping him!?", but in this situation he's the Commish so technically it could be enforced. Regardless, what's the ruling on this? Seems a little fishy to me, but it isn't technically collusion and I usually lean to "mind your own damn business" when it comes to trades. But I've never heard of a one-week trade.?. How is it not collusion??? By that logic, once bye weeks start to kick in, you can basically trade, upgrade at spots at the cost of extending your depth at others and the league turns into a circus. And it's one very small step away from, 'my season is over so take these studs and win the championship' you can't be serious with this crap... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GobbleDog 997 Posted October 17, 2012 It's actually the very definition of collusion. Collusion normally means one team trading studs for garbage because the teams are in cahoots. In this case, the teams are not in cahoots, they're both competing for playoffs, and no studs are getting dumped - permanently, anyway. I admit something about it feels fishy, on the flip side I'm all for free-trade - as long as it's on the up and up.?. I guess I'm waiting to hear why it's an unfair competitive advantage.?. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
p00h 85 Posted October 17, 2012 Collusion normally means one team trading studs for garbage because the teams are in cahoots. In this case, the teams are not in cahoots, they're both competing for playoffs, and no studs are getting dumped - permanently, anyway. I admit something about it feels fishy, on the flip side I'm all for free-trade - as long as it's on the up and up.?. I guess I'm waiting to hear why it's an unfair competitive advantage.?. If you seriously can't see how that's collusion, then you and your league mates deserve to play in that type of environment... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GobbleDog 997 Posted October 17, 2012 By that logic, once bye weeks start to kick in, you can basically trade, upgrade at spots at the cost of extending your depth at others and the league turns into a circus. And it's one very small step away from, 'my season is over so take these studs and win the championship' you can't be serious with this crap... Allowing short-term trades (assuming the up and up), turns the league into a circus? I don't follow. Seems like a GIANT LEAP from total stud dumping. Honestly, it ain't my league and I'm just playing devil's advocate to understand why short-term trades are considered unethical. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GreenTD 56 Posted October 17, 2012 Collusion normally means one team trading studs for garbage because the teams are in cahoots. In this case, the teams are not in cahoots, they're both competing for playoffs, and no studs are getting dumped - permanently, anyway. I admit something about it feels fishy They most certainly are in cahoots. How do you not see that? They are basically making it so both teams rosters aren't having to sit a player due to bye weeks. Meanwhile, the other owners are picking up lesser players off the waiver wire to cover their player's bye weeks. They are creating an advantage over the rest of the league & that is collusion in every sense of the word. You said it yourself that it seems fishy. If it looks like a fish & smells like a fish... It is a fish! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bones40 0 Posted October 17, 2012 Collusion normally means one team trading studs for garbage because the teams are in cahoots. In this case, the teams are not in cahoots, they're both competing for playoffs, and no studs are getting dumped - permanently, anyway. I admit something about it feels fishy, on the flip side I'm all for free-trade - as long as it's on the up and up.?. I guess I'm waiting to hear why it's an unfair competitive advantage.?. Collusion is an actual word in the English language, outside of fantasy football. It simply means two parties who should not be working together, form a secret agreement to gain an advantage they shouldn't have. The point is, two teams that are supposed to compete against each other are working together and it's to the detriment of the rest of the league. It's the exact definition of collusion. The reason it's an unfair competitive advantage should be clear. It was already explained once in this thread. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mickalopagus 0 Posted October 17, 2012 The reason it's an unfair competitive advantage should be clear. It was already explained once in this thread. it would be an unfair advantage if no one else were allowed to do the same thing, but nobody is stopping others in that league from making similar trades. id be more worried about making that trade with someone who decides to keep the players, then youre SOL. I wouldnt trust anyone to hold on to my Aaron Rodgers for a week, say if I was guaranteed a playoff spot and they needed a good game. there is no way this would fly in my league btw, no f-ing way Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GreenTD 56 Posted October 17, 2012 it would be an unfair advantage if no one else were allowed to do the same thing, but nobody is stopping others in that league from making similar trades. id be more worried about making that trade with someone who decides to keep the players, then youre SOL. I wouldnt trust anyone to hold on to my Aaron Rodgers for a week, say if I was guaranteed a playoff spot and they needed a good game. there is no way this would fly in my league btw, no f-ing way Best part was though, the OP said it was his buddy making the trade & he is also the commish. What kind of precedent are you setting as a Commish if you're intentionally doing a trade of this sort? If the Commish in any of my leagues pulled a move like this, I'd bail & demand my $ back. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mickalopagus 0 Posted October 17, 2012 Best part was though, the OP said it was his buddy making the trade & he is also the commish. What kind of precedent are you setting as a Commish if you're intentionally doing a trade of this sort. If the Commish in any of my leagues pulled a move like this, I'd bail & demand my $ back. yeah its super shady. like i said i wouldnt go for it in my league, even though the thought of player 'lending' has crossed my mind. just seems kinda lame, especially with a commissioner but give it a shot OP, maybe youll find that nobody cares and you can collude your way to a championship Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RoadLizard 73 Posted October 17, 2012 Many years ago we simply made a rule that ALL trades are to last exactly THREE weeks and the players involved cannot be swapped back during that time frame. Its the easy to take care of it. You wanna trade? Fine - the trade lasts three weeks. Period. No exceptions. That was easy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TD Ryan2 316 Posted October 17, 2012 Defines collusion. No trade allowed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JT 137 Posted October 17, 2012 You're wrong. It is technically collusion. Also exactly and literally. I'm increasingly thankful for my league of 15+ years and the absence of dooshes that apparently populate other leagues. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gitrdun 18 Posted October 17, 2012 In our league once you trade a player you cannot get him back thru another trade. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shutdown 40 Posted October 17, 2012 A friend says he's considering a trade offer, but the deal is only for 1 week. Due to bye-weeks one owner needs a TE and the other a RB. I initially thought - what stops either side from saying "screw you, I'm keeping him!?", but in this situation he's the Commish so technically it could be enforced. Regardless, what's the ruling on this? Seems a little fishy to me, but it isn't technically collusion and I usually lean to "mind your own damn business" when it comes to trades. But I've never heard of a one-week trade.?. This is done specifically to get around your league's roster size limits and so to me it violates the "spirit" of the rules. As many people have mentioned, the easy way to solve this is to ban reacquiring a player in trade once you have traded him away, which is what we have done. Even with this rule not being in tact, as a commish I wouldn't allow the trade back as it essentially expands your roster beyond the intent of the rules. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
p00h 85 Posted October 17, 2012 You're wrong. It is technically collusion. Also exactly and literally. I'm increasingly thankful for my league of 15+ years and the absence of dooshes that apparently populate other leagues. it's funny reading on this board all the retard stuff that goes on in leagues. I know it's likely a small subset, because leagues where everything is cool are not going to be discussed explicitly in the same context. But it always makes me wonder why grown ass men would tolerate crap like that. I'd just quit on the spot never to play with that crowd again. I'm in 3 leagues that go back a decade. Every once in a while I'll join a work league or some other friend's league, but if it's not 100% on the up and up I'd quit in the spot. Who needs that drama? For a few hundred bucks, grown men throw all self respect out of the window and act like douchebags. It's amazing... not saying that's the case with this scenario, just talking in general terms about douchy leagues and douchy people that do douchy things just to try and steal a FF league. It boggles my mind... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Serpent 51 Posted October 17, 2012 it would be an unfair advantage if no one else were allowed to do the same thing, but nobody is stopping others in that league from making similar trades. id be more worried about making that trade with someone who decides to keep the players, then youre SOL. I wouldnt trust anyone to hold on to my Aaron Rodgers for a week, say if I was guaranteed a playoff spot and they needed a good game. there is no way this would fly in my league btw, no f-ing way You could say that about any unfair trade though. What's stopping everyone from having secret agreements to stack another team and then split prize money? Everyone can do that right? The reason we don't let people do it is because it ruins the integrity of the league and makes it a farce. Same way this does too. It's not that everybody can't do it, it's that most people want to play where nobody can do that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KSB2424 3,148 Posted October 17, 2012 It's collusion. Luckily in my league I've never had to make a rule about it as my leaguemates don't pull this crap. If they did then we'd all call them out and I'd make an official rule were traded players cannot be traded back to the old team for two weeks (or something like that). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgcrawfish 232 Posted October 17, 2012 you are affecting the competitive balance of the league...very definition of collusion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RLLD 4,254 Posted October 17, 2012 douchebagery This. It's called renting, and its frowned upon. Should not be allowed. Another way to do this is to trade for a player with say, a draft pick, then trade that player back to the same owner for a similar draft pick the next year. Renting a player perhaps to win in the playoffs or championship, this is low class. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idiotekniQues 0 Posted October 17, 2012 if the giants let the eagles borrow david wilson for a week in exchange for cromartie adn then swap back, then get back to us with this ridiculous question. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ditka vs. ______ 0 Posted October 17, 2012 23,000 posts and a member since 2001, and you're asking this BS? WTF - It's time for you to retire. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skinny_Bastard 157 Posted October 17, 2012 Why is there such a tread? This is such a dumb question. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BarackOdrama 0 Posted October 17, 2012 Have you asked your league yet? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jetdoc 20 Posted October 17, 2012 Why is there such a tread? This is such a dumb question. Your question might not have been as dumb if you spelled thread right. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SexyRexy 60 Posted October 17, 2012 A friend says he's considering a trade offer, but the deal is only for 1 week. Due to bye-weeks one owner needs a TE and the other a RB. I initially thought - what stops either side from saying "screw you, I'm keeping him!?", but in this situation he's the Commish so technically it could be enforced. Regardless, what's the ruling on this? Seems a little fishy to me, but it isn't technically collusion and I usually lean to "mind your own damn business" when it comes to trades. But I've never heard of a one-week trade.?. collusion and cheating. ask yourself when teams have ever traded players to each other for 1 week outside of euro soccer. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GobbleDog 997 Posted October 17, 2012 This. It's called renting, and its frowned upon. Should not be allowed. Another way to do this is to trade for a player with say, a draft pick, then trade that player back to the same owner for a similar draft pick the next year. Renting a player perhaps to win in the playoffs or championship, this is low class. 1. The teams are not in cahoots - no splitting winnings or such BS. I know that for fact. 2. Both teams are fighting for playoffs. 3. Nothing prevents other league owners from making a similar trade. Based on those 3 facts, it's not collusion. I think you've had the best comment by calling it "renting" and saying it's frowned upon, which I agree with. "Frowned upon, clown-league-stuff, you name it," but it ain't collusion. Hell, some of yall mentioned "3 week hold rules" and such before a player can be traded back again. Isn't that essentially the same thing, just longer? For the record it really ain't my league. In all my years of playing FF I'd never thought about it because it's never come up. However, I will be introducing a new rule next year in my league to prevent it, because I also frown upon "renting". Smacks of bush league. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Law 241 Posted October 17, 2012 I can't believe your are still "arguing" this so hard! Simple fact: it's collusion. Two teams intended to be separate, distinct, and independent working together to, effectively, combine rosters. Do you think the Steelers and Ravens would trade players back and forth, helping each other win? Heck no! NO team in the NFL would! They aren't colluding with each other. They act completely independent to win. You can lie to yourself all you want. This is collusion plain and simple. 99.99% of FFers know it. That you don't is no longer relevant to me. I'm out. You clearly want to deceive yourself into thinking it's not wrong. By all means, go for it. (hands free) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bones40 0 Posted October 17, 2012 1. The teams are not in cahoots - no splitting winnings or such BS. I know that for fact. 2. Both teams are fighting for playoffs. 3. Nothing prevents other league owners from making a similar trade. Based on those 3 facts, it's not collusion. I think you've had the best comment by calling it "renting" and saying it's frowned upon, which I agree with. "Frowned upon, clown-league-stuff, you name it," but it ain't collusion. Hell, some of yall mentioned "3 week hold rules" and such before a player can be traded back again. Isn't that essentially the same thing, just longer? For the record it really ain't my league. In all my years of playing FF I'd never thought about it because it's never come up. However, I will be introducing a new rule next year in my league to prevent it, because I also frown upon "renting". Smacks of bush league. 1. That's only one way collusion can be done. 2. Irrelevant. Collusion doesn't always mean one team tanks so the other does well. In this case, both teams cheat to give each other an advantage over the other teams in the league (which gives an obvious competitive advantage to circumvent bye weeks and roster limits). 3. In a good league, rules would prevent other teams from doing this, just like rules in most leagues prevent the obvious type of collusion you seem dead set on thinking is the only form of collusion. Would you say giving all your studs to your buddy so he can win the championship and the two of you could split the money fair...as long as everyone else in the league was free to do so? Of course not, that's why there's rules against it. Most leagues have rules against Collusion, all forms, not just the splitting prize money variety. It's to keep the league competitive and fun. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SexyRexy 60 Posted October 17, 2012 my favorite part of this board is when people post a question asking if something is collusion, are told it is by every single member, and then argue that it's not LOL Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GreenTD 56 Posted October 17, 2012 1. The teams are not in cahoots - no splitting winnings or such BS. I know that for fact. 2. Both teams are fighting for playoffs. 3. Nothing prevents other league owners from making a similar trade. Based on those 3 facts, it's not collusion. I think you've had the best comment by calling it "renting" and saying it's frowned upon, which I agree with. "Frowned upon, clown-league-stuff, you name it," but it ain't collusion. Hell, some of yall mentioned "3 week hold rules" and such before a player can be traded back again. Isn't that essentially the same thing, just longer? For the record it really ain't my league. In all my years of playing FF I'd never thought about it because it's never come up. However, I will be introducing a new rule next year in my league to prevent it, because I also frown upon "renting". Smacks of bush league. 1. Of course they're in cahoots. They're essentially not incurring a bye week by making this trade. 2. Every team is fighting for a playoff spot in any league right now, so that's beside the point. 3. A conscience & the ability to decipher what's right & what is wrong is preventing the other owners from making this move. Your buddy is a D-Bag commissioner & should stick to stealing his kids fake money when they play Monopoly on game nights. Hopefully him & the other owner lose this week, get knocked out of the playoffs & the rest of the league identifies him as the fraud that he is. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SexyRexy 60 Posted October 17, 2012 1. Of course they're in cahoots. They're essentially not incurring a bye week by making this trade. 2. Every team is fighting for a playoff spot in any league right now, so that's beside the point. 3. A conscience & the ability to decipher what's right & what is wrong is preventing the other owners from making this move. Your buddy is a D-Bag commissioner & should stick to stealing his kids fake money when they play Monopoly on game nights. Hopefully him & the other owner lose this week, get knocked out of the playoffs & the rest of the league identifies him as the fraud that he is. Or one of the players in the trade sustain a season ending injury screwing one of the owners and then having them refuse to trade them back. Then the whole thing is complained to league and everyone LOL's and punches them in the face. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steelers2101 7 Posted October 17, 2012 In our league, borrowing players in this fashion is deemed collusive. No trade-backs when the intention was clearly to loan players for bye weeks/injuries. Essentially, those teams are simply extending their rosters and sharing their last bench spots. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites