Are Trade-backs Collusion?

[Pinto 0]

I caught wind that an owner (who is notorious for pushing the limits) is looking at doing a trade "for a week" since he needs a QB this week. The deal would be then after a week or two, the same two owners would trade back the same players.

 

I've been arguing this is collusion since it's with the same owners and same players, especially in a short timeframe, since it's basically sharing players. I said he can make the initial trade, however the trade back with the same players involved would get blocked and he'd have to make a different trade. He's arguing he can make any trade he wants. In our league of ten years, there's never been a trade veto, even for bad trades. As commish, I have no intention in vetoing trades, however I feel I'm going to have to this time (if it happens.)

 

So how to leagues handle this rule bending? Can people make these unrestricted trade backs? Can they make them after a certain timeframe, and if so, how long? Do you enforce the same trade cannot be undone and they'll have to involve other/different players?

 

I thought I'd never start one of these trade veto threads, since I generally hate them...

[Pulcue 0]

Most threads on this topic I have read in the past conclude No Trade Backs. Typically, someone is just borrowing a player.

 

The ONLY condition this should be considered.......

Team A needs a QB for this week

Team B needs a RB for this week.

 

In this scenario, the trade helps BOTH teams.....equals a good/fair trade.

 

Someone cannot just swap a QB for a bench player, and then trade back. That should NEVER be allowed.

[Pinto 0]

Most threads on this topic I have read in the past conclude No Trade Backs. Typically, someone is just borrowing a player.

 

The ONLY condition this should be considered.......

Team A needs a QB for this week

Team B needs a RB for this week.

 

In this scenario, the trade helps BOTH teams.....equals a good/fair trade.

 

Someone cannot just swap a QB for a bench player, and then trade back. That should NEVER be allowed.

 

 

If Team A and B did that trade, I feel it would be fine until they did a trade back. You're still basically sharing players without risk of losing them.

[Jags_win_this_year 0]

Collusion no 2 ways about it.

[FrankRizzo 0]

Two teams want to make their teams better .... isn't that the definition of a trade?

 

I'm thinking trades should just be eliminated and rosters smaller for bigger WW pool .. never makes ANYONE happy ... especially those not involved.

[WhiteWonder 2,673]

got to look at the bigger picture.. sure it might be helping both teams at the time a trade is made. and hell, im sure they could even make an argument that when they do the second trade or "tradeback" its helping both teams out again..

 

but the fact is two friends in a league working together like this is collusion.

 

the way i look at it is anytime two or more owners work together to the detriment of another team, it is collusion. The actual result of these tradebacks is that the team going up against one of the trading teams that week is getting screwed by this player sharing.

[AnaheimRams 28]

It's not collusion until they trade back.

 

Then the commish should stop it.

 

A lot more fun that way too.

[Super Cubs 153]

I think trade backs are BS. We had one in our league already this year. I had no problems with it do to the way our league is set up. Plus things were beyond their controll. Our waivers don't open till after week 4 and closes after week 8. We have a limit of 4 transaction. Team A only drafted the Balt D thinking they could pick up another before the bye week. The bye week got moved to week 2. The two owners swapped for the week.

 

Saints Def for Jabar Gaffney

[Pinto 0]

Two teams want to make their teams better .... isn't that the definition of a trade?

 

Yes, but then to immediately trade back (undoing the trade) after their bye week is sharing benches. The initial trade is acceptable while the trade-back is not.

 

I need a WR this week and could trade a RB for one, however at least I'm risking a player to potentially make my team better. In trade-back scenarios, I'm not assuming any risk as I'll get my player back and generating an unfair advantage.

[FlaHawker 24]

got to look at the bigger picture.. sure it might be helping both teams at the time a trade is made. and hell, im sure they could even make an argument that when they do the second trade or "tradeback" its helping both teams out again..

 

but the fact is two friends in a league working together like this is collusion.

 

the way i look at it is anytime two or more owners work together to the detriment of another team, it is collusion. The actual result of these tradebacks is that the team going up against one of the trading teams that week is getting screwed by this player sharing.

This might not fit the exact definition of collusion but it stinks IMO. If two owners are working together then those two have a perceived advantage over the rest of the league. I say perceived because the players might not produce and thus neither team is actually improved; however, deals like this are not in the best interest of the league and even though I am a devout no veto guy when it comes to trades, if deals not in the best interest if the league are allowed to go through, chances are you won't have a league next year.

[throttlers 0]

It's collusion.

[The Big Deal 0]

total bs. should not be allowed under any circumstances.

[16 and 33 0]

It's called roster sharing.

 

It is the epitome of collusion.

 

We ain't building rockets here, folks.

[Mephisto 15]

Trade-backs are illegal in my league. There is a no-trade back of the same players for a period off two weeks. It's never happened even after two weeks. It's the easiest deterrent because on the off chance someone would agree to do it with a player that they really want to keep... they don't want to do it for more than one week... way too much risk.

 

It's cheating because it's essentially two owners managing more than their own team. It violates the basic tenets of fair play.

[FantasyKing 4]

It's not collusion until they trade back.

 

Then the commish should stop it.

 

A lot more fun that way too.

 

 

Definitely - I would allow the first trade and then when they tried the trade back I would veto it and force them to keep the players. This is the definition of collusion.

[jaxjag 43]

This might not fit the exact definition of collusion but it stinks IMO. If two owners are working together then those two have a perceived advantage over the rest of the league. I say perceived because the players might not produce and thus neither team is actually improved; however, deals like this are not in the best interest of the league and even though I am a devout no veto guy when it comes to trades, if deals not in the best interest if the league are allowed to go through, chances are you won't have a league next year.

 

Two owners working together is the definition of collusion. God, this politically correct society gives me the shivers!

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,235]

let it happen then find someone to do tradebacks with each time someone plays the Colluders

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,235]

let it happen then find someone to do tradebacks with each time someone plays the Colluders

[smashmouths@blf 33]

It's Collusion.

[t-birdie 8]

Collusion. No team can control the future considerations of another.

[t-birdie 8]

If you were to allow such a deal, at least make it clear that neither owner is obligated to follow through with any future terms.

[jdon 28]

It's called roster sharing.

 

It is the epitome of collusion.

 

We ain't building rockets here, folks.

 

winner, winner, chicken dinner!

[MikieV101 0]

winner, winner, chicken dinner!

 

As commissioner of our league, I implemented a rule about 6 years ago that states any player traded cannot be traded back for 2 weeks. That has eliminated any possibility of borrowing players.

[ERZER 0]

I caught wind that an owner (who is notorious for pushing the limits) is looking at doing a trade "for a week" since he needs a QB this week. The deal would be then after a week or two, the same two owners would trade back the same players.

 

 

Should have titled this Rumors In The Wind. As of right now no because it is simply a rumor. If the two actually plan on this and you have proof, then you could call it so. If the proof is when the back and forth trade happen, then IMO you can do it at that time only.