Did I do a bad?

[billbuckner]

I had a weird situation where week 5 I had several WRs on byes and week 6 I have several RBs on byes. So I worked out a deal with another owner where I trade him Addai for Branch for week 5 (so I get a WR and he gets Addai with a juicy matchup vs KC). Then we had agreed to trade back. Obviously it was just a gentleman's agreement and not binding.

The Addai injury throws a monkeywrench in things, but I figured I'd still rather have Addai long term (It's not even certain that he's out for week 6 yet) so we traded back today. It was promptly vetoed and we were publically scolded by the commissioner.

If the deal makes sense in both directions and we're only trying to improve our own teams did we really do anything wrong?

[revo]

The Addai injury throws a monkeywrench in things, but I figured I'd still rather have Addai long term (It's not even certain that he's out for week 6 yet) so we traded back today. It was promptly vetoed and we were publically scolded by the commissioner.

If the deal makes sense in both directions and we're only trying to improve our own teams did we really do anything wrong?

Good job outta him. It seems innocent enough, but this is as close to collusion as your can get in fantasy football.

[billbuckner]

Good job outta him. It seems innocent enough, but this is as close to collusion as your can get in fantasy football.

It's collusion? I had always thought collusion meant that 2 teams are trying to make 1 team better at the expense of the other (like Calvin Johnson and ADP for Addai). In this trade we're both trying to improve ourselves.

[revo]

It's collusion? I had always thought collusion meant that 2 teams are trying to make 1 team better at the expense of the other (like Calvin Johnson and ADP for Addai). In this trade we're both trying to improve ourselves.

Oh yeah, borrowing players is definitely a form of collusion as it's a pre-meditated favor deal. It's two teams pooling one roster spot. You're also cheating the league out of making another transaction, which could mean a) losing your waiver spot or saving FAAB money; b) not dropping a player you normally would have had to if you picked someone up; or c) making another trade where you lose the player value (i.e. trading a player away you really did want to trade, just for bye week help).

Collusion in roto is a handshake deal to give an owner a sweetheart trade for some other mutual benefit (a share of the winnings, a sale in your business, a hookup someplace else outside of the league, whatever). "Bye-week trading" is a handshake deal to reverse the trade the following week for mutual benefit, when all trades need to be independent of one another.

[Hammer]

yup. you cant borrow players....

[Hornsby]

What Ed and Pete said...very poor form.

[[echo]]

not "as close" .. a excellent exanple of how not to have any ethics.. sure you could have not traded back.. but how would you feel if you heard another owner say to your opponent.. "hey, mind if i borrow Megatron this week so i can beat billbuckner?"

[Lucky]

This trade would also run up against the rule in some leagues which prohibit "future considerations". Here, the future consideration would be the expectation of getting your player back.

This is the same idea that keeps owners from trading away a player to someone in a pennant race with the "agreement" that the player will be traded back in the off-season. Sometimes owners will use a draft pick as interest on the deal.

[onejayhawk]

You did a bad.

J

[Judge Jude]

Well, it's a mistake, but it doesn't sound like you were conniving to conceal everything, then deny it under oath when called on it.

The dividing line in most cases is "does it make sense for both owners to make the 'second deal'"?

Usually not - one owner benefited more first, and he should ignore the 'return deal' in a vacuum because he doesn't win it.

(don't know jack about fantasy football, so my point is merely philosophical.)

[BuckyBuckner]

I don't play fantasy football but in my local baseball league during the season you can't trade a player back to the original owner for 2 or 3 weeks (I forget which one), but basically the rule is there to avoid things like this.

[Lucky]

I didn't mean to be critical. It sound like the traders were both acting in good faith. But from the viewpoint of other owners, there's an issue.

I wouldn't use the word "collusion" because they weren't trying to hide anything, but those future consideration trades can be just as problematic.

[Hammer]

I cant believe Billy doesnt realize this is an issue.......

[billbuckner]

You guys must hate the free market

[mjl]

You guys must hate the free market

I personally think it would be fun to have an anything-goes league as far as trading, where you're free to trade players, draft picks, conditional picks, money, whatever. But doing that would take a ton of time to keep up with and if you didn't you'd be way behind the people who were doing it, so everyone agrees to reduce their options slightly in an attempt to limit how much time and thought the league takes. Same logic as having weekly moves in baseball instead of daily, or restricting the number of moves per season, or other completely artificial stuff like that.

I don't think the deal you made is particularly exploitative in and of itself and if you have a rule that you can put binding future conditions on a deal it seems like in a vacuum it's a good move for both of you.