Questionable fantasy trade - Veto it?

[jwlincy]

In my local 14 team league, one of the owners sent me a text and asked if I could send through a trade for him. Team 1 (3-6 record) trades Dwayne Bowe to Team 2 (5-4 record) for Earl Bennett. In Week 9, Team 2 had traded Bowe to Team 1. I asked why Team 1 (who is out of the playoff race) would trade Bowe (11.9pts per game) for Bennett (4.3pts per game). He said that Team 1 needed a WR in Week 9 so he traded him Bowe (for G. Jennings) with the agreement that he'd get Bowe back this week.

So basically the 2 teams had an agreement that if Team 2 traded Bowe to Team 1 for Week 9, Team 1 would turn around and trade Bowe back to Team 2 for Week 10.

Thoughts? Is this trade veto worthy? We don't have a specific rule in our constitution saying that you can't do this.

Thanks.

[wannabegriffey]

It's called collusion.

[Piney Boy]

It's called collusion.

What he said.

[DMT]

Definitely should be vetoed and hopefully they don't pull the 'it's not explicitly forbidden in our rules' bs argument.

[dslaw]

I hate to say it but you need to veto. You can't loan players to other teams for a week.

[Gregg]

If "evil" collusion was intended he would not have given you the answer that he did. So brain cramp, ignorance, or ??? it is not a good thing for the league. I would label it a lapse in judgment and veto the trade.

You said it was local, I would stop short of using the word collusion so as not to offend friends or inflame the league.

I think this is the first time on this site that I have been in favor of a veto.

I hope it goes well for you and your league.

[revo]

It's called collusion.

ditto.

[DMT]

If "evil" collusion was intended he would not have given you the answer that he did. So brain cramp, ignorance, or ??? it is not a good thing for the league. I would label it a lapse in judgment and veto the trade.

You said it was local, I would stop short of using the word collusion so as not to offend friends or inflame the league.

I think this is the first time on this site that I have been in favor of a veto.

I hope it goes well for you and your league.

I agree with Gregg, not everyone knows that renting players is not allowed so calling it collusion is going too far.

[Erik]

We don't have a specific rule in our constitution saying that you can't do this.

You need to make one in the offseason.

And yes, veto the trade, but don't accuse them of collusion, it sounds like this might be more out of ignorance than anything else.

[james33]

I wouldn't call it collusion, as I see collusion as only when Team A makes a trade that clearly harms his own team but helps Team B, b/c he might stand to gain financially or personally by helping out Team B.

But I would vote for it to be vetoed.

That said, vetoes tend to cause a lot of tension in the league, so if I were you, I'd try to get support of non-involved owners by posting a message/sending an e-mail to all owners explaining the facts and saying that you are probably going to veto the trade, and yet want to see what others think first. And if everyone else says rent-a-player is ok in their book, then I'd bow to the majority and not veto.

[wannabegriffey]

I wouldn't call it collusion, as I see collusion as only when Team A makes a trade that clearly harms his own team but helps Team B, b/c he might stand to gain financially or personally by helping out Team B.

But I would vote for it to be vetoed.

That said, vetoes tend to cause a lot of tension in the league, so if I were you, I'd try to get support of non-involved owners by posting a message/sending an e-mail to all owners explaining the facts and saying that you are probably going to veto the trade, and yet want to see what others think first. And if everyone else says rent-a-player is ok in their book, then I'd bow to the majority and not veto.

Completely disagree