Help with a Fantasy Football "Rules" Question

[Philliesfan980]

Hey guys,


Need some help here in a league that I run. A gentleman posted on the website that he wanted to make a trade between another league member for "One Week Only" I appreciate that fact that he was honest about it, and didn't try and pull a fast one. I've been in other leagues where this "one week trade" doesn't fly. Its a very informal league, no constitution , etc. Should I allow the parties to make the "one week trade?"


Thanks for your help.

[cthomer5000]

no.

I'm comissioner of my league (3rd year and running) and there is no way I would allow that. It's cleary giving someone a competitive advantage over the rest of the league. I'm guessing that someone is being loaned out to help out a team with a lot of byes.

[scooper]

No way. Trades are generally at a commish's discretion. As a commish, this one would certainly not get past me. It's too late now, but rules can be insterted ahead of the season to discourage this type of thing. For example, a player must sit for one week after being traded. Or a minimum of weeks a traded player can stay on a roster.

[Philliesfan980]

Here is the offical message from the potential trader in my league:




"Hey, if your gonna bench bulger this week, let me make you an offer. bulger and franks for shockey THIS WEEK ONLY. trade back on tuesday. sound like something you'd be interested in?"

[cthomer5000]

absolutely no way.

[bryce]

that is the very definition of collusion.
no way no how that flies.

[Philliesfan980]

Since you guys don't have access to my league, here is his rebuttal;

"the rules of yahoo follow standard fantasy guidelines.

All league-related transactions will be executed with the intent of improving the owner's team and/or its standing within the league.

No owner may drop or "dump" players from their team for any reason other than improving their own team and/or its standing within the league.

No owner will engage in any action that may be deemed to be collusive (two or more owners agreeing to make moves that benefit one team, but not the other).

here are the 3 rules regarding trading. 1 week swaps are not collusion because they are not detrimental to either side. noone in the league argues it and im not trying to hinder you or anyone else from doing it. i believe and i think youd agree that the offer i made was fair, and i believe your only concern in the matter should be to insure that the players go back where they belong after the week is over. i know its not standard trading, but i believe its legal. let me know your opinion. thx "

[Glengoyne]

A "one week swap" has actually got to be pretty close to the very definition of colusion. It is absolutely at the detriment of the team(s) who had to face the team(s) with the loaned in players.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally posted by Philliesfan980
and i believe your only concern in the matter should be to insure that the players go back where they belong after the week is over

And there is his problem. He is trying to argue that his "trade" fits within the technical definition of the rules (but only because they do not provide an exhaustive definition of collusion), but he wants to "insure" that he gets his players back at the end of the week. In other words, he wants you to force a team to make a trade to him at some point in the future, even though nothing in the rules gives you the power to do this.

Of course, even if you do not have to force the other guy to make the trade, it is still a wrong trade. In short, any transaction that is dependent on an opponent promising to make a future transaction, whether or not that future transaction will be in the opponent's best interest at the time it will be made, is collusion and should not be allowed.