"Temporary" fantasy football trades - legit tool or D-bag central?

nevadaJACK · #1 11-13-2007, 03:08 PM

Came up with a pretty sweet trade concept (altho I'm sure it was already pretty common knowledge), which helped out both me and another guy in the league last week -- basically he sent me his backup QB and I sent him one of my backup #1 RBs with the understanding that we'd swap them back immediately after this week. (Helped us both out because my QB had his bye week, and there were no reasonable waiver wire pickups, and he was in need of a RB for the same reason.) Other ppl in the league called shenanigans (and they went ballistic when it turned out that the trade gave my trade-partner a narrow victory -- didn't end up helping me unfort), but I thought it was perfectly legit. What say you, OOT?

bobman0330 · #2 11-13-2007, 03:12 PM

dirty. collusion.

nevadaJACK · #3 11-13-2007, 03:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
dirty. collusion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? Don't 2 teams make a trade b/c they both believe it's in their best interest? Well, this one was clearly in both of our best interests. Had we not agreed to swap them back after the week, no one would have said a word...so why does that simple footnote make it dirty?

Bork · #4 11-13-2007, 03:22 PM

Loaning players is cheating.

grando · #5 11-13-2007, 03:24 PM

fwiw, there was a big thread in sporting events about this exact scenario

me, Victor, and some other guy were the only ones calling it collusion - everyone else thought it was a legit move

4_2_it · #6 11-13-2007, 03:33 PM

Most respectable leagues have rules against two teams trading the same player back and forth.

The situation described above is collussion; howver I doubt it is against any of the written league rules. I'd love to see one team decide not to swap the players back afterward when deals like this happen.

bobman0330 · #7 11-13-2007, 03:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
dirty. collusion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? Don't 2 teams make a trade b/c they both believe it's in their best interest? Well, this one was clearly in both of our best interests. Had we not agreed to swap them back after the week, no one would have said a word...so why does that simple footnote make it dirty?

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends a little bit on the circumstances, but I'm guessing that one or the other of the trades (or both) was not in one party's best interest, standing on its own.