- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Guaranteed tradebacks
Posted on 11/2/22 at 7:20 pm
Posted on 11/2/22 at 7:20 pm
In a long term keeper league and two teams just verbally agreed to a swap of several players that included a guarantee of returning 2 of them at the end of the season.
What would be your take on a trade confirming a future transaction such as that at a later date?
What would be your take on a trade confirming a future transaction such as that at a later date?
This post was edited on 11/6/22 at 8:44 pm
7
Posted on 11/2/22 at 7:47 pm to NoSaint
Borders on collusion...
If no rule against it, then let it go now but bring it up at the appropriate time to change the rules for next yr.
If no rule against it, then let it go now but bring it up at the appropriate time to change the rules for next yr.
Posted on 11/2/22 at 8:02 pm to bikerack
I think y’all gotta stop this before it gets out of hand. This is similar to trading players away for a week then trading them back the following week in redraft which isn’t allowed. Also, this looks like collusion even if the team trading away the player isn’t really getting anything additional under the table
This post was edited on 11/2/22 at 9:03 pm
Posted on 11/2/22 at 8:12 pm to bikerack
quote:
If no rule against it, then let it go now
Feel like the rule would be when a trade is accepted and approved the transaction is completed. Not that other value is exchanged in 2 months.
Implicitly I never considered that as a rule that had to be formally declared
This post was edited on 11/2/22 at 8:13 pm
Posted on 11/2/22 at 8:29 pm to NoSaint
Collusion between owners.
Posted on 11/2/22 at 9:03 pm to NoSaint
That’s total bullshite
Posted on 11/2/22 at 9:41 pm to NoSaint
That’s collusion
Posted on 11/2/22 at 10:00 pm to NoSaint
Why is this being done? Are they splitting the pot or something?
Can the league vote to veto?
Can the league vote to veto?
Posted on 11/2/22 at 10:15 pm to TackySweater
quote:
Why is this being done? Are they splitting the pot or something?
An actual keeper RB is being sent to the out of contention team in exchange for other value. It leaves the in contention team short on backs, so they out of contention team is letting him “borrow” a back to use the rest of the season to ensure the trade is accepted.
Posted on 11/2/22 at 11:20 pm to NoSaint
That doesn’t sound horrible.
May want to set some sort of parameter next year that a player can’t be traded twice in a 8 week period or sometime?
Or you lose keeper status after x amount of trades.
May want to set some sort of parameter next year that a player can’t be traded twice in a 8 week period or sometime?
Or you lose keeper status after x amount of trades.
Posted on 11/2/22 at 11:36 pm to TackySweater
quote:
Guaranteed tradebacks
That doesn’t sound horrible.
collusion is cheating.
Posted on 11/3/22 at 8:48 am to NoSaint
I'm confused- why is the person who is out of contention doing this deal?
Posted on 11/3/22 at 9:53 am to NoSaint
I wouldn't allow it. It's a form of collusion. What's stopping other contenders from working out similar deals with other non-contenders and not even including the extra keeper RB. A you help me this year and I'll help you next year type deal. Pretty soon the whole league will be doing these swaps right before playoffs. Should have a rule in place that prevents tradebacks...pretty simple.....the same players can't be involved in a 1 for 1 trade more than once between the same owners.
Posted on 11/3/22 at 10:00 am to DallasTiger45
quote:
I'm confused- why is the person who is out of contention doing this deal?
The non contender is receiving a long term keeper, so they will now have rights to two cheaply keepable running backs going into 2023… but by trading away a rb for a WR the contender needed another running back this year to remain in contention… so he’s being allowed to borrow one for the remainder of the season.
This post was edited on 11/6/22 at 8:45 pm
Posted on 11/3/22 at 11:56 am to NoSaint
quote:
The non contender is receiving Kareem hunt, so they will now have rights to two cheaply keepable running backs going into 2023… but by trading away Kareem for a WR the contender needed another running back this year to remain in contention… so he’s being allowed to borrow one for the remainder of the season.
This is collusion and potentially tanking (for the non-contender) if there’s any sort of draft slot priority associated with this season’s finish
I’m vetoing this as commissioner. The defense of “it’s not explicitly against the rules!” Is garbage. The commissioner can act in the best interest of the league, point blank. You can’t write every single potential scenario into a league rules/bylaws
Posted on 11/3/22 at 4:39 pm to DallasTiger45
Yeah, that’s bullshite and needs to be shutdown with haste. I’d also keep an eye on the parties involved that came up with that type of plan. “Hey, I’ll give you all my good players for ROS so you can win, then give them back at end of season. Yeah… okay.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News