Loaning/renting players... do any of you allow it?

[Pullo Vision]

How is someone being traded to another team and then rejoining that team once he's a free agent the same thing? That doesn't make a lot of sense. Now if the Maple Leafs traded him back to the Canadiens after the season was over and had decided on the price prior to it during their original trade, then it would be similar to this discussion. Teams trade for players on expiring contracts all the time, and technically, yes, it's a form of renting a player because they don't always end up re-signing them. But that's a completely different story. Anyway, glad the OP plays with smart owners and they all agreed that it wouldn't fly with them, regardless of what you want to call it.

Haven't seen anything from the OP about league mates deciding anything on this.

[Valhalla]

Let's look at this "fair" question from each league owner's perspective. Consider it to be a league in which it is known you can "rent" a player.

The rebuilder:
With the option to loan players -- he can both keep key players for his rebuild AND attain assets to expedite his rebuild.
Without option to loan players -- he has one less avenue of rebuilding.

The rest of the league:
With the option to rent players -- they can all openly bid on services. This would help teams that deal with tough luck injuries and could just help push the competitive over the edge. If someone gets a rental super cheap, it's somewhat on the rest of the league for not bidding more. To complain about someone getting a rental for too cheap is THE SAME ARGUMENT as someone acquiring a piece in a trade for too cheap. A bad deal does not make collusion. It just makes a bad deal, and you're only pissed because you weren't the one taking advantage.
Without the option to rent players -- they still have other avenues ("customary" trade and waivers) of fixing the lesions. They just get one less avenue.

It's up to you to decide if you like it in your league or not. Up to you to decide if it's "fair" or not. In my opinion, if it's "not fair," neither is the policy of trading in general. Sorry the world isn't all full of Share-a-Lot Care Bears (that sounds like one of the bears to me).

Should have highlighted the stuff I did for you.

And it is very close re: Care Bears as there is a Share Bear.

http://www.agkidzone.com/care-bears/characters

Share Bear. It was so simple and in my face...

[Pullo Vision]

I don't have an issue with people being opposed to these kinds of deals. The follow up of trading the player back makes it unlike a more standard one off trade.

My issue is with the description of the basis for that objection. If you see it as unethical/immoral/whatever, cool. But collusion doesn't apply if the full parameters of the deal are expressly stated so everyone knows and everyone had a shot at that deal.

[Goddard]

Still not close to being the same thing, not sure why that's difficult to understand.

Said one of the owners who did not understand the definition of collusion.

Read the title, then read the first paragraph for shits and giggles, then stopped reading. This is as blatant as collusion can get. There's not other way of putting it.

You realize some words can have different definitions and interpretations and it's not always as black and white as you make it. But if you want to call it something other than collusion, I already said in other posts that it doesn't change that it's basically unethical. So good job quoting that one post. Regardless, your example of the NHL trade is irrelavant to the OPs example.

[Goddard]

How is someone being traded to another team and then rejoining that team once he's a free agent the same thing? That doesn't make a lot of sense. Now if the Maple Leafs traded him back to the Canadiens after the season was over and had decided on the price prior to it during their original trade, then it would be similar to this discussion. Teams trade for players on expiring contracts all the time, and technically, yes, it's a form of renting a player because they don't always end up re-signing them. But that's a completely different story. Anyway, glad the OP plays with smart owners and they all agreed that it wouldn't fly with them, regardless of what you want to call it.

Haven't seen anything from the OP about league mates deciding anything on this.

OP said leaguemates thought it was collusion and would never allow it.

[remedy29]

I don't have an issue with people being opposed to these kinds of deals. The follow up of trading the player back makes it unlike a more standard one off trade.

My issue is with the description of the basis for that objection. If you see it as unethical/immoral/whatever, cool. But collusion doesn't apply if the full parameters of the deal are expressly stated so everyone knows and everyone had a shot at that deal.

Each trade should stand on its own. Assuming league mates can veto trades and Zeke for a 2019 1st got through, there is no way the league should allow a Zeke for nothing trade.. if the league did allow this, why have the option to veto?

This whole scenario really should be a non starter, non discussion point. It's utterly ridiculous.

[clarion contrarion]

Lol both eloquent and correct you are.

yeah , sometimes when someone asks me the time ?
I tell them the time .........I don't tell them how to build a clock ! I will plead guilty of being too wordy other times however !
this was simple as mud to me it didn't need 7 pages of semantics or 10 paragraphs of debating what shade of grey ? It was shady and ridiculous and I would push the eject button on both owners that I caught pulling this bush league manure maneuver.

We moved past the OP's question though. Would you start a league with conditional trading in the bylaws? If not, why? I agree with you that the answer seems pretty self evident.

perhaps I would but not to the extent of the original post - I have allowed trades that were conditional on performance criteria . Say I trade you zeke for 2 1sts and a 2nd if you win the title the 2nd becomes another 1st . Or if zeke plays 10 games the picks are 1sts if not 1 1st 2 2nds something of that condition but no loaning no horses&$% like that !

I could see in a cap league doing salary dump trades similar to the NBA but just loaning players EFF THAT ! If soccer does it then it is likely wrong ! I just had to mention that I hate censorship in all its ugly political correct forms but absolutely draw the line at soccer talk on my message boards ! profanity , religion, midget granny porn , climate change chicken little the sky is falling scaredy cat science talk , the meaning of life ............. have a go at it mate but no frigging soccer talk !

[AussieMate]

Wow, this went way further than I thought it would ha.
Glad to see we are mostly off the topic of whether it's collusion or not. This will take some time to read through.

[Jigga94]

This is not collusion, I've seen this in other fantasy sports like EPL and it can be a legitimate system. I personally don't like it and would need some defined rules in the bylaws around it to even consider it in my league, I agree you shouldn't do it and will receive plenty of backlash from your league.

Dont waste your time lol

[jman3134]

yeah , sometimes when someone asks me the time ?
I tell them the time .........I don't tell them how to build a clock ! I will plead guilty of being too wordy other times however !
this was simple as mud to me it didn't need 7 pages of semantics or 10 paragraphs of debating what shade of grey ? It was shady and ridiculous and I would push the eject button on both owners that I caught pulling this bush league manure maneuver.

We moved past the OP's question though. Would you start a league with conditional trading in the bylaws? If not, why? I agree with you that the answer seems pretty self evident.

perhaps I would but not to the extent of the original post - I have allowed trades that were conditional on performance criteria . Say I trade you zeke for 2 1sts and a 2nd if you win the title the 2nd becomes another 1st . Or if zeke plays 10 games the picks are 1sts if not 1 1st 2 2nds something of that condition but no loaning no horses&$% like that !

I could see in a cap league doing salary dump trades similar to the NBA but just loaning players EFF THAT ! If soccer does it then it is likely wrong ! I just had to mention that I hate censorship in all its ugly political correct forms but absolutely draw the line at soccer talk on my message boards ! profanity , religion, midget granny porn , climate change chicken little the sky is falling scaredy cat science talk , the meaning of life ............. have a go at it mate but no frigging soccer talk !

Never broached that subject thankfully. Next they're going to 'suggest' that football should remove commercials. Watch.

Bout as un-Merican as it gets. (Partially redeemed by 80s Care Bears and exploiting loophole references)

[clarion contrarion]

no commercials that is preposterous ..... without commercials we wouldn't know what trucks to buy , which beer to drink...... hell ravens and bengals fans wouldn't know what ED medicine works best

[Phaded]

I skimmed this thread..
Literally, this was all I could think of the entire time I was reading through these posts..



To clarify, not that I believe it is collusion or not myself. Just that he gets so out of control about collusion..

Kind of like this thread.

[Patsfan86]

Just getting in this thread so im not the only poster on this site that didn't get in this thread.

[ArrylT]

Just getting in this thread so im not the only poster on this site that didn't get in this thread.

Jump on in the water is fine!

[RB6]

The death knell for me here was the Care Bears link. Also, the excessive use of emojis really hinders an argument.