Here’s the scenario: player A has two QBs on a bye in Week 8, and player B has two QBs on a bye in Week 9. Both players want to keep their QBs, but they also need to cover their respective bye weeks. To solve the problem, they work a temporary trade where they swap one of their quarterbacks before Week 8, then swap back after Week 9. Is this collusion? Is this a legal trade?
Intuition says that something fishy is going on, but producing a rational argument is difficult. The arguments I found on the web were frustrating, boiling down to nothing-statements like, “It’s illegal because it’s unfair.” The problem is that the classical example of collusion involves a lopsided trade, where Team A becomes weaker in order to make Team B stronger. But in the case where the teams are borrowing from each other at equal value, the balance of the trade is even.
So I was left trying find a logical reason behind the following two assertions:
- ALLOWED: a permanent trade that is mutually beneficial to both owners.
- NOT ALLOWED: a temporary trade that is mutually beneficial to both owners.
For me, the key was to view the trade graphically. Consider two teams, each having a roster of 9 players. Here are what the teams look like before a trade:
When dealing with a permanent trade, any number of players move from one team to the other, but the teams are still separate entities:
But when we deal with a temporary trade, then during the time period in question, the two teams are overlapping their rosters:
By performing a temporary trade, these two teams have effectively done the following:
- circumvented the roster limit by storing a player on each other’s bench.
- gained access to quality players at no cost.
- formed an alliance that, while acceptable in a game like Risk, really is not in the spirit of fantasy football.
I think those reasons are sufficient to nullify any temporary/mutual borrowing trades.
If you’re curious, I originally began exploring this idea when commenting on this blog entry.
The strongest argument against this practice becomes evident if we change the term “temporary trade” to “paired trades over time.” The problem with the “alliance” isn’t that it helps both teams–as you point out, most trades are thought to help both teams–but that it makes the transaction non-atomic and informal. It changes the trade from a truly binding agreement to a mere promise, and thereby requires a collusive trust between the two parties.
If two teams see the potential for a “loan” of this kind, the way to go about it is to make only the first trade, with no obligation, and then to handle the second trade when the time comes. If both individual trades are sound, other owners have no grounds for objection.
I have to tell you I’ve seen a couple of sites discussing this and I think it’s clear that the objection to the practice revolves around its non-traditional and unorthodox “feel.” The author even states outright that he has some difficulty coming up with an argument to oppose it, which should be a first clue.
The deal is fine. “Collusion” in fantasy football is understood to be where two or more owners work actively to ensure one team’s success to the detriment of the others. This is clearly not the case, as both teams are benefiting from the trades. The reasons listed against it become pointless when one considers that a) nobody can said to be harmed by the trade, and b) it is not a risk-free move. A player could get injured but you’re still going to be obligated to take him back.
Let’s look at the stated objections:
1) Circumventing the roster limit
ALL trades in fantasy football attempt to improve the participating teams, and this is no different. What if, for example, I agree to trade you my backup QB but only after my starting QB’s bye week? And let’s suppose you take a loss because you don’t want to drop a player until then when you could easily pick up a better one. SO you wait it out, take a loss, and then make the deal because you think it’s better for you in the long run. You’ve effectively taken advantage of a promised trade to circumvent the roster limit, just like the temporary trade.
2) Gained access to a player at no cost.
Incorrect, the cost is the risk undertaken, as I’ve stated before. Depending on who your trade partner is playing, there may be others as well.
3) objectionable to the “spirit” of fantasy football
This seems like a catch-all phrase used as a placeholder for a good argument. The “spirit” is for all owners to act in a manner that gives their individual teams the best chance to win. That’s what is happening with the temporary trade. Just like all other deals which involve expectations and conditions, if it is done in a way that a) produces no direct harm on third party and b) is done with the expectation that both teams are benefiting…then it’s fine. That’s why it’s difficult to rationalize an argument against it, because there isn’t one. It’s unorthodox, and that’s why people are skeptical about it.
Ok I need your opinion. A player needs a rb. B player needs backup qb. They trade Alfred Morris for Draughn (rb) for week 5. For week 7 they trade Draughn (who never plays) for Andy dalton. Morris and Dalton stay permanently traded. Dalton (is only used one time with Morris to cover bye week for team A
Team B had never used Morris and only needs dalton to cover week 7 bye. Did these 2 team owners do anything wrong?
Ignoring Draughn for now, if I understand the trade Team A gets RB Morris beginning in Week 5. In exchange, Team B gets QB Dalton beginning in Week 7. Personally, I would be okay with that sort of delayed trade because both teams are permanently exchanging useful players. It’s similar to how an NFL team might trade a player now for a draft pick in the future.
The trickier part of the deal is that RB Draughn is temporarily traded. The reason is probably that the delayed nature of the trade means that Team A would have to drop a player in Week 5 in order to add RB Morris. So Team A says, “You hang on to Draughn for me until Week 7 so I don’t have to drop him.”
I’d like the deal a lot better if Draughn wasn’t involved at all. However, it’s not as bad as the situation I describe in my blog post because Draughn doesn’t really help Team B in any way; in fact, he almost hurts Team B because now Team B has to waste a bench slot on a low end RB for two weeks. If I were to allow that trade, then I would mandate that Team B can not use Draughn in any way. So then the deal becomes: Team A gets RB Morris starting in Week 5 and gets to rent one of Team B’s bench slots for two weeks. In exchange, Team B gets QB Dalton starting in Week 7. Though I’d have to think very carefully about whether bench space is a resource that I’d want teams to be able to include in trades.
The two parties are conspiring to circumvent the rules. That is collusion.
Brian-
What rule exactly are they circumventing?
Ben-
Well stated.