is rent-a-player collusion?

[josebach]

I don't care what their rationale is. It's an unfair trade and it upsets the balance of the league. Team A is essentially throwing in the towel and Team B reaps the benfit. Team B is getting a top 10 player for what? Basically nothing. You can't sacrifice the integrity of the league this year for the sake of future years.

[blackbearabroad]

I see it as bad for buisness, it would be one thing to trade soriano for a couple blue chippers, but allthough it isn't colusion in the classical sense it still smells. I agree that what needs to be done is an off-season rule change to prevent it, but for the present that is a horible precident for the leauge to set

[AcesFull]

I am in a keeper league and rental trades are a commo event imn my league. The only thing that is kinda fishy about this trade is the prearranged trade back of soriano. I don't think that you can really even prevent this from happening without eliminating the rental trades. I think that you have to allow rental trades, makes the game more interesting.

[Cooner]

that's the nice thing of playing in a league with friends... we posted back and forth about it, the league agreed we didn't like the precedent it set and the two guys canceled the trade.

[Cooner]

I am in a keeper league and rental trades are a commo event imn my league. The only thing that is kinda fishy about this trade is the prearranged trade back of soriano. I don't think that you can really even prevent this from happening without eliminating the rental trades. I think that you have to allow rental trades, makes the game more interesting.

I don't mind the firesale trades- we've had things like Barry went for Jimmy Rollins at the trade deadline last season- but rent-a-player just upsets the balance too much for my taste. I'm happy with the way this turned out.

[Mookie4ever]

Rent-a-player deals are collusion and not fair. All of my keeper leagues have a rule that any player traded cannot be traded back to the original owner for a 12 month period.

[bolkonsky]

We instituted a "no-tradeback" rule in our 10 team NL-only dynasty league about 6 years ago. The rule prevents people from making trades of this kind:

2005: Team A gives Piazza, Beltran and Prior
Team B gives Langerhans and Niekro

2006 (pre-season): Team A gives D. Navarro
Team B gives Piazza, Beltran Prior and Abreu

If you do not nip this in the bud, very shortly you will have people basically exchanging teams so that one of them can win one year and the other can win the next (and this is clearly collusion). If you enact a rule like this, make certain that you include a provision accounting for "substitute" return players (i.e., in the example above, Team B giving M-Cab, Thome and Shcmidt in 2006 instead of Piazza, Beltran and Prior).

Ever since we enacted this rule (and explained the policy behind it), we have not had any problems. If the people in your league are even remotely reasonable, I think they will see why trade arrangements of this type should be discouraged.

[George_Foreman]

well.... i think you should just view each trade seperately, since i'm assuming your league doesn't have any provision for trades outside of the common one-shot ones. tell everyone that if they want to add a different type of trade to the rules (one that contractually binds the teams to do a trade-back later), they can do it in the offseason.

and then in the off-season, explain why this would be rediculous because of the "you win this year, i win next year" deals described.

yeah. that sounds about right.

[Webster11]

We instituted a "no-tradeback" rule in our 10 team NL-only dynasty league about 6 years ago. The rule prevents people from making trades of this kind:

2005: Team A gives Piazza, Beltran and Prior
Team B gives Langerhans and Niekro

2006 (pre-season): Team A gives D. Navarro
Team B gives Piazza, Beltran Prior and Abreu

If you do not nip this in the bud, very shortly you will have people basically exchanging teams so that one of them can win one year and the other can win the next (and this is clearly collusion). If you enact a rule like this, make certain that you include a provision accounting for "substitute" return players (i.e., in the example above, Team B giving M-Cab, Thome and Shcmidt in 2006 instead of Piazza, Beltran and Prior).

Ever since we enacted this rule (and explained the policy behind it), we have not had any problems. If the people in your league are even remotely reasonable, I think they will see why trade arrangements of this type should be discouraged.

good point

[raiders_umpire]

rent a player deals are definitely collusion for sure imo.... the bonds-rollins trade in a keeper would not bother me but the trade back of 2 of the players in a original deal would mean renting to me..... i think your league did right by discussing it and getting the 2 teams to recant the trade