Ethics of this kind of trade

[pmorrow]

So in a limited keeper, a lot of non-keeper rentals get acquired at the deadline. Some may be considered a keeper for another team, though.

Is it wrong to do a deal with a seller where you agree to return a rental player to them in the summer? All transactions would have something which benefits to both teams.

Something about it seems off...I haven't seen it done before. Is it collusion? Any thoughts?

[ericdaoust]

I'd only have an issue if the deal was heavily lopsided in favor of the team going for it. It wouldn't be cool for a seller to give one team a huge boost at a discount rate just because.

[Eskimo Brother]

If two teams other than you put through the deal how would you feel about it. Personally I don't like the idea of premeditated trade backs, but every league is different.

- - - Updated - - -

If two teams other than you put through the deal how would you feel about it. Personally I don't like the idea of premeditated trade backs, but every league is different.

[Referee3083]

Would you feel comfortable disclosing the trade back to the rest of your league right now? The answer to that question probably guides you to whether or not it is right to do in the context of your league.

[audiopile]

It is a form of collusion imo if you already have a second reverse deal layed out. If I were a GM in your league the second deal would piss me off I think, especially if one of the participating teams ended up with a victory out of it.

Another way to analyze it is to ask yourself if the first deal alone is one that each side would be happy with.

[tobias]

I don't like the feeling of it, either; however, it happens in the NHL with rental UFAs, so why not in fantasy? The condition in our league that we sort of came to, in regards to this same question, was that it could not be an exact trade back. We discussed the idea of saying that for every part getting traded back, there had to be two new parts being moved as well, but we figured that was getting to complicated. We also have non-playoff teams playing for draft position (the better you do in the consolation bracket, the higher you draft), so there is not a lot of incentive to tank or make a trade like this in our league.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't like the feeling of it, either; however, it happens in the NHL with rental UFAs, so why not in fantasy? The condition in our league that we sort of came to, in regards to this same question, was that it could not be an exact trade back. We discussed the idea of saying that for every part getting traded back, there had to be two new parts being moved as well, but we figured that was getting to complicated. We also have non-playoff teams playing for draft position (the better you do in the consolation bracket, the higher you draft), so there is not a lot of incentive to tank or make a trade like this in our league.

[MasterByte]

I would say it is ethical under the right situations. Firstly, a verbal agreement is unbinding, so the owner takes a risk relying on the other owner. Secondly, the player giving the rental would still have to have a net gain.
Now, I suppose in theory the player could light it up and now he is simply worth more come the summer, and in those cases you need to adapt and roll with the scenario. A verbal agreement that that player will be available again come the summer, and maybe even that the original owner has first crack at him, wouldn't be out of the question.

[Rockies & Hockeys]

I don't really like the idea of it, and this doesn't really ever happen in the NHL. If a player in the NHL chooses of their own free will to sign with the original team after being traded that's different, but that would be more like you redrafting him the following season. A trade back agreement seems a little off to me.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't really like the idea of it, and this doesn't really ever happen in the NHL. If a player in the NHL chooses of their own free will to sign with the original team after being traded that's different, but that would be more like you redrafting him the following season. A trade back agreement seems a little off to me.

[The Comish]

If the entire deal is announced, including the return of the player, then it's perfectly fine. If you don't feel comfortable with announcing the back end of the deal, then it's just plain wrong. Call it what you want. I would call it unethical and not want to be a part of a league where deals like that happen.

[pmorrow]

I don't really like the idea of it, and this doesn't really ever happen in the NHL.

Very true. The NHL doesn't allow this type of agreement as far as I know (even though there's probably lots of stuff going on behind the scenes). I don't know if it should be different in fantasy, but the NHL's way of doing things is always a good starting point.

[Grapes]

It just doesn't feel right. We have a trade rule whereby a player cannot be traded back to the originating team in the off season. Therefore a rental becomes costly. Otherwise what would stop teams out of contending renting out their top players.

[ericdaoust]

To add to what I wrote, if it's the exact same deal happening both times then I have a problem as there's no way the selling team can rationalize benefiting from the exchange. It's simply doing a favor for a team higher in the standings.

If the two deals are different there's plenty of ways for the selling team to "benefit" in the end. In the end this is fantasy hockey, players get traded around a lot.

[newfcollins]

I don't like. If you're trading, say, Crosby, McDavid and Karlsson for Mike Smith and Brendan Gallagher, and in the summer, trade back Crosby, McDavid, Karlsson and a first rounder for Smith and Gallagher, then there's a huge problem with it.

[kevinsrangers]

100% collusion imo. might as well just share two teams.trade all young prospects and picks to one team and all season worthy players to the other.
it doesn't seem terrible for the one trade but you see how this could get out of hand.

- - - Updated - - -

100% collusion imo. might as well just share two teams.trade all young prospects and picks to one team and all season worthy players to the other.
it doesn't seem terrible for the one trade but you see how this could get out of hand.

[BradyJets]

It's entirely illegal/colluding. The NHL fined the Jets and Flyers way back when they tried it.

See the link here > http://articles.latimes.com/1989-12-...rs-flyers-jets

I'll paste the text here>
NEW YORK — NHL President John Ziegler fined the Philadelphia Flyers and Winnipeg Jets $10,000 each Friday for violating the league by-law that prohibits teams from lending players to each other.

The Flyers traded goalie Pete Peeters and forward Keith Acton to the Jets on Sept. 28 in exchange for future considerations. Five days later, Winnipeg returned Peeters and Acton to Philadelphia in exchange for the Toronto Maple Leafs' sixth-round selection in the 1991 NHL entry draft, which the Flyers held from an earlier transaction.

Ziegler said while there was no evidence of an agreement to re-trade the players, "the absence of a legally binding agreement to re-trade does not mean there was no loan of the players. . . . The bottom line is that immediately before the waiver draft, the players belonged to Philadelphia and immediately after the draft, they belonged to Philadelphia. In the interim, they were protected from the draft. It is clear to me this was a loan of players."

Both clubs have the right to appeal the fines to the NHL Board of Governors.

- - - Updated - - -

It's entirely illegal/colluding. The NHL fined the Jets and Flyers way back when they tried it.

See the link here > http://articles.latimes.com/1989-12-02/sports/sp-155_1_players-flyers-jets

I'll paste the text here>
NEW YORK ? NHL President John Ziegler fined the Philadelphia Flyers and Winnipeg Jets $10,000 each Friday for violating the league by-law that prohibits teams from lending players to each other.

The Flyers traded goalie Pete Peeters and forward Keith Acton to the Jets on Sept. 28 in exchange for future considerations. Five days later, Winnipeg returned Peeters and Acton to Philadelphia in exchange for the Toronto Maple Leafs' sixth-round selection in the 1991 NHL entry draft, which the Flyers held from an earlier transaction.

Ziegler said while there was no evidence of an agreement to re-trade the players, "the absence of a legally binding agreement to re-trade does not mean there was no loan of the players. . . . The bottom line is that immediately before the waiver draft, the players belonged to Philadelphia and immediately after the draft, they belonged to Philadelphia. In the interim, they were protected from the draft. It is clear to me this was a loan of players."

Both clubs have the right to appeal the fines to the NHL Board of Governors.