Rental Trades

[CreaseCrasher]

Hey guys,

Wondering if you can help out my league on a recent issue that's come up. A couple of teams that are out of the running for winning this year have started doing rental trades. The most recent example is:

Nicklas Backstrom (Wsh)
Dustin Brown
9th Rounder
10th Rounder

for

Travis Zajac
James Neal
1st rounder
3rd rounder

Now both teams have apparently agreed to trade Backstrom back to the original owner at the trade deadline of this year, so say it's a 20 game rental of Backstrom. Now they haven't announced what that trade will be.

A couple of us think these kind's of deals could get out of hand going forward. ie. What if the teams can't come to an agreement on a trade back? Teams unloading players once they are out of it.

Just wondering if anyone else has had similar issues in their leagues and how you dealt with it if anything.

Just some of the league details:

8 team League
Roster
4 C's
6 Wings
6 D
2 Goalies
5 Bench

We keep:
2 C's
3 Wing
3D
1 Goalie
1 extra from any position.

[kevinsrangers]

no rental trades allowed. that is a perfect reason for vetoing a trade.we put a rule that say all trades and moves have to be for the betterment of the team. it helps a bit. also not being able to trade with future considerations involved helps.also not being able to tarde non pool assets such as money.
i wouldnt except that crap, you might as well run 2 teams then. Garbage.

[kevinsrangers]

if nothing works then maybe warn that if rentals are suspected you will move the trade deadline ahead far enough that teams wont know exactally where they stand before the deadline

[The Comish]

Hey Crease Crasher,

Tough subject for sure. In no way can you allow rental trades. The only problem is how to stop teams from doing them without announcing it or making it obvious.

Rule No. 1 - Each trade is to be judged on it's own merit. It should be value for value. This is very subjective and I would allow a wide for teams to hang themselves, but very clearly mention that subsequent trades with the same owners will be scrutinized for exactly this type of crap (rental trades).

What you don't want is for a couple of guys to be trading big pieces for the stretch run at less than market value back and forth seemingly EVERY year. Might as well be playing against two teams!

In one of the leagues I play in (I don't commish that league), the commish vetoed a deal that was essentially Cam Ward for Ray Emery. The commish (not The Comish!) thought he had to "protect" some of the weaker owners from themselves by insisting that they get "more value" where he thought necessary. That trade never got approved and was dropped. Problem was that was the year Ward went on to win the Conn Smythe Trophy and Emery I think road raged on some elderly woman, starting his downward spiral to nothingness.

Rule No. 2 - If you don't think Rule No. 1 will solve the problem, you could always make a rule stating you can't own a player that you've traded away for one calendar year. One of the leagues I play in has this rule and I really don't like it, but it might work for some leagues out there.

In my dynasty league, I allow conditional trades, but the conditions must be clearly spelled out and realistic.

Hope that helps. Feel free to ask any follow up questions you may have. Good luck!

[MT319]

How about you just say ahead of time if anyone does something of this nature and then attempts to trade back after the deal has served it's purpose then the trade back will not be permitted and the "rented" player's services will be lost by that owner...watch how quickly Backstrom's owner or any other GM in the league never considers a "rental" deal again...if the guy who performed the rental deal initially has a problem with it that's too bad and that's what he gets for manipulating the system in which something is meant to function...if he still has a problem with it punt him from the league as his services and participation if that's how he wants to go about things is no big loss anyway

[Atomic Wedgy]

MT319, I love your work. This is exactly how I would play it. It pretty shit if you are one of the team that is competing for the win, but there will only be proof when the quid pro quo happens the other way.

What the two GMs are doing, whether they know it or not, is colluding to cheat the league.

[Old_Smokie]

How about you just say ahead of time if anyone does something of this nature and then attempts to trade back after the deal has served it's purpose then the trade back will not be permitted and the "rented" player's services will be lost by that owner...watch how quickly Backstrom's owner or any other GM in the league never considers a "rental" deal again...if the guy who performed the rental deal initially has a problem with it that's too bad and that's what he gets for manipulating the system in which something is meant to function...if he still has a problem with it punt him from the league as his services and participation if that's how he wants to go about things is no big loss anyway

I agree with this it's almost like playing a game of Risk and promising to not attack your ally can easily be broken on your next turn. But all in all this is collusion. These 2 guys are working together as the must've conspired in order to get the deal done. Even if they aren't splitting the money pot at the end one guy is helping the other.

[ddp]

I find it very weird the owner will have to trade Backstrom back at the deadline... I've actually thought of doing something similar a few yrs back where I would GIVE up a 1st rounder to rent him for the rest of the year....the owner would get him back for a later pick.
In this case, the owner is GIVING up 1st and 3rd round picks AND Brown. He's paying a price like nHL teams would for a rental player who they lose at yrs end...(in other words it doesn't seem like collusion is the attempt) but I have to say, this still just doesn't seem right. Like the others say I would squash it. In my leagues I've squashed trading draft picks all together. I found the weaker teams were the ones getting worse from trading draft picks.

[sensfan19]

Rental trades should not happen! Especially if it's a $ league.

Now if this was stated clearly in the rules prior to the leagues conception then yeah, they can go through because everyone has the chance to do it. I would avoid rental agreement in hockey pools though it's a good way to fold a league.

[Bomm Bastic]

I'm in a $$$$ league and that shit is frowned upon, to say the least. One way to guard against - we have a roster freeze after week 12 (in a 22 week season). Seems premature, I know, but it also forces owner to have some depth on their team as well.

[ovi42]

How about you just say ahead of time if anyone does something of this nature and then attempts to trade back after the deal has served it's purpose then the trade back will not be permitted and the "rented" player's services will be lost by that owner...watch how quickly Backstrom's owner or any other GM in the league never considers a "rental" deal again...if the guy who performed the rental deal initially has a problem with it that's too bad and that's what he gets for manipulating the system in which something is meant to function...if he still has a problem with it punt him from the league as his services and participation if that's how he wants to go about things is no big loss anyway

I couldn't agree more. Perfect!

[wendelclark17]

Its hard to combat unless its in the rules. I agree with MT that it shouldnt be allowed and shold be punished, but at the same time I would be pissed if it wasnt in the rules and I did it and then was penailzed for it. I mean if its not illegal than its legal, right?. In one of my keeper leagues we have a rule thats says you cannot acquire the player back from the team that you traded him to until the end of the NEXT season (I know its excessive but it works).

[Thunder]

Its hard to combat unless its in the rules. I agree with MT that it shouldnt be allowed and shold be punished, but at the same time I would be pissed if it wasnt in the rules and I did it and then was penailzed for it. I mean if its not illegal than its legal, right?.

I agree that rental trades should not be allowed. But I also agree with Wendel's comment.

I experienced a very similar situation where, after several weeks of back and forth, I agreed to a trade in which I would have kept the option to trigger a partial trade back after the end of the season (while paying a penalty in the form of draft picks). The trade was vetoed, notwithstanding the fact that nothing in our extensive set of rules prohibited it.

While I understood the other GMs rationale for not wanting that type of trade, I think it is fundamentally unfair to apply rule changes retoractively (but I got over it, sort of). I say if the rules allow it, then the trade must stand. Just cange the rules in time for next season.