Flyn high again wrote:Until Yahoo and the other FF leagues come up with a specific rule, this will be a matter of contention. Here's a sample rule if any of them want to use it:
"One week trades where Player A is traded for Player B and then Player B is traded back for Player A after the week's games are not allowed."
You could also add a time clause to prevent Player A being traded for player B and then traded back for player C.
"One week trades between owners are not allowed. If you trade a player to an owner, that player is not allowed to be traded back to your team for 4 weeks [or whatever time period is desired by the league]."
This simple rule addition would solve the problem.
Except that there might actually be legit reasons to reverse a trade, where there was no intent or agreement to reverse it the next week.
i.e. It's week 3. You're hurting for WR, I'm hurting for RB. I trade you Andre Johnson for Larry Johnson or whatever. The game for the week rolls around, AJ is injured and out for a long time, and you don't have the bench space for an indefinitely out WR and need someone startable for next week. I am willing to hold on to AJ in hopes that he comes back soon. That week I trade you, say, Patrick Crayton for Andre Johnson and Eric Johnson or something like that.
I hope nobody would say THAT's collusion or undermining the rules, and there's no reason it should be illegal.
When making a rule, you always have to weigh the harm done via not having the rule versus the harm done by having the rule. Assuming for the moment that we all agree that planned one-week trades are illegal, how often do we see them? How about once in a blue moon? Is making a questionable practice that has nearly negligible effects on fair play worth making what is ordinary trading by trade-happy owners illegal? I don't think so.
It's like driving during the day with one of your side turn lights burned out. Is it illegal? Yes. Does it cause potential road hazards? Yes. Does the harm done by having one of the least-looked-at lights on a car justify the cost of enforcement and and inconvenience caused to innocent, almost-law-abiding drivers who were driving to work and didn't know their light was out? Not really, no.